250819.mbx

250819.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 164 Headlines 255-257 EAST: Kreisler Sues Over Unlawful Architectural Barriers 327 S. PLYMOUTH: Rios Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages 3M COMPANY: Byrd Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Elfstrom Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: English Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California AGRESERVES INC: Puga Suit Removed to E.D. California AKRON BRASS COMPANY: Krebs Sues to Recover Compensation ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lennon Says AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Tossed AMAZON.COM: Pinkerton Sues Over Disability-Based Harassment AMERICAN WOODMARK: M&A Investigates Sale to MasterBrand Inc. AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Lyon Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Butler Files Suit in D. Maryland ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Siddiqui Files Suit in N.D. Georgia AUSTRALIA: Trial Commences in Suit Over Water Mismanagement BEAUTY SYSTEMS: Edwards Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas BIG ASS TANKS: Luna Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation BLACKMORES LIMITED: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over B6 Toxicity BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Jones Appeals Dismissal of TCPA Claims BOOKING HOLDINGS: Dealine to Join Hotels' Suit Set August 29 BOWTECH INC: Diaz Sues Over Disgorgement of Profits BRIEN CENTER: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CAASTLE INC: Bennett Sues to Recover Wages and Benefits CAFE OLYMPIA: Faces Ramales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Local 1014 Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. CARVEL FRANCHISOR: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination CCELL: B.Z. Files Bid for Transfer and Consolidation CENTRAL BUCKS: Appeals Judgment and Attorney Fees & Cost Ruling CENTRAL NETWORK: Rathjen Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. CERNER CORP: Winslow Sues Over Failures to Secure Information CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Panameno Sues Over Labor Code Violation CIERANT CORPORATION: McMiller Files Suit in D. Connecticut CINTAS CORPORATION: McGovern's Bid for Reconsideration Tossed COALINGA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMCAST OF WILLOW GROVE: Golbeck Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CONAGRA BRANDS: Wilson Suit Removed to C.D. California CORKTOWN TAPHOUSE: Matta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips CREDIT CONTROL: Must File Article 3 Jurisdiction Bid by August 29 CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Toss Rafferty's Termination Claim CTO REALTY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Fla. CVI.CHE 105 INC: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination DEPLOYED SERVICES: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. DEXTER-RUSSELL: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DMV PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rangels Alleges DREAM TEAM: Watson Sues Over Unlawful Housing Discrimination EL MONTE: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages EMERSON'S SHOES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says EMIRATES: Farah Seeks to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Elsalmi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FASHION BRAND COMPANY: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FERRELLGAS INC: Casarez Suit Removed to N.D. California FERRELLGAS INC: Lyskoski Suit Removed to N.D. California FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Merideth Says FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: T.H. Sues Over Data Breach FIVE MILL: Kreisler Sues Over Unlawful Architectural Barriers FLIX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Paicely Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Ads FLORA 247 INC: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FLYWIRE CORP: Faces Hickman Suit Over 37.36% Drop in Share Price FORTUNE BRANDS: Jauregui Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FOURSQUARE LABS: Milito Balks at Postings' Undisclosed Wage Scale FREEZING POINT: Magrans Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation FUTURE HAPPENS: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GEICO GENERAL: Nunez Sues Over Debt Collection Scheme GENTRY MOUNTAIN: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GEO GROUP: Loses Summary Judgment v. Gonzalez GOOSE CREEK: McCaskill Sues Over Products' False Discount Ads H&M FASHION: Daly Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HEALTHMARKETS INSURANCE: Carr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages HELPING U HOMECARE: Faces Rose Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HOPMONK TAVERN-SONOMA: Foster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HUMANA INC: Carr Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky HUNDREDS PREMIUM: I.P. Files Suit in S.D. California JASON ADER: Barnes Suit Removed to D. Nebraska JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Seeks Leave to File Rely Under Seal KIM KOVOL: Court Excludes Untimely Identified Witnesses KIM KOVOL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Mary B. KLAVIYO INC: Nguyen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations KRISPY KREME: Campbell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII LA PERLA DEL MAR: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEADEC CORP: Simon Sues to Remedy Sex Discrimination LEVEL 8 GROUP: Cole Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website LEXYL TRAVEL: Canteenwalla Class Action Closed LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Exclude Expert's Opinions Tossed LYTX INC: Must Pay Drivers $4.25M Over DriveCam Privacy Claims MAHITA LLC: Evans Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website MARIANNA F. HEETER: Bennett Sues Over ERISA Violations MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Seekins Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, White Suit Claims MDL 2873: AFFF/TOG Products "Defective," Dhondt Suit Alleges MDL 2873: Coomber Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS MDL 2873: Cross Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Dominguez Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health MDL 2873: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Mosley Suit Says MDL 2873: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Upchurch Alleges MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Hill Suit Claims MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Watson Suit Says MDL 2873: Faces Allyn Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure MDL 2873: Faces Feiten Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams MDL 2873: Faces Myrant Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Design Defect MDL 2873: Faces Pierce Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS MDL 2873: Faces Sanchez Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements MDL 2873: Faces Trawick Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects MDL 2873: Faces Wight Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect MDL 2873: Green Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Kelley Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health MDL 2873: Kielbasa Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products MDL 2873: McDonald Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects MDL 2873: McLean Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products MDL 2873: Oglesby Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Peters Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Reed Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Roof Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Schunk Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Smiley Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Wear Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Young Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 3143: Court Issues Deposition Protocol in OpenAI Copyright Suit MICHAELS STORES: Bid to Continue Class Hearing to Oct. 1 Tossed MICROSOFT CORP: Court Issues Deposition Protocol in Basbanes Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Deposition Protocol in NY Times, Daily News Cases MR. COOPER: Cabezas' Implied Contract Breach Claim to Proceed NASCAR ENTERPRISES: Warren Sues Over Data Breach NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Epps Suit Remanded to San Bernardino Court NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Gonzalez Sues Over Breach of Contract NBA PROPERTIES: Whalen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York NESTLE WATERS: Patane Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply NEVADA HEART: Response to Nguyen's Class Complaint Due on Aug. 25 NEW YORK, NY: Gould Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge NEWMONT CORP: Continues to Defend Karas Class Suit in Colorado NYRSTAR US INC: Otero Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: Carfora Suit Transferred to S.D. New York OCEAN PSYCHOLOGICAL: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OKLAHOMA: District Court Dismisses Prisoner Suit v. Rankin OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Defendant Must Face Arbitration Waiver Ruling OMNI HOTELS: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Beaver Suit ON TIME CAPITAL: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California OPENAI INC: Court Issues Deposition Protocol in Authors Guild Suit PACIFIC REGENT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Andrews Due March 9, 2026 PACKAGING CORPORATION: Artuso Pastry Sues Over Fix Prices PACS GROUP: Menephee-Howard Suit Removed to E.D. California PATROL SOLUTIONS: Sperber Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PREFERRED ELECTRIC: Graybar Electric Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Ruiz Says PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Hura Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Moran Sues Over Data Breach PUFFY LLC: Webb Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices RAJEEV MAINI: Rodriguez Sues Over Misappropriation of Tips RDB MANAGEMENT: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Remington Suit Removed to W.D. Washington REILY FOODS: Tate Sues Over False and Misleading Packaging SEEK NOW: Violates FLSA, McPherson Suit Says SHOE CARNIVAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SIMULATIONS PLUS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SISTERS OF CHARITY: Jones Suit Removed to D. Colorado SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Oregon Court Refuses to Dismiss Wilson TCPA Suit SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Duffaydar Securities Suit SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Porter Stockholder Class Suit SOUTH GEORGIA CENTER: Hodge Sues Over Recent Cyberattack SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in Calif. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Retirement Savings Suit SPECTRUM BRANDS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPRING ENERGY: Nock's TCPA Suit to be Transferred to Maryland STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 2 STAKE CENTER: Hourly Utility Locator Class Wins Certification SUGAR BEAR BROS: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website T-MOBILE USA: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TARGET CORPORATION: Serrano Suit Removed to C.D. California TEA DATING ADVICE: Doe II Sues Over Failure to Secure PII TEA DATING ADVICE: Doe Sues Over Catastrophic and Data Breaches TESLA INC: Autopilot & FSD Capability Suit Awaits Oral Argument TESLA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3 TESLA INSURANCE: Mishandles Total Loss Claims, Magana Suit Says TEXAS ALCOHOL: Nelson Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach THANG BOTANICALS: Faces Mazzeo Class Suit Over 7-OH Tablets THREATCO SOUTH: Faces Henry Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRAIL PLAZA: Isaacson Sues Over Discriminatory Barriers TRIPLE CANOPY: Jackson Sues Over Unlawfully Failed to Pay Wages UNITED STATES: Federal Judge Blocks Ban on Birthright Citizenship UNITED STATES: James Files Bid for Class Certification VENTURE GLOBAL: Labaton Is Lead Counsel in Securities Fraud Case VETERANS SECURITY: Kofa Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA VIVID SEATS: Tracks Website Users Interaction, Janiga Alleges WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Court Grants Final OK on DeCarlo Settlement WHITESTONE HOME: Douglass Seeks Approval of Class Settlement Deal WINDGATE RANCH: Engle Suit Removed to D. Nebraska XIAODI HOU: Court Grants $11.7MM Legal Fee Award in Settlement ZURU LLC: Garcia Files Suit Over Slack-Fill Scam ZYNEX INC: Continues to Defend Tuncel Securities Fraud Class Suit ********* 255-257 EAST: Kreisler Sues Over Unlawful Architectural Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Kreisler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 255-257 EAST 61ST STREET, LLC and 2ND AVE FRESH FOOD CORNER INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06238 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2025), is brought for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter "ADA"), New York State Civil Rights Law, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law as a result of the Defendants' unlawful architectural barriers. Despite the unequivocal mandate of the ADA which has been in place for more than 3 decades, Defendants have elected to disregard their legal obligation to remove existing unlawful architectural barriers at its public accommodation. This deliberate indifference constitutes an ongoing policy and practice that systemically denies Plaintiff, and all other individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters due to disabilities, equal access to and full enjoyment of Defendants' facilities. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are unjustly excluded from the benefits, privileges, and services that the public accommodation is required to provide under the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is substantially limited in walking and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. 255-257 East 61st Street LLC owns or leases the commercial property which houses the public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. Phone: (646) 290-8258 Fax: (646) 435-4376 Email: James@CivilRightsNY.com 327 S. PLYMOUTH: Rios Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- BENITO RIOS and MARIA JOSE AYUI, on behalf of themselves and all other laborers similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. 327 S. PLYMOUTH CT LLC d/b/a Pancho's Rooftop Cantina, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08967 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2025) arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. The suit is brought for Defendant's: 1) failure to pay its employees at time and a half their mandated regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week; 2) failure to pay its employees the Illinois and Chicago-mandated minimum wage for all time worked; and 3) practice of making unlawful deductions from its employees. Plaintiff Rios has been employed by Defendant as a cook since approximately 2013 through the present. Plaintiff Ayui was employed by Defendant for a few work weeks in the fall of 2024 and then again from mid-April 2025 through the present as a food preparer. 327 S. PLYMOUTH CT LLC operates a rooftop restaurant in downtown Chicago, Illinois doing business as Pancho's Rooftop Cantina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 77 West Washington, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60402 Telephone: (224) 522-3178 E-mail: aayala@flapillinois.org - and - Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE 1341 W. Fullerton Ave, Suite 147 Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 945-8737 E-mail: cwilliams@workers-law-office.com 3M COMPANY: Byrd Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Byrd, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06895-RMG (D.S.C., July 9, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-761-0467 3M COMPANY: Elfstrom Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Elfstrom, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06899-RMG (D.S.C., July 9, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-761-0467 3M COMPANY: English Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ William English, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06893-RMG (D.S.C., July 9, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-761-0467 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING CO., an Ohio Corporation, d/b/a WWW.HOLLISTER.COM,, Case No. BCV-25-100769 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01890-JES-DEB. The Plaintiff asserts two claims under: the False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17501 "FAL"); and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; "CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adil M. Khan, Esq. John Richards, Esq. Tonya Esposito, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: 310.586.7700 Facsimile: 310.586.7800 Email: Adil.Khan@gtlaw.com John.Richards@gtlaw.com Tonya.Esposito@gtlaw.com - and - Brian C. Gee, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650.328.8500 Facsimile: 650.328.8508 Email: geeb@gtlaw.com AGRESERVES INC: Puga Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Armando Puga, as an Individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AGRESERVES, INC., SOUTH VALLEY FARMS, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BCV-25-100769 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00909-CDB. As for Plaintiff individual claims, he seeks damages for the following causes of action: failure to reimburse business expenses; unlawful discrimination; unlawful retaliation; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; failure to accommodate; failure to engage in the interactive process; failure to provide workers' compensation coverage; failure to allow medical leave under the California Family Rights Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard D. Marca, Esq. Alisha L. Maline, Esq. Elia M. Vazquez, Esq. VARNER & BRANDT LLP 3750 University Ave., Suite 610 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 274-7777 Facsimile: (951) 274-7770 Email: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com Alisha.Maline@varnerbrandt.com Elia.Vazquez@varnerbrandt.com AKRON BRASS COMPANY: Krebs Sues to Recover Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- Timothy J. Krebs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AKRON BRASS COMPANY, Case No. 5:25-cv-01583 (N.D. Ohio, July 29, 2025), is brought to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1939 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (the "Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be collectively referred to as the "Ohio Acts"). The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are current and former employees of Defendant who did not receive one and a half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. (hereafter, "Putative Plaintiffs"). Under the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Acts, Defendant was required to pay for all hours Putative Plaintiffs worked and pay them 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. By willfully failing to compensate Named Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs who performed pre-shift and post-shift work, Defendant violated the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Core Maker from May 2016 until July 2023. Akron Brass Company is a foreign corporation registered to do business in the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lennon Says -------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA LENNON, individually and on behalf herself, and all others similarly situated v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-03139 (D. Minn., Aug. 6, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information1 (PII) that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in July 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Accordingly, the Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on their affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On July 16, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendant’s cloud-based CRM system. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On July 26, 2025, the Defendant publicly reported the Data Breach to the Office of the Maine Attorney General.4 7. Upon information and belief, the following types of Private Information were impacted as a result of the Data Breach: full names, Social Security numbers, policy and contract numbers, dates of birth, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and mail addresses. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant is an insurance company that provides a comprehensive range of insurance products and services and annuities to its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Christopher P. Renz, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis MN 55401-2138 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com crenz@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order denying the Defendant's motion requesting an evidentiary hearing on class certification. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KFoVpY at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM: Pinkerton Sues Over Disability-Based Harassment ----------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Pinkerton, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08823 (N.D. July 29, 2025), is brought seeking redress for Defendant's discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff's disability, Defendant's failure to accommodate Plaintiff's disability, Defendant's disability-based harassment, and Defendant's retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in a protected activity under the ADA. Specifically, Plaintiff is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). These limitations are mitigated when Plaintiff is allowed to take brief breaks to reset and manage his symptoms. Regardless of Plaintiff's disability, he was able to perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodations. On March 6, 2025, after realizing during the course of his employment that he was entitled to support for his conditions, Plaintiff affirmatively informed Defendant's Human Resources (HR) department that he suffered from mental disabilities and was seeking accommodations, thereby engaging in protected activity. On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff formally initiated the accommodations process by requesting an extra break during his shifts to help manage his mental health symptoms. HR confirmed that the request would not be an issue, provided Plaintiff submitted the necessary medical documentation by May 13, 2025. On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff requested an extension of the May 13, 2025 deadline because his therapist's earliest availability to complete the paperwork was May 15, 2025. The Defendant approved this extension. Despite these efforts, on May 22, 2025, Defendant claimed that it had not received the paperwork from Plaintiff's therapist and extended the submission deadline to May 31, 2025. Plaintiff, relying on this extension and in good faith, expected that the accommodation process was still ongoing and that his paperwork would be properly processed. Without warning, on May 28, 2025, merely three days before the revised deadline initiated and determined by Defendant, Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated. The Defendant's actions demonstrate a failure to engage in the interactive process in good faith and failure to provide the reasonable accommodation of an additional break despite receiving timely notice and medical support for the request, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Seasonal Fulfillment Associate from November 2024 until his unlawful termination on May 28, 2025. The Defendant is a limited liability company that specializes in e commerce services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yasmeen Elagha, Esq. Mohammed Badwan, Esq. (Lead) SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone (331) 272-1945 Email: yelagha@sulaimanlaw.com AMERICAN WOODMARK: M&A Investigates Sale to MasterBrand Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating American Woodmark Corporation (NASDAQ: AMWD) related to its sale to MasterBrand, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, each share of American common stock will be exchanged for 5.150 shares of MasterBrand common stock. Is it a fair deal? Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-woodmark-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Lyon Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE LYON, HELEN ANTONIO, and ANDREA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICARE SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a Americare Senior Living, Case No. 6:24-cv-03207-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law: "All persons who worked at an Americare facility in Missouri through ShiftKey, LLC and worked more than 40 hours in a workweek from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the present." Additionally, Plaintiffs Antonio and Brown move to designate themselves as the class representatives, and the law firms of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and The Law Office of Tom Wagstaff JR, LLC, as Class Counsel. Americare provides senior living communities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ARMT22 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Stephen D. Ahal, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com ahal@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tom Wagstaff Jr., Esq. Taylor Myers, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TOM WAGSTAFF JR, LLC 6811 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 314 Overland Park, KS 66202 Telephone: (816) 708-0524 Facsimile: (816) 708-0561 E-mail: tom@thewagstafflawfirm.com taylor@thewagstafflawfirm.com ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Butler Files Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A. The case is styled as Annette Butler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-02459 (D. Md., July 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Class Action Fairness Act. Anne Arundel Dermatology -- https://aadermatology.com/ -- is committed to providing exceptional dermatologic care throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (516) 477-8339 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Siddiqui Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anne Arundel Dermatology, PA. The case is styled as Rubina Siddiqui, Jennifer Longwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anne Arundel Dermatology, PA., Case No. 1:25-cv-04197-MHC (N.D. Ga., July 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Anne Arundel Dermatology -- https://aadermatology.com/ -- is committed to providing exceptional dermatologic care throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre Robert Belanger, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Email: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com AUSTRALIA: Trial Commences in Suit Over Water Mismanagement ----------------------------------------------------------- Emily Doak of ABC News reports a class action launched by irrigators against the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has laid out allegations that the authority mismanaged the water resource and did not follow its own guidelines. An eight-week hearing in the New South Wales Supreme Court began August 11 and will examine the claim that the MDBA breached a duty of care to irrigators, reducing the water available for agriculture. The action has been brought on behalf of 28,000 irrigators from the central Murray region of southern NSW and the Goulburn Murray region of northern Victoria. The case centres around "overbank" flooding at the Barmah Choke, a narrow section of the Murray River between Tocumwal and Deniliquin, during the 2017/18 and 2018/19 water years. The plaintiffs allege the MDBA decided to transfer river flows exceeding the choke's capacity by opening regulators to flood the Barmah Millewa redgum forest, with the water eventually flowing back into the river downstream. In his opening statement, counsel for the plaintiffs Tony Bannon SC told the court that transferring water this way was a "blunt and inefficient instrument". He said the MDBA failed to follow its own procedures. "It was not reasonable, not reasonably required and contrary to their own operating parameters, guidelines and assessment at the time," he told the court. The plaintiffs argue it caused lower water allocations for irrigators, resulting in a significant loss of profits, higher temporary water prices and meant that some farmers could not meet supply contracts. Counsel for the MDBA is yet to present its opening arguments, but the authority has denied the allegations in court documents. Irrigators head to city About a dozen irrigators travelled to Sydney to be in court. Southern Riverina Irrigators chief executive Sophie Baldwin said it was good to see the matter come before the court, after it was first lodged in 2019. "I hope that it gives the people around us, the irrigators at home both in northern Victoria and New South Wales, the hope that there can be some resolution and we can stop this waste of water in the future," she said. "It's not about money, it's about managing our water resources better and protecting the staple food production for our country." Moulamein farmer Darcy Hare said he hoped the case would shine a light on water management to ensure that every megalitre of water was used efficiently. "I think it's up to about $1.5 billion in claimed losses over the two years, so I think it's incredibly significant financially, and it's imperative to make sure that something like this doesn't happen ever again," he said. NSW Murray MP Helen Dalton said the case could have wide implications for water management in the future. "The government needs to listen to farmers and rural communities when they are making some of the rules around water management," she said. "The MDBA have been absolutely unaccountable and lack transparency, and someone needs to hold them to account, and if the federal government won't do it, then the courts will now." [GN] BEAUTY SYSTEMS: Edwards Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Systems Group LLC. The case is styled as Audra Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beauty Systems Group LLC doing business as: CosmoProf, Case No. 4:25-cv-00799 (E.D. Tex., July 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Beauty Systems Group LLC doing business as CosmoProf -- https://www.cosmoprofbeauty.com/ -- is a wholesale distributor of salon brands to licensed beauty professionals only.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BIG ASS TANKS: Luna Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- Jose Luna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIG ASS TANKS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01177 (W.D. Tex., July 29, 2025), is brought to recover overtime compensation from their current and former employer the Defendant. The Defendant has been involved in the business of providing oilfield services in New Mexico and other state(s) over the last three years. Defendant employs workers to help perform non-exempt oilfield services ("Oilfield Workers"), but fails to provide them proper overtime pay. The Plaintiff files this class action lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours per week. In fact, he was often required to work in excess of 80 hours in weeks covered by this lawsuit and for Defendants. However, he was not paid overtime for doing so. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week and they allowed and directed him to do so, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a frontline worker who was paid on an hourly basis and were known as Operators. The Defendant is a business specializing in custom metal fabrication outfitted to service industrial and oilfield applications and does business through Texas, New Mexico, and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com cqualls@foresterhaynie.com Web: www.foresterhaynie.com BLACKMORES LIMITED: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over B6 Toxicity --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Bechwati of 7NEWS reports that a proposed class action against Blackmores has revealed the potentially devastating effects of vitamin B6 toxicity -- with growing concern around pregnant women unknowingly consuming dangerous levels. More than 1000 Australians have contacted lawyers about neurological symptoms they believe are linked to excessive B6 in over-the-counter supplements, many marketed as safe multivitamins or magnesium blends. Among them is 33-year-old Dominic Noonan O'Keefe, a father from Victoria, who started taking supplements to prepare for the arrival of his baby daughter. "The main motivation was my daughter's coming. I want to be as ready as possible for that period," he said. He says what followed was months of escalating, unexplained symptoms including nerve pain, loss of balance, visual issues and overwhelming fatigue. "I remember standing at my desk and I had this electric shock of nerve pain shoot up in my scalp. Everything became overwhelming. I couldn't deal with it. The light was too bright. The noises were too loud . . . I thought I was having an aneurysm or something . . . I thought I was dying" Dominic continued to deteriorate over several months as specialists searched for answers, but routine tests failed to check his B6 levels. The turning point came not from the medical system, but a family barbecue. "My whole family knew I was incredibly unwell . . . I just said, 'Oh, my arms are just so numb and they feel like they're vibrating. . .' and [my stepsister] stopped for a second, she's like, 'Are you taking any supplements?' he said. "She flipped me some peer-reviewed literature . . . and immediately I knew what was going on. "The next day I got a blood test and my results were double what they needed to be for peripheral neuropathy, which is just shorthand for nerve damage." Polaris principal lawyer Nick Mann is leading the proposed class action against Blackmores. He says the firm has now received more than 20 inquiries from women who were pregnant or breastfeeding while taking B6-containing supplements. "You could be taking a pregnancy multivitamin and a magnesium supplement combined. You could have 50, 60 times the recommended daily intake of B6." "To date, we've also received about 20 inquiries from women who were taking multivitamins while pregnant or breastfeeding. That's something that we're investigating." Mann believes this is just the beginning of what could be a much larger health issue, driven by regulatory gaps and marketing practices within the supplement industry. "What we've since discovered is that there are thousands of Australians out there who are likely to have been affected by this," Mann said. While most people associate vitamin supplements with health benefits, B6 -- also known as pyridoxine -- can accumulate in the body over time, particularly if consumed through multiple sources. "One of the things that I think the companies haven't well understood or appreciated is that you could be taking a few different supplements at the same time . . . you could be taking 50 times the recommended daily intake of B6," he said. "We are yet to see any convincing evidence that it needs to be in these supplement. You can go down to your local chemist and find an almost identical product which contains magnesium as the primary supplement sitting next to one that contains 30 to 40 times the recommended daily intake of B6." A spokesperson for Blackmores has told 7NEWS it's committed to the "highest standards of product quality and consumer safety". "All our products, including those containing vitamin B6, are developed in strict accordance with the safety and regulatory requirements of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). "This includes compliance with maximum permitted daily doses and the inclusion of mandated warning statements on product labels. We acknowledge the interim decision issued by the TGA and we will ensure full compliance with its final determination, prioritising the safety of our products. "Vitamin B6 is in a range of products within the vitamins and dietary supplement industry and its inclusion in some Blackmores products is consistent with industry practice and meets current regulatory requirements in all markets." Dominic is one of the first to come forward and says he hopes speaking out will prompt real change. "I feel embarrassed initially and a bit of shame like I think everyone does . . . there's a part of you that realises you were doing it, you were taking the supplements and unknowingly poisoning yourself," he said. "You can go into chemists still to this day and there won't be warning labels. I didn't have the luxury of that on any of my supplements. There are still supplements to this day in chemists without warnings on them." "This whole thing doesn't seem right and I think we need to do something about it." Mann says the proposed legal action is the first B6 class action of its kind globally. It's gaining international attention and even prompting whistleblowers from inside the supplement industry to come forward. "This is the first class action in the world that's been brought in relation to B6 toxicity." "We're proud to bring it. "What I can say so far is that from those inquiries, what we understand is that there was a huge reliance on what was approved by the TGA, but then no other consideration of safety and efficacy. "The regulation of complementary medicines in Australia seems to have followed what's called a light-touch regulatory approach." Mann stresses that their legal case is not against the regulator, but against the companies with a duty of care to protect the public. "The TGA regulation doesn't and can't be the beginning and the and of the legal liability . . . You can't, at law, say, well the regulator allowed us to do this and so therefore that's our legal liability." Vitamin B6 is also added to food and drinks particularly breakfast cereals, protein bars and energy drinks. Dr Terri-Lynne South from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners says there needs to be better regulation in the food industry. "There needs to be better regulation of those energy drinks because it is quite high." "There needs to be education and potentially some recommendations to pull them in line with what we're seeing in those vitamin and mineral supplements." The TGA also responded to 7NEWS enquires: "The TGA has alerted consumers to the risk of neuropathy from vitamin B6, including a safety alert in 2022. "Since March 2022, medicines providing over 10 mg equivalent vitamin B6 per day have required the label warning statement: 'WARNING - Stop taking this medication if you experience tingling, burning or numbness and see your healthcare practitioner as soon as possible. [Contains vitamin B6].' "In June, the TGA released an interim decision that proposes to change the current scheduling of vitamin B6 (pyridoxine, pyridoxal and pyridoxamine) such that oral preparations containing 50 mg or less per recommended daily dose are available for general retail sale (unscheduled). "Oral preparations containing more than 50 mg but less than 200 mg per recommended daily dose would become Pharmacist only medicines (Schedule 3). This decision, if implemented, will reduce the maximum amount of vitamin B6 allowed in oral products than currently available for general sale. "The interim decision balances the risks and benefits of using vitamin B6 including the risk of peripheral neuropathy, acknowledging its potential for irreversible harm at higher doses and variability in individual metabolism. It also considers the limited clinical need for supplementation due to dietary sufficiency, alongside the widespread use of vitamin B6 in fortified products and listed medicines." Dominic, now a year into recovery, still faces flare-ups triggered by illness or stress and lasting symptoms like numbness, vision problems, and fatigue. "It feels like a heavy veil is over me and I've receded back into myself and I'm sort of just operating something that doesn't a body that doesn't work. But when I feel good, I feel present again," he said. "I feel me today." For him, the fight is about protecting others. "I think it's for the people that have been damaged . . . The science has been pointing to this for decades. The companies need to do something to change it." [GN] BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Jones Appeals Dismissal of TCPA Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH JONES, SETH STEIDINGER, and NATASHA KOLLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLACKSTONE MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01074-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), are taking an appeal from the decision of Judge Jonathan E. Hawley of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, that granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts I-IV of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 14, 2025, Plaintiffs Joseph Jones, Seth Steidinger, and Natasha Koller filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Blackstone alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, (Counts I-IV) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA), FLA. STAT. Section 501.059(5) (2023) (Count V). The individually named Plaintiffs are consumers, who received telemarketing text messages and calls to their telephones from Blackstone. Defendant Blackstone is a Florida-based company that sells home sleep tests. The Plaintiffs brought their class action as representatives/members of the following classes: (a) Internal Do Not Call List Class (Jones, Steidinger, and Koller): All persons within the United States who, within the time frame(s) relevant to this action, (1) received two or more text messages from Blackstone or anyone acting on Blackstone's behalf, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) for the purpose of selling Blackstone's products and/or services, and (4) including at least one of those text messages being placed more than 30 days after such person requested that Blackstone stop calling and/or texting. (b) Do Not Call Registry Class (Steidinger): All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent text messages and/or telephone calls by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of Defendant's products and/or services; and (5) where either (a) Defendant did not obtain prior express written consent to message the person or (b) the called person previously advised Defendant to "STOP" messaging them; and (c) FTSA Class (Jones and Koller): All persons within the State of Florida who, (1) were sent a text message from Blackstone or anyone acting on Blackstone's behalf; (2) for the purpose of soliciting Defendant's goods and/or services, and (2) [sic] had previously communicated to Blackstone that they did not wish to receive Defendant's text messages. Collectively, the Plaintiffs request the three putative classes receive monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief for the alleged violations of the TCPA and FTSA. Defendant Blackstone seeks the dismissal of Counts I-IV of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (CAC), arguing the provision of the TCPA pursuant to which the Plaintiffs bring their claims, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c), does not prohibit text messages. Defendant Blackstone argues that the phrases "text message" and "SMS message" are wholly absent from Section 227(c)(5) and its implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c) and (d). Indeed, Judge Hawley says, only "call", "telephone call," and "artificial or prerecorded-voice telephone call" appear in Section 227(c) and its implementing regulations. The Defendant notes that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") clearly indicated its intent to regulate text messages or SMS messages under 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a), which was implemented under Section 227(b) only. Pursuant to McLaughlin and Loper Bright, the Court agrees with the Defendant that based on a plain reading of the TCPA and its implementing regulations, Section 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages, citing McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 145 S. Ct. 2006, 2015 (2025) (citing Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 402 (2024)). The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims for violations of Section 227(c) of the TCPA, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c), and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d) given that allegedly "violative text messages" stand "at the core of Plaintiffs' factual allegations." Indeed, the Plaintiffs' reference to receipt of telephone calls in violation of the TCPA are few compared to their reference to text messages and inclusion of text message screenshots; the crux of the CAC is that their receipt of repetitive text messages prompted them to seek relief pursuant to the TCPA. Judge Hawley points out that the Court's finding is fatal to the Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, and the Defendant's argument that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain those requests is, therefore, moot. Because of the Court's finding that the Plaintiffs' TCPA claims must be dismissed, Judge Hawley holds that no federal claims remain in this case. Only Count V pursuant to Florida law remains. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' remaining claim under the FTSA. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts I-IV of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The entirety of the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. If the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended consolidated class action complaint, they must do so within 21 days of the date of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddmnyed from PacerMonitor.com. BOOKING HOLDINGS: Dealine to Join Hotels' Suit Set August 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ Christina Jelski of Travel Weekly reports that more than 10,000 hotels across Europe have joined a class action against Booking.com, and organizers have extended the deadline to join the lawsuit to Aug. 29. The lawsuit's participation deadline was initially set for July 31. The complaint is being organized by HOTREC, a Brussels-based hospitality association that represents hotels, restaurants and cafes across 36 European countries, and 30-plus national hotel associations. The class action stems from a September 2024 European Court of Justice ruling on a case between Booking.com and more than 60 German hotels and hospitality groups. HOTREC says that the court found that Booking.com's parity clauses violated EU competition law, preventing hotels from offering lower prices or better availability via their own websites or other OTAs. "Hotels across Europe are entitled to claim compensation from Booking.com for the financial losses suffered," said HOTREC in a statement, adding that "affected hotels may be eligible to recover a significant portion of commissions paid to Booking.com" between 2004 to 2024, plus interest. "Now is the time to stand together and seek redress," said HOTREC president Alexandros Vassilikos. "This collective action sends a strong message: abusive practices in the digital marketplace will not go unchallenged." Booking Holdings, the parent company of Booking.com, disputes the claims, with a spokesperson for the company calling statements made by HOTREC and other hotel associations "incorrect and misleading." "The ECJ ruling that HOTREC and other hotel associations have been referencing to validate a potential class action did not conclude that Booking.com's price parity clauses were anticompetitive," said the Booking Holdings spokesperson. "The ECJ was not even asked to assess whether our clauses had anticompetitive effects or any impact on competition. The court simply stated that such clauses fall within the scope of EU competition law and that their effects must be assessed on a case-by-case basis." The spokesperson added that the company has "not received any formal notification of a class action." HOTREC said the case is being coordinated through the Dutch-based Hotel Claims Alliance Foundation and will be heard in Netherlands courts. [GN] BOWTECH INC: Diaz Sues Over Disgorgement of Profits --------------------------------------------------- Samuel Hernandez Diaz and Lane Poziviak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOWTECH, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC D/B/A BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS, INC D/B/A JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; TRACKSTREET, INC.; and NEUINTEL LLC, D/B/A PRICESPIDER HOLDINGS LLC F/K/A ORIS INTELLIGENCE, Case No. 2:25-cv-04277 (E.D. Pa., July 29, 2025), is brought violations of state and federal antitrust laws, seeking actual damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Consumers are entitled to the benefits of robust competition among Archery Product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. In a competitive market, that rivalry should lower prices. Defendants, however, have built a system designed to suppress those natural market forces. In their own words, the goal is to "eliminate the race to the bottom." Through coordinated adoption and enforcement of Minimum Advertised Price ("MAP") policies, Defendants have exchanged nonpublic and competitively sensitive information and used that information to align pricing strategies across the Archery Product market. Rather than responding to market pressures by lowering prices or offering discounts, Defendants have used MAP enforcement tools and trade association infrastructure to ensure that prices for Archery Products remain artificially high. By sharing competitively sensitive information and coordinating pricing enforcement through the ATA, Manufacturer, Retailer, and Distributor Defendants have eliminated the "guessing game" of market competition. Instead of competing on price, they have agreed to maintain artificially inflated prices for Archery Products in accordance with their MAP policies, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and other consumers nationwide. By enforcing MAP policies, Defendants' conduct constitutes a per se violation of antitrust law because direct competitors entered into a horizontal agreement to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices. From at least January 1, 2014 through the present (the "Conspiracy Period"), Defendants engaged in this conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of Archery Products sold throughout the United States. This Complaint is brought to prevent Defendants from continuing to engage in, or attempting to engage in, the anticompetitive conduct described herein As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy to suppress price competition across the Archery Products industry, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes paid artificially inflated prices for Archery Products. The Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and recovery of costs and attorneys' fees under federal and state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Archery Products that were manufactured by one or more of the Manufacturer Defendants. Bowtech manufactures and sells Archery Products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura K. Mummert, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 314-7980 Email: lmummert@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com BRIEN CENTER: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JACKIE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BRIEN CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. ________ (Mass. Super., Berkshire County, July 25, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including protected health information and other personally identifiable information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On or about July 18, 2025, the Defendant announced that certain systems in its network had been accessed by an unauthorized third party. The Private Information of thousands of individuals is believed to have been exposed by the Data Breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members’ Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Brien Center for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Inc. provides behavioral health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: erunfeld@kolawyers.com CAASTLE INC: Bennett Sues to Recover Wages and Benefits ------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Bennett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAASTLE, INC., Case No. 25-51202-BLS (D. Del., July 29, 2025), is brought seeking to recover up to 60 days wages and benefits due to the Defendant's violation of the Notification Act ("WARN Act"), the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("NY WARN Act") New York Labor Law ("NYLL") (collectively, the "WARN Acts"). The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, and the other similarly situated former employees who worked for Caastle and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant on April 25, 2025 and within 30 days of that date, who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant and 90 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Caastle as a Senior Manager, Graphic Design and worked at or reported to Defendant's headquarters. Caastle described itself as a "Leading B2B technology company propelling digital growth and profitability for apparel brands and retailers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin S. Mann, Esq. CROSS & SIMON, LLC 1105 N. Market Street, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-4200 Email: kmann@crosslaw.com - and - Chris Marlborough, Esq. THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C. 375 Sunrise Highway, Suite 3 Lynbrook, NY 11563 Phone: (212) 991-8960 Email: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com - and - Orin Kurtz, Esq. 228 Park Avenue South PMB 890022 New York, NY 10003-1502 Phone: (917) 627-2840 Email: orin@orinkurtz.com CAFE OLYMPIA: Faces Ramales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- MARCO CRUZ RAMALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAFE OLYMPIA 55 INC. (d/b/a CAFE OLYMPIA 55), HYE YUNG CHUM, and YEON W CHU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06278 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. The Plaintiff asserts the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to comply with spread of hours wage order, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate statements. Plaintiff Cruz was employed by Defendants as a sandwich maker at its coffee shop from approximately July 2015 until June 7, 2025. Cafe Olympia 55 is a Coffee shop owned by Hye Yung Chum and Yeon W Chu, located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Local 1014 Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camden County. The case is styled as Local 1014, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Bryan Burns, Karl Keppen, Germaina Martinez-Beckford, Christopher Pritchett-Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camden County, Case No. L-002510-25 (N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty., July 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Rights." Camden County -- https://www.camdencounty.com/ -- is the most populous county in the southern region of the U.S. state of New Jersey. Its county seat is Camden.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek J. Demeri, Esq. WEISSMAN & MINTZ LLC 220 Davidson Avenue, Suite 410 Somerset, NJ 08873 Fax: 732-560-9779 Phone: 732-563-4565 Email: ddemeri@weissmanmintz.com CARVEL FRANCHISOR: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. CARVEL FRANCHISOR SPV LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 9:25-cv-80945-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.carvel.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually and physically disabled person. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, a chain of 357 ice cream shops selling food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com CCELL: B.Z. Files Bid for Transfer and Consolidation ---------------------------------------------------- B.Z., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CCELL, Case MDL No. 3161 (Multidistrict Litigation, July 29, 2025), is brought as motion for Transfer and Consolidation of related actions in the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiff B.Z., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, respectfully moves the Panel for an Order transferring and consolidating the currently-filed cases listed in the attached Schedule of Actions, as well as any tag-along cases subsequently filed involving similar facts or claims to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Suciu, III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (630) 796-0903 Email: rbusch@milberg.com CENTRAL BUCKS: Appeals Judgment and Attorney Fees & Cost Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Dawn Marinello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Bucks School District, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02587, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of rights under the federal Equal Pay Act. On June 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or to modify or amend judgment and a motion for attorney fees and costs. On same day, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative, for a new trial, and a motion to alter judgment by molding the verdict. On July 15, 2025, Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or to modify or amend judgment. The Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative, for a new trial is denied. Moreover, the Defendant's motion to mold the verdict and judgment is granted. Judgment is entered against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $152,902.58. On July 21, 2025, Judge Baylson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney 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. The appellate case is entitled Dawn Marinello v. Central Bucks School District, Case No. 25-2541, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on August 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DAWN MARINELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edward S. Mazurek, Esq. 717 S. Columbus Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19147 Telephone: (267) 243-3393 Defendant-Appellant CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT is represented by: David W. Brown, Esq. LEVIN LEGAL GROUP 1800 Byberry Road 1301 Masons Mill Business Park Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 938-6378 CENTRAL NETWORK: Rathjen Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANIEL RATHJEN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL NETWORK RETAIL GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CIV07515, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06410 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Rathjen's complaint alleges (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records; (6) wages not timely paid upon termination; (7) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (8) unreimbursed business expenses; (9) unlawful business practices; and (10) violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code. Central Network Retail Group, LLC retails building products. The Company markets building materials and supplies, hardware tools, and related products to consumers and building professionals.[BN] Defendant Central Network Retail Group is represented by: Vincent R. Fisher, Esq. Jose Cruz Zavala-Garcia, Esq. Jacqulynn A. Olivarez, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 604-0159 E-mail: skim@ohaganmeyer.com czavala@ohaganmeyer.com jolivarez@ohaganmeyer.com CERNER CORP: Winslow Sues Over Failures to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Donetta Winslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH and HEARTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a MOSAIC LIFE CARE, Case No. 4:25-cv-00591-DGK (W.D. Mo., July 29, 2025), is brought arising out of the Defendants' failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. This failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a January 2025 data breach ("Data Breach") of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of Oracle, an organization that provides a healthcare platform to connect healthcare providers with individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendants' data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in January 2025 to compromise Defendants' network (the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiffs and other individuals ("the Class"). Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about April 29, 2025 and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendants did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach (the "Notice of Data Breach Letter") until June 27, 2025. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of current and former employees and patients, including Plaintiff. This Private Information included, but is not limited to: "patients' names and one or more of the following: Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, treating physicians, dates of service, medication information, insurance information and treatment and/or diagnostic information." The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failures to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Winslow received notice of the Data Breach dated June 27, 2025. Mosaic "is a physician-led health care system serving 35 counties in northwest Missouri, northeast Kansas, southeast Nebraska and southwest Iowa."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George E. Kapke, Jr., Esq. Michael J. Fleming, Esq. KAPKE & WILLERTH, LLC 3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road Lee's Summit, MO 64064 Phone:(816) 461-3800 Facsimile:(816) 254-8014 Email: ted@kwlawkc.com mike@kwlawkc.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Panameno Sues Over Labor Code Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Ramiro Panameno, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company DBA SPECTRUM, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV21961 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2025), is brought for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), to recover civil penalties and address an employer's violations of the California Labor Code. In this case, Defendant violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendant implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid Wage resulting from Defendant's: failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to comply with Labor Code sections 212 and 213, failure to timely pay wages upon separation and during employment. As a result Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during August 1998 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Maintenance Technician III. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC is a Delaware Limit Liability Company doing business as "Spectrum", that operates as a telecommunications and media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. Anthony L. Draper, Esq. Minh Tam Do, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: staff@jameshawkinsaplc.com isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com anthony@jameshawkinsaplc.com minh@jameshawkinsaplc.com CIERANT CORPORATION: McMiller Files Suit in D. Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cierant Corporation. The case is styled as Rashon McMiller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cierant Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-01095-KAD (D. Conn., July 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cierant -- https://www.cierant.com/ -- is a distributed marketing software and services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main St., 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Fax: (860) 520-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com CINTAS CORPORATION: McGovern's Bid for Reconsideration Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BEARUP, et al., V. CINTAS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00151-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an order denying the Plaintiff Catherine McGovern's motion for reconsideration. In sum, the Plaintiff has failed to show how the Court's dismissal under Rule 41(b) warrants the" extraordinary" relief of reconsideration. She has not shown how the Court has engaged in any clear error of law rising to the high level of manifest injustice. The Plaintiffs' counsel moved to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Catherine McGovern, along with other former plaintiffs, on Nov. 30, 2023, for failure to cooperate and communicate with counsel in the litigation of their claims. Cintas provides a range of products and services to businesses including uniforms, mats, mops, cleaning and restroom supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ypwLRN at no extra charge.[CC] COALINGA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coalinga Regional Medical Center. The case is styled as Bruce Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coalinga Regional Medical Center, Case No. 25CECG03474 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., July 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Coalinga Regional Medical Center -- https://crmcmed.org/ -- is a Hospital in Coalinga, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com COMCAST OF WILLOW GROVE: Golbeck Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Golbeck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMCAST (CC) OF WILLOW GROVE, a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 25-2-18228-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01406. The Plaintiff asserts five causes of action for alleged failure to pay overtime wages, alleged failure to provide legally compliant meal periods, alleged failure to provide legally compliant rest breaks, alleged failure to pay wages owed at termination, and willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Priya B. Vivian, Esq. Erin M. Wilson, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.223.7000 Email: vivianp@ballardspahr.com wilsonem@ballardspahr.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Wilson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Terrance Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Conagra Brands, Inc., Case No. CVRI2502964 was removed from Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01907-FWS-SSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Conagra Brands, Inc. -- https://www.conagrabrands.com/ -- is an American consumer packaged goods holding company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Samantha K. Burdick, Esq. ALSTON AND BIRD LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-1000 Fax: (213) 576-1100 Email: sam.burdick@alston.com CORKTOWN TAPHOUSE: Matta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Matta, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Corktown Taphouse, Inc., a Domestic Profit Corporation, 1834 Kitchen, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Ronald Moore, an individual, and Michele Moore, an Individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12276-SKD-APP (E.D. Mich., July 25, 2025) is a class action brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on October 31, 2024, as a cook at Defendants' cashless establishment. Initially, the Plaintiff was an hourly employee but was not paid for any hours worked over forty, although Defendants did deduct from his wages for any hours not worked under forty in a workweek. The Defendants, hence, misclassified Plaintiff to prevent proper payment of overtime compensation, says the complaint. Additionally, the Defendants required patrons to tip despite not employing any servers and withheld these tips from the cooks who prepared the kitchen items in their front-facing kitchen. Lastly, the Defendants threatened to reduce the wages of cooks if they insisted that Defendants stop withholding their tips, alleges the suit. Corktown Taphouse is a Michigan profit corporation engaged in the retail sale of food and craft beer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (313) 739-1953 E-mail: etereziu@forthepeople.com CREDIT CONTROL: Must File Article 3 Jurisdiction Bid by August 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCHULTZ v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03474 (D.N.J. Filed March 12, 2018), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an order as follows: -- The Defendants shall file motion relating to the Court's Article 3 jurisdiction on or before Aug. 29, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Attorney's Fees and Costs, shall remain administratively terminated pending resolution of Defendants' forthcoming motion The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Credit is a provider of customized, performance-driven receivables management services.[CC] CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Toss Rafferty's Termination Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL RAFFERTY, Plaintiff v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04218-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss. The matter is before the Court on CSX Transportation, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss. There, CSX seeks to dismiss Matthew Rafferty's retaliatory termination claim, arguing that the claim is new and untimely. On March 13, 2018, 20 current and former CSX employees filed a class action complaint in Daniel Bell, et al. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., in the District of Maryland, asserting various claims of interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). On June 18, 2018, the Bell plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. Five months later, the Bell court stayed the case pending arbitration, noting that it was not precluded from addressing and resolving the pending motion for leave to amend despite the stay. While the case was stayed, the original Bell plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint seeking, among other things, to add new putative-class representatives (including Matthew Rafferty) and to assert FMLA claims of interference and discrimination on behalf of those additional plaintiffs. The Bell court denied the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint without prejudice. On May 16, 2019, the court granted the Bell plaintiffs' original motion for leave to amend the complaint to the extent plaintiffs sought to add plaintiffs asserting FMLA claims. The court went on to instruct the Bell plaintiffs that they could seek leave to file an amended complaint after the stay was lifted and stated that the statute of limitations as to the proposed new Plaintiffs on their claim of retaliation in violation of the FMLA will be tolled until thirty days after the stay is lifted. The Bell plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion to amend the May 16, 2019 Order because the Order was silent as to their motion to file a second amended complaint and they wanted to clarify that the statute of limitations was also tolled for the claims of the proposed plaintiffs in that motion. The Bell court granted the motion and amended paragraph 5 of the May 16, 2019 Order. The Bell court lifted the stay on April 1, 2024. Twenty-two days later, the Bell plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Mr. Rafferty and others as plaintiffs and asserting FMLA claims of interference and discrimination. As to Mr. Rafferty, the Amended Complaint alleged that he had a health condition for which he required FMLA leave over the 2017 holidays, that CSX accused him of abusing his FMLA leave, and that CSX impermissibly punished him for taking time off on a holiday. Elsewhere, the Amended Complaint references "removal from service" and discipline. The Bell court then determined the case was not suitable for class treatment, so it severed the individual claims of putative class representatives and transferred the cases of the non-resident plaintiffs to their respective federal district courts. Mr. Rafferty's case was transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. On Jan. 6, 2025, this Court ordered Mr. Rafferty to file an amended complaint limited to his claims against CSX. He filed his Amended Complaint a month later, alleging FMLA interference (Count One) and FMLA retaliation (Count Two). In support of these claims, Mr. Rafferty alleges that CSX took the following adverse actions against him: "disqualified him from having attendance points expunged, charged him with a workplace rule violation for using taking FMLA leave, removed him from service for the supposed violations, forced him to defend himself from such charges by having him submit more information about the condition that necessitated his FMLA leave than is allowed under the law, and terminated him for taking FMLA leave." CSX acknowledges that Mr. Rafferty's retaliatory suspension claim under the FMLA is timely as a result of the Bell court's tolling Order. But it argues that the Amended Complaint Mr. Rafferty filed with this Court asserts a new retaliatory termination claim. Based on the premise that the retaliatory termination claim is a new claim, CSX goes on to argue that there is no basis for tolling the statute of limitations. Judge Morrison holds that CSX's arguments are not supported by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Mr. Rafferty's claim is for FMLA retaliation, and his Amended Complaint merely clarifies the facts in support of that claim. Mr. Rafferty's Amended Complaint does nothing to change the nature of his claim for relief: it is still a claim for FMLA retaliation, Judge Morrison opines. His amendment only clarifies the facts supporting that claim--namely, that the adverse actions he suffered included termination. Judge Morrison points out that the Amended Complaint does not state a new claim. Thus, the Court denies CSX Transportation, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3dnr4zkn from PacerMonitor.com. * * * The Court separately directed counsel to confer and notify the Court if this case should not proceed with mediation in September 2025. If the case should not proceed, counsel shall indicate whether the case should be continued to another month and, if so, which one. CTO REALTY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CTO Realty Growth, Inc. ("CTO" or the "Company") (NYSE:CTO) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and docketed under 25-cv-01516, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired CTO securities between February 18, 2021 and June 24, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired CTO securities during the Class Period, you have until October 7, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. CTO is a publicly traded real estate investment trust ("REIT") that owns and operates a portfolio of purported high-quality, retail-based properties located primarily in higher growth markets in the United States ("U.S."). The Company converted into a REIT in February 2021 and, as of December 31, 2024, owned 23 income properties in seven states, including Ashford Lane, a retail and dining center in Atlanta, Georgia. Under guidelines established by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), REITs must pay out at least 90% of their taxable profits to shareholders annually as dividends. In return, REIT companies are exempt from most corporate income tax. CTO has touted that its operation as a REIT "provides the tax-efficient organizational structure for [its] stockholders" that "will allow [it] to provide them with an attractive and sustainable dividend." To measure its performance, CTO uses the financial metric Adjusted Funds from Operations ("AFFO"). The AFFO of a REIT, though subject to varying methods of computation, is generally equal to the REIT's funds from operations with adjustments made for recurring capital expenditures (also referred to as "capex") used to maintain the quality of the REIT's underlying assets. Professional analysts tend to prefer AFFO because it takes into consideration additional costs incurred by the REIT as well as additional income sources, such as rent increases. Thus, analysts believe that AFFO provides for a more accurate base number when estimating present values and a better predictor of the REIT's future ability to pay dividends. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CTO's dividends were less sustainable than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) the Company used deceptive and unsustainable practices to artificially inflate its AFFO and overstate the true profitability of its Ashford Lane property; (iii) accordingly, CTO's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 25, 2025, Wolfpack Research ("Wolfpack") published a report entitled "CTO: The B. Riley of REITs" (the "Wolfpack Report" or the "Report"), which compared CTO unfavorably to B. Riley, a financial services company that recently lost more than 90% of its value amid three years of losses, soured investments, delayed financial reports and revelations that the SEC had been investigating whether the firm gave shareholders an accurate picture of its health. Citing interviews with former employees and whistleblowers, the Wolfpack Report accused CTO of, among other things, "not generating enough cash to pay its recurring capex and cover its dividends since converting to a REIT in 2021" and instead "relying on dilution (increasing shares outstanding by 70% since December 2022) to cover a $38 million dividend shortfall from 2021 to 2024," employing a "manipulative definition of [AFFO] where they exclude recurring capex, unlike all of their self-identified shopping center REIT peers," and "using a sham loan to hide the collapse of a top tenant from shareholders at Ashford Lane." (Emphasis in original). Further, Wolfpack predicted imminent further dilution of the Company, noting that CTO has just $8.4 million in cash while facing quarterly dividends of $14 million and average recurring capital expenditures of $5.7 million per quarter, along with approximately $12 million in additional planned capital expenditures. On this news, CTO's stock price fell $0.98 per share, or 5.42%, to close at $17.10 per share on June 25, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CVI.CHE 105 INC: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Victor Ariza, on behalf of others similarly situated v. CVI.CHE 105, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23403-DSL (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://ceviche105.squarespace.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually and physically disabled person. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of six restaurants selling food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com DEPLOYED SERVICES: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEPLOYED SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DEPLOYED RESOURCES, LLC, a New York limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU033792C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01936-BEN-BLM to the proceeding. The complaint alleges 10 causes of action against Defendants, for: (1) failure to pay all overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) wage statement violations; (6) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (7) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (8) failure to reimburse business expenses; (9) unlawful business practices; and (10) unfair business practices. Deployed Services, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Paley, Esq. Ashley D. Stein, Esq. Katherine R. Farr, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-521 E-mail: apaley@seyfarth.com astein@seyfarth.com kfarr@seyfarth.com DEXTER-RUSSELL: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Darnell Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dexter-Russell, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08857 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Finnleys Good Findings provides to their non-disabled customers through https://dexter1818.com (hereinafter "Dexter1818.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Dexter1818.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Dexter-Russell provides to the public a website known as Dexter1818.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of kitchen tools, such as knives, seafood tools, utensils, sharpening equipment, protective gear, cutting surfaces, and other accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law DMV PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rangels Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMV PROTECTION, LLC; and JOVAN VLADIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01288 (E.D. Va., Aug. 4, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rangel was employed by the Defendants as a security guard. DMV Protection, LLC is a security company that provides security personnel services to customers in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia for protection. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Matt Dunn, Esq. Jason Steuerwald, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair St. Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845)255-8649 Email: mdunn@getmansweeney.com DREAM TEAM: Watson Sues Over Unlawful Housing Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Alexys Watson, an individual, and others similarly situated v. DREAM TEAM REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS, INC., a California corporation doing business as Equity Union, ANNA APOSTOLOVA, an individual, NICOLA SAYADIAN and ANAHID SAYADIAN, individuals, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV22012 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages and injunctive relief arising from unlawful housing discrimination in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code 12955 et seq.; the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Negligence, pursuant to Civil Codes. The Plaintiff seeks to enforce her right to be free from discriminatory treatment in housing opportunities on the basis of lawful source of income, including participation in the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly known as "Section 8." The Defendants' refusal to engage with Plaintiff as a rental applicant--specifically when Plaintiff asked, "Are you open to Section 8 voucher holders?"" and Defendants responded, "I have to ask the owners and get back to you" yet failed to provide any updates constitutes unlawful housing discrimination in violation of Government Code. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits housing providers, their agents, and brokers from denying or discouraging tenancy based on a prospective tenant's use of rental subsidies or participation in housing assistance programs. Defendants' conduct, as alleged, reflects a discriminatory refusal to consider Plaintiff solely on the basis of a lawful source of income. The Defendants conduct also violates Civil Code 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which guarantees all persons in California full and equal accommodations, advantages, and privileges in business establishments, including rental housing. Their statement and refusal to rent based on Section 8 voucher use constitutes arbitrary discrimination prohibited under the Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has participated in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles ("HACLA") since approximately 2009. Equity Union acted as the listing real estate broker for the residential real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander K. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON ZERMAY LLP 777 S. Alameda, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (213) 257-9299 Email: ak@robinsonzermay.com info@robinsonzermay.com EL MONTE: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Morales Blanco, an individual and others similarly situated v. EL MONTE COLLISION CENTER, CORP, a California Corporation; MARGARITA RIOS, an individual; LUIS RIOS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; Case No. 25STCV21964 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2025), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage; failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to pay rest period compensation; failure to pay meal period compensation; failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements; failure to pay wages upon discharge; statutory penalties; failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages; unfair competition. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs timely and complete final pay upon separation. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants controlled or affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, scope and conditions of employment of Plaintiff during Plaintiffs employment with Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that California statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws prohibit the conduct by Defendants, and therefore Plaintiff has an entitlement to monetary relief on the basis that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law, and regulations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, missed, short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods and/or rest breaks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an auto detailer and general employee. EL MONTE COLLISION CENTER, CORP. is an automobile repair business operating in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 2600 W Olive Ave, Suite 549 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 Email: contact@slawla.com EMERSON'S SHOES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Emerson's Shoes, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08910 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against Emerson's Shoes for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://simonsshoes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 13, 2025, the Plaintiff was looking for a pair of sandals suitable for summer wear and discovered Simons Shoes website. She asserts that simonsshoes.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Emerson's Shoes' policies, practices, and procedures to that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Emerson's Shoes, Inc. operates the website that offers sandals, sneakers, clogs, boots, slippers, bags, hats, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law EMIRATES: Farah Seeks to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the pretrial scheduling order as follows: 1. Dispositive Pretrial Motions shall be served and filed on or before 45 days following the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and 2. The Final Pretrial Conference shall be set for 180 days following the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties intend to file Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, but believe that it would be most efficient, and the best use of court and party resources, to brief such dispositive motions after receiving a ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Likewise, the parties believe that pre-trial filings will be most efficient, and the best use of court and party resources, after receiving a ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on June 6, 2025. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FJVzdX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirsten Scott, Esq. RENAKER SCOTT LLP 505 Montgomery St., Suite 1125 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 653-1733 Facsimile: (415) 727-5079 EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Elsalmi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mohamed Elsalmi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, CIGNA CORPORATION, GALAXY SYSTEMS INC., GALAXE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., and NAMTAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04182 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2025), is brought for misclassification as an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA and NYLL, retaliation under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law and failure to paytimely wages under the New York Labor Law and against Defendants Express Scripts Holding Company and Cigna Corporation for denial of ERISA benefits and unjust enrichment. In October 2020, Plaintiff commenced work in Brooklyn, New York, as a data base administrator for Defendants Express Scripts Holding Company and/or Cigna Corporation ("Express Scripts/Cigna"). The position was titled "PostgreSQL Database Administrator (DBA)" by Express Scripts/Cigna. Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor while functioning as an employee. He did not receive the pay and benefits that DBA employees performing his same position at Express Scripts/Cigna received. Indeed, the position of DBA at Express Scripts/Cigna is non-exempt, and DBA employees receive overtime wages at time and a half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff complained multiple times to Defendants that he was misclassified and should be an employee of Express Scripts/Cigna, with overtime pay and benefits. Plaintiff also filed a misclassification complaint with the Department of Labor. Shortly after making his internal complaints and filing his Department of Labor complaint, Plaintiff was terminated by Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants. Express Scripts Holding Company is a pharmacy benefits manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 847-8315 Email: canderson@gslawny.com FASHION BRAND COMPANY: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. FASHION BRAND COMPANY INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06246 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.fashionbrandcompany.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. FASHION BRAND COMPANY INC., operates the Fashion Brand Company online retail store, as well as the Fashion Brand Company interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal FERRELLGAS INC: Casarez Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alex Casarez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FERRELLGAS, INC.; FERRELLGAS L.P.; BLUE RHINO, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV02051 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Mendocino, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06279. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked At Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197; Failure to Authorize Or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code Section 226.7; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Separation of Employment in Violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code Section 226; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Trevor R. Witt, Esq. Kris Khodaverdian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Trevor.Witt@jacksonlewis.com Kris.Khodaverdian@jacksonlewis.com FERRELLGAS INC: Lyskoski Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlie Lyskoski, Kendall Hill, Michele Tucker, and Taylor Ambroisno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL MILLS, INC., Case No. 25CV01765 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06291. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of putative classes of California, New York, and "Nationwide" consumers under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and New York General Business Laws and for breach of express warranty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Daniel H. Leigh, Esq. Brandon M. Stoffers, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: jacobharper@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com danielleigh@dwt.com brandonstoffers@dwt.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Merideth Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN MERIDETH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01497 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 6, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries Finastra inflicted on Plaintiff and over 800,000 others due to the 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. According to the complaint, the data that Finastra exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information, like names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to Finastra with the understanding that Finastra would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. At various times between October 31, 2024, and November 8, 2024, a threat actor accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Finastra disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Finastra as a requirement to obtain financial services and products from Defendant. Finastra is a fintech company that provides various financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: T.H. Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- T.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, and JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 6:25-cv-01426-RBD-RMN (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII1" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach Defendant disclosed in June 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Defendant Finastra's misconduct – failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Private Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach – caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members across the United States. Due to Defendants' negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendants responsible for their grossly negligent—indeed, reckless—failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class Members' Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendants. Finastra Technology, Inc., is a financial software company that provides solutions to banks, lenders, and other financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com FIVE MILL: Kreisler Sues Over Unlawful Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Kreisler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIVE MILL ENTERPRISES LLC and JOHN DOE d/b/a HEAVENLY MARKET, Case No. 1:25-cv-06237 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2025), is brought for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter "ADA"), New York State Civil Rights Law, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law as a result of the Defendants' unlawful architectural barriers. Despite the unequivocal mandate of the ADA which has been in place for more than 3 decades, Defendants have elected to disregard their legal obligation to remove existing unlawful architectural barriers at its public accommodation. This deliberate indifference constitutes an ongoing policy and practice that systemically denies Plaintiff, and all other individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters due to disabilities, equal access to and full enjoyment of Defendants' facilities. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are unjustly excluded from the benefits, privileges, and services that the public accommodation is required to provide under the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is substantially limited in walking and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Five Mill Enterprises LLC is owner of the commercial property which houses a public accommodation named Heavenly Market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. Phone: (646) 290-8258 Fax: (646) 435-4376 Email: James@CivilRightsNY.com FLIX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Paicely Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA PAICELY and CARRIE SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FLIX ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, d/b/a FLIX BREWHOUSE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01568-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., Aug. 6, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged bait and switch advertising conduct. The Plaintiffs both purchased tickets to movie screenings at one of Flix's movie theaters through its website. The prices of these tickets were misleadingly and unlawfully advertised as lower than the total prices. The Plaintiffs would pay after Flix smuggled in its junk fees just as they were completing the transactions, says the suit. On their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly injured consumers, the Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy the injuries Flix's dishonest business practices have caused. FLIX ENTERTAINMENT, LLC is a company that operates cinema breweries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com FLORA 247 INC: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Tanisia Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Flora 247, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08861 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.giftexpress.com (hereinafter "Giftexpress.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Giftexpress.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Flora 247 provides to the public a website known as Giftexpress.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range of fragrance and personal care products, including perfumes, deodorants, body sprays, scented lotions, and gift sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law FLYWIRE CORP: Faces Hickman Suit Over 37.36% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- COLE HICKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLYWIRE CORPORATION, MICHAEL MASSARO, COSMIN PITIGOI, MICHAEL ELLIS, and ROB ORGEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04110 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Flywire securities between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the strength and sustainability of Flywire's revenue growth was overstated; (ii) the negative impact that permit- and visa-related restrictions were having and were likely to have on Flywire's business was understated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 25, 2025, Flywire issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and FY 2024 financial results. Therein, for Q4 2024, the Company reported a loss per share of $0.12, missing consensus estimates by $0.12, and revenue of $117.6 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.25 million. The same day, Flywire held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its Q4 and FY 2024 results. During the call, the Defendants revealed that the Company's business in the education sector had significantly deteriorated due to worsening permit- and visa-related headwinds, including "double digit declines in student visa issuance in our big four geographic markets," with "continued visa policy restrictions" anticipated in 2025. Following the foregoing disclosures and analyst downgrades and PT cuts, Flywire's voting common stock price fell $6.59 per share, or 37.36%, to close at $11.05 per share on February 26, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Flywire Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a payments-enablement and software company in the U.S. and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com FORTUNE BRANDS: Jauregui Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against LA Perla Del Mar, Inc. The case is styled as Rosa D. Jauregui, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employee v. FORTUNE BRANDS INNOVATIONS GROUP INC., DONOGHUE HIRANDA, FINK NICHOLAS, YU-DEH LEI MIKE, Case No. 25STCV22242 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Fortune Brands Innovations, Inc. -- https://www.fbin.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of home and security products, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Charles Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DILANDO A PLC 801 S Grand Ave., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Email: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com orobinson@rdwlaw.com FOURSQUARE LABS: Milito Balks at Postings' Undisclosed Wage Scale ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MILITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOURSQUARE LABS, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as FOURSQUARE; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-21789-2 SEA (Wash. Super., July 25, 2025) is a class action lawsuit to remedy Defendant's ongoing violation of Plaintiff and Class members' civil rights. This is a class action on behalf of individuals who applied to job openings with Defendant where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant in direct violation of RCW 49.58.110. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to address Defendant's refusal to disclose in postings the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant, and statutory damages pursuant to RCW 49.58.070 and RCW 49.58.110. Plaintiff Milito resides in King County, Washington and applied for a position with Defendant in the state. Foursquare Labs, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation doing business as Foursquare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com FREEZING POINT: Magrans Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- Armando Magrans, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Freezing Point Air Conditioning, LLC, and Rafael Lamboy, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23332-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and former employees who, at any time on or after February 2024, worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks without receiving proper compensation. The Plaintiff repeatedly complained to owner Rafael Lamboy regarding excessive hours and unpaid overtime. On or about February 13, 2025, the Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment under pretextual circumstances. The Plaintiff worked as a driver and HVAC technician from February 1, 2024 to February 13, 2025, a period spanning 54 weeks. Freezing Point A/C, is a business entity engaged in the provision of commercial and residential air conditioning services, including installation, repair, and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FUTURE HAPPENS: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Debbie Pittman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Future Happens Everyday, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08858 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Finnleys Good Findings provides to their non-disabled customers through https://cairebeauty.com (hereinafter "Cairebeauty.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Cairebeauty.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Future Happens Everyday provides to the public a website known as Cairebeauty.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view science-based, pro aging skincare products, including moisturizers, serums, masks, sets and bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law GEICO GENERAL: Nunez Sues Over Debt Collection Scheme ----------------------------------------------------- Digna Nunez, and Carlos Nunez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Profit Corporation, GRAYROBINSON, P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation, BENJAMIN LEFRANCOIS, and an individual, GARY RABIN, an individual, Case No. 6:25-cv-01403 (M.D. Fla., July 25, 2025), is brought targets a deliberately cruel debt collection scheme designed to extort money from the working poor by unlawfully taking away their right to drive. For years, Defendants have been unlawfully suspending the driver's licenses of low-income individuals who were fully compliant with Florida's mandatory insurance requirements, causing severe economic harm and hardship. Mr. Carlos Nunez and Mrs. Digna Nunez ("Mr. and Mrs. Nunez) are among the victims of this unjust scheme. The fact that this illegal scheme is carried out by Geico General Insurance Company, one of the largest and most well-respected law firms based in Florida makes it even more troubling. The Plaintiffs and members of the class are generally made up of lower income individuals. As a result of their limited income, they can only afford to carry the minimum amount of auto insurance required by Florida law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff were judgment debtors to GEICO as a result of a 2012 automobile accident. GEICO is one of the largest providers of auto insurance in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 Email: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com - and - Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. Mary Catherine Roper, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C. 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 320-5660 Fax: (215) 320-5703 Email: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com mroper@langergrogan.com GENTRY MOUNTAIN: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Duncan Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gentry Mountain Mining LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00622-DAK (D. Utah, July 29, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one half-the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. Specifically, Defendant requires the Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to suit into protective clothing and safety gear (personal protective equipment, hereafter "PPE") necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines also known as "donning," while on mining premises without compensation, prior to being "clocked in." Similarly, Defendant requires the Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to remove and store PPE and wash up, also known as "doffing," without compensation, or while "clocked out." This pre/post shift off the clock work policy of Defendant's violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours per workweek for Defendant. The Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically encompassed at minimum 50 hours per workweek. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in October 2021 and ended his employment with Defendant on December 2024. The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kass Harstad, Esq. BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD & JOHNSON, LLC 1516 W Hays St. Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (801) 948-2550, ext. 215 Email: kass@idahojobjustice.com - and - Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Fax: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com GEO GROUP: Loses Summary Judgment v. Gonzalez --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hugo Gonzalez et al. v. The Geo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04014-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order as follows: -- Denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; -- Granting-in-part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and -- Vacating the Aug. 25, 2025 hearing (in chambers). The Court finds that both parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the requested documents. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Applications. On Sept. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Nov. 11, 2024, the Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to file a Sur Reply to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All immigration detainees housed at the Adelanto Detention Facility in units 2D, 3B, 3C, and 3D on June 12, 2020 who were either (1) subjected to the use of pepper spray or other chemical force or other physical force that day; (2) denied or restricted from showers, eyewash facilities or medical care after that use of force; and/or (3) were placed on lockdown continually for some period of time after June 12, 2020. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs propose the following class: "All immigration detainees housed at the Adelanto Detention Facility in units 2D, 3B, 3C, and 3D on June 12, 2020 who were either (1) subjected to the use of area saturation with chemical agents; (2) denied or restricted from cold showers; and/or (3) were placed on lockdown continually for some period of time after June 12, 2020. The Court certifies the following subclasses: 1. The 3B Class: "All immigration detainees housed in Adelanto Detention Facility, Unit 3B on June 12, 2020 who were (1) subjected to the use of area saturation with pepper balls or pepper spray and/or (2) were placed on lockdown continually for some period of time after June 12, 2020. 2. The 3C Class: "All immigration detainees housed in Adelanto Detention Facility, Unit 3C on June 12, 2020 who were (1) subjected to the use of area saturation with pepper balls or pepper spray and/or (2) were placed on lockdown continually for some period of time after June 12, 2020. 3. The 3D Class: "All immigration detainees housed in Adelanto Detention Facility, Unit 3D on June 12, 2020 who were (1) subjected to the use of area saturation with pepper balls or pepper spray and/or (2) were placed on lockdown continually for some period of time after June 12, 2020. Geo is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D29P27 at no extra charge.[CC] GOOSE CREEK: McCaskill Sues Over Products' False Discount Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Georgianne McCaskill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goose Creek Candles LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01924 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. On its website, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and offers steep discounts from listed regular prices, for example by including the sale price in larger red font on top of the regular price which is in smaller gray font or by striking through the regular price. But Defendant does not sell its Goose Creek products for the listed "Regular" or strikethrough price. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's products are always available for much less than that, asserts the complaint. The representations Plaintiff McCaskill relied on were not true. The purported regular price was not the true regular price that Defendant sells the product for and the purported discount was not the true discount. Had Defendant been truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them. The Plaintiff brings this case for herself and the other California customers who purchased Goose Creek products advertised at a purported discount, says the complaint. Goose Creek Candles LLC makes, markets, and sells candles, wax melts, fragrances, lotions, creams, and other home fragrance and body care products. The Products are sold online through its website, www.goosecreekcandle.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com vivek@dovel.com H&M FASHION: Daly Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H&M Fashion USA, Inc. The case is styled as Tremayne Daly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H&M Fashion USA, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-61519-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. H&M -- https://www2.hm.com/ -- is your shopping destination for fashion, home, beauty, kids' clothes and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com HEALTHMARKETS INSURANCE: Carr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHMARKETS INSURANCE AGENCY INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80941-AMC (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messages to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA, and a citizen and resident of Palm Beach County, California. The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation with its headquarters located in North Richland Hills, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com HELPING U HOMECARE: Faces Rose Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHON ROSE, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HELPING U HOMECARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06260 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2025) is an action seeking monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief to redress Defendant's violations under the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant has willfully engaged in violations of the FLSA and NYLL by: (a) failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay under the FLSA and NYLL for time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and (b) failing to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements in violation of NYLL, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a home care employee on two occasion. The most recent occasion ended in January or February 2024. Helping U Homecare, Inc. is a licensed home care services agency serving Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island (Nassau & Suffolk), and Westchester counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Rhiannon M. Crum, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 85 8th Ave., 6M New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (646) 921-8900 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com HOPMONK TAVERN-SONOMA: Foster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hopmonk Tavern-Sonoma, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Katelyn Foster, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Hopmonk tavern-sonoma, LLC, Hopmonk Holdings, LLC, Case No. CV0006887 (Cal. Super. Ct., Marin Cty., July 9, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment for Civil Unlimited." Hopmonk Tavern-Sonoma, LLC -- https://www.hopmonk.com/sonoma -- is an eclectic restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 HUMANA INC: Carr Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Humana Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00476-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is an American for-profit health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[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 HUNDREDS PREMIUM: I.P. Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hundreds Premium LLC, et al. The case is styled as I.P., J.M., individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hundreds Premium LLC doing business as: Exotic Blue Magic, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-01923-DMS-SBC (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hundreds Premium LLC -- https://www.hundredspremium.com/ -- specializes in the production of natural health products, including kratom and pain relief solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Gregory Braden, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (858) 313-1850 Email: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com JASON ADER: Barnes Suit Removed to D. Nebraska ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kevin Barnes, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated Class A stockholders v. JASON ADER, JOHN K. LEWIS, RAFAEL ASHKENAZI, JOSEPH KAMINKOW, GREGORY S. LYSS, J. RANDALL WATERFIELD, 26 CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC, RIMU CAPITAL LTD., SPRINGOWL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, ALEXANDER EISEMAN, CHRISTIAN LITTLEJOHN ZAMA CAPITAL ADVISORS, LT, and ZAMA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LP, Case No. 2025-0273-JTL was removed from the District Court for the State of Nebraska for the County of Douglas, to the United States District Court for District of Nebraska on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:2S-cv-00931-UNA. On July 11, 2025, 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. ("Debtor" or "SPAC"), filed a voluntary petition for relief ("Petition") under Chapter II of Title II of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, in the above captioned case (the "Bankruptcy Case").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott D. Cousins, Esq. Sean M. Brennecke, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SOO Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 WI Imington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 985-6000 Email: scott.cousins@lewisbrisbois.com sean.brennecke@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Gregory A. Blue, Esq. LACHTMAN COHEN & BELOWICH LLP 1133 Westchester Ave., Suite N-200 White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 505-6654 Email: gblue@lcb-lawcom JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Seeks Leave to File Rely Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal portions of reply memorandum in support of their motion for class certification and exhibits. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to maintain Exhibits 1, 2, 7 and 8 and the redacted portions of 3 and 6 and the Plaintiffs' Reply under seal. Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CZhJJT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser , Esq. GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C. Crown Center, Suite 600 580 East Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq. Audley Fuller, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com abbyeo@hbsslaw.com whitneyst@hbsslaw.com rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com audleyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Noelle Ruggiero, Esq. Alexis Castillo, Esq. Thomas K. Griffith, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com URabinovitz@lowey.com RGirnys@lowey.com NRuggiero@lowey.com ACastillo@lowey.com TGriffith@lowey.com - and - John Radice, Esq. April Lambert, Esq. Kenneth Pickle, Esq. Charles Kopel, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com alambert@radicelawfirm.com kpickle@radicelawfirm.com ckopel@radicelawfirm.com KIM KOVOL: Court Excludes Untimely Identified Witnesses ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY B., et al., v. KIM KOVOL, Director, Alaska Department of Family and Community Services, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to exclude untimely identified witnesses: -- Mr. Jaime, Mr. Gara, Ms. Harbi, Ms. Stone, and Ms. Tesson are Stricken from the Plaintiff's Second Amended Witness List. The Plaintiffs shall not include Mr. Jaime, Mr. Gara, Ms. Harbi, Ms. Stone, or Ms. Tesson on their final trial witness list. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that their failure to timely identify any of the five contested witnesses is substantially justified or harmless. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=URYkyv at no extra charge.[CC] KIM KOVOL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Mary B. ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY B., et al., v. KIM KOVOL, Director, Alaska Department of Family and Community Services, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to supplement, and denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on counts six and seven. In sum, the Court finds that M.R. remains binding on this Court and disputes of material fact remain as to whether OCS policies and practices place children in the ADA Subclass at a serious risk of unnecessary institutionalization. In this class action, the Plaintiffs seek wide-ranging reform of Alaska's foster care system, administered by Alaska’s Office of Children's Services ("OCS"), alleging that the system harms the children it is designed to protect and violates the Plaintiffs' federal rights. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class consisting of "All children for whom OCS has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and physical custody of OCS." In addition, the Court has certified an ADA Subclass, comprised of: "children who are or will be in foster care and experience physical, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities." A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PhqFex at no extra charge.[CC] KLAVIYO INC: Nguyen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- QUI NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KLAVIYO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-06551-VKD (N.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Klaviyo surreptitiously collects information on the products consumers are browsing and purchasing in real time. Klaviyo collects a consumer's website activity information such as the product name, product price, product category, URL corresponding with the product image, and the descriptive web page URL. The descriptive URLs reveal product names and other product information. Klaviyo also collects the search terms that a consumer inputs into the search bar on a website, says the suit. Klaviyo, Inc. provides e-marketing solutions. The Company offers marketing automation and email platform which enables users to access, store, analyze, and use transactional and behavioral data to power highly-targeted email and advertising campaigns. Klaviyo serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: hlopez@milberg.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com KRISPY KREME: Campbell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Breanna Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00555 (W.D.N.C., July 29, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license or state ID numbers, financial account information, financial account access information, credit or debit card information, credit or debit card information in combination with a security code, username and password to a financial account, passport number, digital signature, username and password, email address and password, USCIS or Alien Registration Number, and/or US military ID numbers (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")). While employed by Krispy Kreme, Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide Defendant with their Private Information and/or the Private Information of their family members. Because of this, Krispy Kreme has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Krispy Kreme's duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and previous employees, and/or their family members, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on November 29, 2024, Defendant became "aware of unauthorized activity on a portion of its information technology systems" (the "Data Breach"). The data breach occurred in part because Krispy Kreme stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in an unencrypted, Internet-accessible environment. After Krispy Kreme discovered the Data Breach in November 2024, it conducted an investigation which concluded on May 22, 2025, "that certain personal information was affected." Despite learning about the breach in November of 2024, Krispy Kreme waited until June of 2025 to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now exposed to cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, having worked for Defendant in 2021. Krispy Kreme is an internationally known doughnut and coffee-house chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Valente, Esq. POULN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 803-222-2222 Email: teamvalente@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com LA PERLA DEL MAR: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LA Perla Del Mar, Inc. The case is styled as Ricardo Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LA Perla Del Mar, Inc. doing business as La Perla Restaurant, Case No. 25STCV22135 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." LA Perla Del Mar, Inc. doing business as La Perla Restaurant -- https://laperla.gg/ -- is a dining establishment known for its homemade Italian cuisine and elegant atmosphere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com LEADEC CORP: Simon Sues to Remedy Sex Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------- Amanda Meyer Simon, Cheryl Sronce, Lytishia Jones, Tracey Edwards, Leanna Hill, Sarah Jackson, Jessica Mcglown, Lisa Trent, Sarah Ward, Rita Collins (as personal representative for her daughter, Rita Williams), Robn Rabis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LEADEC CORP., Case No. 4:25-cv-01144 (E.D. Mo., July 29, 2025), is brought to remedy sex discrimination and retaliation in employment at Leadec Corporation in Wentzville, Missouri at the General Motors (GM) plant--in violation Of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964. During the time period relevant to this lawsuit, Leadec employed hundreds of women in Wentzville, Missouri at the GM plant, each of whom was exposed to a sexually hostile work environment. Accordingly, the potential class-size is far too numerous for joinder to be practical. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek to certify a single class of women who were employed by Leadec in Wentzville, Missouri at the GM plant at any time from Summer 2011 through Fall 2022 in two subclasses: bargaining unit custodial employees and on-site non-bargaining unit employees. The Defendant was aware of this harassment. The harassment was open and obvious and local management participated. Moreover, class members made hotline complaints about it. Despite being on notice of pervasive problems of sexual harassment Defendant failed to address such unlawful sexual harassment and the company culture that enabled it. Defendant paid lip service to training its Staff but did nothing to assure such training actually took place or actually succeeded in preventing harassment. Defendant's on-site and corporate managers did not respond promptly and adequately to harassment complaints and Leadec did nothing to hold accountable those managers who allowed harassment to flourish. Despite Defendant's knowledge Of the harassment that class members suffered daily at the Wentzville GM plant did not take steps reasonably calculated to curtail it., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as industrial custodians for Leadec and its predecessors/successors at the Wentzville, Missouri General Motors plant. Leadec Corp. is an international industrial services company based in Germany, with Ohio as its principal state of business in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sherrie A. Hall Esq. WORKERS RIGHTS LAW FIRM LLC 2258 Grissom Drive St. Louis, MO 63146 Phone: (314) 824-0348 Fax: (314) 828-1029 - and - Larry Bagsby, Esq. THE BAGSBY LAW FIRM LLC 119 S. Main Street St. Charles, MO 63301 Phone: (636) 244-5595 LEVEL 8 GROUP: Cole Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Level 8 Group Corp, Case No. 1:25-cv-09327 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 6, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, and operate its website, Level8cases.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Level8cases.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Level 8 Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LEXYL TRAVEL: Canteenwalla Class Action Closed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PERCY CANTEENWALLA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEXYL TRAVEL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80007-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment: -- All remaining motions are denied as moot. -- This case is closed. The Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to void their purchase of the travel insurance plan and obtain a full refund. Both Plaintiffs were offered unconditional refunds for the cost of the product at issue via email within hours of their respective purchases. The refund remained available through the date of the Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Yet, instead of simply seeking the noted refund, which would have otherwise voided any harm, the Plaintiffs filed suit. This is not allowed. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' FDUTPA economic injury claims were mooted by the Defendant's unconditional money-back guarantee and therefore Plaintiffs lack Article III standing for monetary relief. The Court's ruling is consistent with "black-letter contract law that a party suffering a breach is obligated to take all reasonable means to protect himself and mitigate his damages." The Court finds the reasoning and analysis presented in these and other cases persuasive. On Dec. 19, 2025, and Dec. 22, 2025, respectively, Giuseppe Russo and Percy Canteenwalla made hotel reservations through websites owned and operated by Defendant. After receiving their confirmation emails for their reservations, the Plaintiffs realized that they had unknowingly been charged for travel insurance. Lexyl provides services and resources for traveling. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rmCv57 at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Exclude Expert's Opinions Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WATTS, et al., v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to strike and exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert Jay Angoff. Though Mr. Angoff has not served as an expert specifically on financial statements, given this extensive history upon which he renders his opinions, the Court concludes that he is appropriately qualified in this case. There is no dispute that the accounting statements and the other record evidence considered by Mr. Angoff are a reliable basis on which he could form an opinion. The Court agrees that some statements in the report are inadmissible conclusions of law. Mr. Angoff may testify regarding what, in his experience, a regulator would consider in analyzing an insurance company's availability and source of funds to pay a judgment, but not the conclusion of law as to whether LMPIC's regulator would permit LMPIC to pay a $45 million judgment. Similarly, Mr. Agnoff may testify as to industry practice in structuring and operating insurance companies and the relationship created in the reinsurance context, but not the conclusion of law that LMPIC does not "act independently" of LMIC. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants prematurely terminated rental car benefits in breach of their insurance policies. Liberty offers a wide range of insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https:.//urlcurt.com/u?l=70Ct7V at no extra charge.[CC] LYTX INC: Must Pay Drivers $4.25M Over DriveCam Privacy Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joshua Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Maverick Transportation LLC and Lytx, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-CV-00046-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted final approval of a class action settlement requiring Defendant to pay $4,250,000 to resolve biometric privacy claims. The Court certified the settlement class consisting of "All individuals who, while present in the State of Illinois, operated a vehicle equipped with a Lytx DriveCam Event Recorder and for whom machine vision and artificial intelligence was used to predict distracted driving behaviors between October 12, 2016, and January 1, 2025." The Court appointed Joshua Lewis, Nathaniel Timmons, and James Cavanaugh as class representatives and confirmed the appointment of five law firms as class counsel: -- Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC; -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; -- Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC; -- Fish Potter Bolanos, P.C.; and -- Werman Salas P.C. The Court found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) were satisfied for settlement purposes. Specifically, the Court determined that: (1) The Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) There are questions of law and fact common to members of the Settlement Class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members (e.g., whether Lytx collected and stored Settlement Class Members' biometric data, without consent, through dash cam devices in a manner that violated BIPA, and whether Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members are entitled to uniform statutory damages under BIPA); (3) Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (4) Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have and will continue to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class; and (5) A class action is a superior method of fairly and efficiently adjudicating this Action. Upon careful examination of the settlement terms, the Court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court specifically considered the factors relevant to class settlement approval pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), including whether the class representatives and class counsel adequately represented the settlement class, whether the settlement was negotiated at arm's length, whether the relief provided was adequate, and whether the settlement treats settlement class members equitably relative to each other. The Court found that the settlement consideration constitutes fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released Parties and noted that the Settlement is the result of arm's length negotiations by experienced, well-qualified counsel that included a day-long mediation conducted by a neutral mediator. The settlement provides meaningful monetary benefits (i.e. a $4,250,000 non-reversionary settlement fund) to Settlement Class Members, and such benefits are not disproportionate to the attorneys' fees and expenses sought by Class Counsel. According to the Court, the notice program satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and due process and constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances." The Court noted that "no objections or opt-outs were filed in connection with the Settlement, indicating broad acceptance among class members. According to the settlement, "Attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund, or $1,416,666.67 shall be granted and the reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation expenses in the amount of $63,495.79 was approved. Additionally, the Court approved service awards of $10,000 to each of the three class representatives, finding these amounts fair and reasonable. Upon the effective date of the settlement, the Court ordered that the releasing parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against the Released Parties. The Court further ordered that each settlement class member shall, either directly, indirectly, representatively, or in any capacity, be permanently barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, continuing, pursuing, intervening in, or participating (as a class member or otherwise) in any lawsuit, action, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction against any Released Party based on the Released Claims. The Court dismissed the action with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. The settlement agreement will be binding on and will have res judicata and preclusive effect in all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Releasing Parties." The Court retained exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to resolve any disputes or challenges that may arise in connection with the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's settlement approval order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IF74wp MAHITA LLC: Evans Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mahita, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09309 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 6, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, and operate its website, Pushmycart.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Pushmycart.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Pushmycart.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Mahita.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MARIANNA F. HEETER: Bennett Sues Over ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Michael D. Bennett, on behalf of the JJF Management Services, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated v. MARIANNA F. HEETER, as Administrator of the Estate of Richard A. Heeter, CAPITAL TRUSTEES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02491-SAG (D. Md., July 29, 2025), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants caused by the Trustee when it caused the Plan to engage in ERISA prohibited transactions in connection with its leveraged purchase of JJF stock from the selling shareholders, and other plan-wide relief. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to enforce his rights under ERISA and the Plan, specifically, to recover the losses incurred by the Plan resulting from the Trustee causing prohibited transactions, and equitable relief, including recovery of improper profits realized by the Trustee. Plaintiff requests that Defendants be required to restore any losses to the Plan arising from the Trustee's ERISA violations, Defendants be ordered to disgorge to the Plan any improper profits, and any monies recovered for the Plan to be allocated to the accounts of the Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a participant. Marianna F. Heeter is Administrator of the Estate of Richard A. Heeter.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cary L. Joshi, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Brian A. Glasser, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: cjoshi@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com bglasser@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Seekins Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SEEKINS, 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-10132-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 Seekins 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: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, White Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ FREDDY WHITE, 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-10103-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 White 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: AFFF/TOG Products "Defective," Dhondt Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BRYAN CHARLES DHONDT, 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, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; 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-10097-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, 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 thyroid disease. The Dhondt 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. DuPont 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 Products 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, Inc. 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: Coomber Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES OLIVER COOMBER, 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, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; 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-10142-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, 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 Coomber 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. DuPont 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 Products 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, Inc. 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: Cross Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF/TOG Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIM CROSS, 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.; 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.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10212-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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) 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 Cross 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. 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. DuPont 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. 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. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Longview, Washington. 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. 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. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan Mayfield, Esq. THE GORI LAW FIRM 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: rmayfield@gorilaw.com - and - Evan D. Buxner, Esq. 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: ebuxner@gorilaw.com MDL 2873: Dominguez Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health ----------------------------------------------------------------- YVONNE DOMINGUEZ, 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-10056-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 ulcerative colitis. The Dominguez 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 AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Mosley Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STACY MOSLEY, 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-10112-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 ulcerative colitis. The Mosley 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 AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Upchurch Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY UPCHURCH, 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-10076-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 ulcerative colitis. The Upchurch 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: N. Ryan Mayfield, Esq. THE GORI LAW FIRM 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: rmayfield@gorilaw.com - and - Evan D. Buxner, Esq. 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: ebuxner@gorilaw.com MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Hill Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- CAMBRIDGE HILL, 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-10108-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 Hill 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, Watson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALBERT WATSON, 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-10148-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 Watson 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: Faces Allyn Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD LEE ALLYN, 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-10100-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 Allyn 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: Faces Feiten Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK FEITEN, 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-10102-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 and thyroid disease. The Feiten 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: Faces Myrant Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Design Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAVONNE MYRANT, 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.; 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.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10214-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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) 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 Myrant 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. 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. DuPont 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. 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. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Longview, Washington. 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. 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. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan Mayfield, Esq. THE GORI LAW FIRM 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: rmayfield@gorilaw.com - and - Evan D. Buxner, Esq. 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: ebuxner@gorilaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Pierce Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS --------------------------------------------------------------- ALYSSA PIERCE, 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-10118-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 ulcerative colitis. The Pierce 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: Faces Sanchez Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements --------------------------------------------------------------- GILBERT SANCHEZ, 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-10198-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 thyroid disease, high cholesterol, and prostate cancer. The Sanchez 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: Faces Trawick Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- WARREN TRAWICK, 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-10144-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 Trawick 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: Faces Wight Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ DALE HAROLD WIGHT, 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-10075-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, prostate cancer, and high cholesterol. The Wight 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: Green Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF/TOG Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- TODD MICHAEL GREEN, 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, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; 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-10121-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, 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 thyroid disease. The Green 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. DuPont 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 Products 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, Inc. 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: Kelley Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health -------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES EARL KELLEY, 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-10116-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 and high cholesterol. The Kelley 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: Kielbasa Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- RENATA KIELBASA, 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-10092-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 ulcerative colitis. The Kielbasa 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: McDonald Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WAYNE MCDONALD, 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-10124-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 and prostate cancer. The McDonald 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: McLean Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG STEVEN MCLEAN, 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-10087-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 and prostate cancer. The McLean 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: Oglesby Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF/TOG Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- QUINTIN P. OGLESBY, 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.; 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.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10213-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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) 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 liver cancer. The Oglesby 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. 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. DuPont 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. 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. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Longview, Washington. 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. 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. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan Mayfield, Esq. THE GORI LAW FIRM 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: rmayfield@gorilaw.com - and - Evan D. Buxner, Esq. 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: ebuxner@gorilaw.com MDL 2873: Peters Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF/TOG Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS PETERS, 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.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, 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 COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING 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-10216-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 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) 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 and high cholesterol. The Peters 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. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. 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: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Reed Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------ SHARLENE JUANITA REED, 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-10182-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, thyroid disease, and high cholesterol. The Reed 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: Roof Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARMAINE ROOF, 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-10168-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, thyroid disease, and high cholesterol. The Roof 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: Schunk Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL JOSEPH SCHUNK, 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, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; 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-10107-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, 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 ulcerative colitis. The Schunk 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. DuPont 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 Products 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, Inc. 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: Smiley Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ RICKY A. SMILEY, 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.; 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.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10215-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 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) 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 Smiley 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. 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. DuPont 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. 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. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Longview, Washington. 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. 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. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan Mayfield, Esq. THE GORI LAW FIRM 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: rmayfield@gorilaw.com - and - Evan D. Buxner, Esq. 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 Email: ebuxner@gorilaw.com MDL 2873: Wear Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF/TOG Products ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KEITH WEAR, 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, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; 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-10077-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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, 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 thyroid disease. The Wear 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. DuPont 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 Products 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, Inc. 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: Young Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------- RICKY YOUNG, 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-10158-RMG (D.S.C., August 8, 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 Young 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 3143: Court Issues Deposition Protocol in OpenAI Copyright Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Deposition Protocol Order governing the conduct of depositions of fact witnesses in the multi-district litigation styled IN RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION, Case No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Ona says counsel and all parties currently in or added to the MDL will comply with this Order, and to the extent consistent with this Order, with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unless specifically modified here, nothing in this Order will be construed to abrogate the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. The Class Plaintiffs are entitled to 105 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025, and exclusive of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Books1 and Books2 addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have 100 hours of deposition time with Microsoft ("MSFT") witnesses, exclusive of the time spent on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding particular datasets addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "Class Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03223), Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03416), Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−04625), Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-08292), Alter v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-10211), which have been consolidated in the superseding operative complaint titled Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (No. 25-md-3143). The News Plaintiffs are entitled to 130 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025. The News Plaintiffs will have 112 hours of deposition time with Microsoft witnesses. They will have a maximum of 64 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "News Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1: 23-cv-11195); Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1:24-cv-3285); The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv 01515); The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-04872); Ziff Davis, Inc., v. OpenAI Inc. (25-cv-0501) (D. Del.). The Defendants are entitled to 110 hours of deposition time with named Class Plaintiffs. The Defendants are entitled to the following deposition time with each News Plaintiff: 1) 112 hours with New York Times ("NYT") witnesses; 2) 100 hours with New York Daily News ("NYDN") witnesses; 3) 70 hours with each of CIR witnesses, Intercept witness, and Ziff Davis witnesses; and 4) presumptively, 70 hours with any additional News Plaintiff group that joins the MDL. The Defendants will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the Class cases and 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the News cases. The Order also provides, among other things, that all Parties agree to negotiate a deposition scheduling protocol to ensure compliance with the Federal Rules and so all parties receive proper notice of any upcoming deposition. All Parties reserve the right to move the Court for additional deposition time beyond these limits for good cause shown. All objections are reserved, including objections that depositions may be unnecessary, irrelevant, or duplicative. Standard rules and procedures for apex witnesses will govern and be individually addressed, including whether the witness qualifies as an apex witness. A full-text copy of the Court's Deposition Protocol Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dr7vnwh from PacerMonitor.com. MICHAELS STORES: Bid to Continue Class Hearing to Oct. 1 Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vizcarra v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order denying joint administrative motion to continue: -- Aug. 20, 2025 class certification hearing to Oct. 1, 2025, and -- Sept. 23, 2025 case management conference to Nov. 1, 2025. The Court maintains the parties' August 20, 2025 hearing date. Michaels is an American privately held arts and crafts retail chain. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HEJegu at no extra charge.[CC] MICROSOFT CORP: Court Issues Deposition Protocol in Basbanes Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Deposition Protocol Order governing the conduct of depositions of fact witnesses in the lawsuit styled Basbanes, et al. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00084-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). The case is consolidated with Authors Guild et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Ona says counsel and all parties currently in or added to the multi-district litigation (the "MDL") will comply with this Order, and to the extent consistent with this Order, with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unless specifically modified here, nothing in this Order will be construed to abrogate the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. The Class Plaintiffs are entitled to 105 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025, and exclusive of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Books1 and Books2 addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have 100 hours of deposition time with Microsoft ("MSFT") witnesses, exclusive of the time spent on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding particular datasets addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "Class Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03223), Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03416), Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−04625), Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-08292), Alter v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-10211), which have been consolidated in the superseding operative complaint titled Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (No. 25-md-3143). The News Plaintiffs are entitled to 130 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025. The News Plaintiffs will have 112 hours of deposition time with Microsoft witnesses. They will have a maximum of 64 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "News Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1: 23-cv-11195); Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1:24-cv-3285); The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv 01515); The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-04872); Ziff Davis, Inc., v. OpenAI Inc. (25-cv-0501) (D. Del.). The Defendants are entitled to 110 hours of deposition time with named Class Plaintiffs. The Defendants are entitled to the following deposition time with each News Plaintiff: 1) 112 hours with New York Times ("NYT") witnesses; 2) 100 hours with New York Daily News ("NYDN") witnesses; 3) 70 hours with each of CIR witnesses, Intercept witness, and Ziff Davis witnesses; and 4) presumptively, 70 hours with any additional News Plaintiff group that joins the MDL. The Defendants will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the Class cases and 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the News cases. The Order also provides, among other things, that all Parties agree to negotiate a deposition scheduling protocol to ensure compliance with the Federal Rules and so all parties receive proper notice of any upcoming deposition. All Parties reserve the right to move the Court for additional deposition time beyond these limits for good cause shown. All objections are reserved, including objections that depositions may be unnecessary, irrelevant, or duplicative. Standard rules and procedures for apex witnesses will govern and be individually addressed, including whether the witness qualifies as an apex witness. A full-text copy of the Court's Deposition Protocol Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3spspjn7 from PacerMonitor.com. MICROSOFT CORP: Deposition Protocol in NY Times, Daily News Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Deposition Protocol Order governing the conduct of depositions of fact witnesses in the lawsuit styled The New York Times Company v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). A similar order was entered in the cases, Daily News LP, et al. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03285-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.); and The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04872-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). Both cases are consolidated with New York Times Company v. Microsoft, with this case serving as the lead case. The consolidated New York Times Company v. Microsoft is, in turn, consolidated with the lead case, In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Ona says counsel and all parties currently in or added to the multi-district litigation (the "MDL") will comply with this Order, and to the extent consistent with this Order, with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unless specifically modified here, nothing in this Order will be construed to abrogate the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. The Class Plaintiffs are entitled to 105 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025, and exclusive of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Books1 and Books2 addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have 100 hours of deposition time with Microsoft ("MSFT") witnesses, exclusive of the time spent on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding particular datasets addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "Class Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03223), Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03416), Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−04625), Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-08292), Alter v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-10211), which have been consolidated in the superseding operative complaint titled Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (No. 25-md-3143). The News Plaintiffs are entitled to 130 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025. The News Plaintiffs will have 112 hours of deposition time with Microsoft witnesses. They will have a maximum of 64 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "News Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1: 23-cv-11195); Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1:24-cv-3285); The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv 01515); The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-04872); Ziff Davis, Inc., v. OpenAI Inc. (25-cv-0501) (D. Del.). The Defendants are entitled to 110 hours of deposition time with named Class Plaintiffs. The Defendants are entitled to the following deposition time with each News Plaintiff: 1) 112 hours with New York Times ("NYT") witnesses; 2) 100 hours with New York Daily News ("NYDN") witnesses; 3) 70 hours with each of CIR witnesses, Intercept witness, and Ziff Davis witnesses; and 4) presumptively, 70 hours with any additional News Plaintiff group that joins the MDL. The Defendants will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the Class cases and 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the News cases. The Order also provides, among other things, that all Parties agree to negotiate a deposition scheduling protocol to ensure compliance with the Federal Rules and so all parties receive proper notice of any upcoming deposition. All Parties reserve the right to move the Court for additional deposition time beyond these limits for good cause shown. All objections are reserved, including objections that depositions may be unnecessary, irrelevant, or duplicative. Standard rules and procedures for apex witnesses will govern and be individually addressed, including whether the witness qualifies as an apex witness. A full-text copy of the Court's Deposition Protocol Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2st97hs2 from PacerMonitor.com. MR. COOPER: Cabezas' Implied Contract Breach Claim to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jennifer Cabezas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-2453-N (N.D. Tex.), Chief United States District Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The District Court's ruling allows the case to proceed on the breach of implied contract and negligence claims while dismissing several other theories of liability. The decision provides important guidance on standing in data breach cases and the viability of various claims in the cybersecurity context. The case will move forward as a class action with the remaining viable claims. Judge Godbey ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims stemming from a cybersecurity attack on October 31, 2023, where ransomware hackers seized control of Mr. Cooper's network and exposed the personal identifying information of more than 14 million customers. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the breach of express contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence claims and denied the motion to dismiss as to the breach of implied contract and negligence claims. Mr. Cooper is a mortgage loan servicer that was targeted in a cybersecurity attack on October 31, 2023. In that attack, ransomware hackers seized control of Mr. Cooper's network and its customers' data. The personal identifying information of more than 14 million customers was exposed, including customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and bank account numbers. The cybercriminals demanded a ransom payment in exchange for releasing control of the network back to Mr. Cooper. The company paid the ransom, and the hackers returned control of the systems and provided assurance that customer data was deleted. However, plaintiffs alleged that the hackers likely retained a copy of the data and that the exfiltrated data is now on the dark web. The District Court found that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an injury in fact for standing purposes. Judge Godbey adopted the McMorris factor test from the Second Circuit, analyzing three factors: (1) Whether the data was compromised as the result of a targeted attack intended to obtain plaintiffs' data (2) Whether at least some part of the compromised dataset has been misused; and (3) Whether the data is likely to subject plaintiffs to a perpetual risk of identity theft or fraud. The District Court found all three factors weighed toward finding that plaintiffs showed an imminent risk of future harm. The District Court found that the data at issue was clearly compromised 'as the result of a targeted attack intended to obtain the plaintiffs' data. Additionally, the Court noted that several plaintiffs alleged fraudulent credit card charges, unauthorized attempts to access bank accounts, money stolen from accounts, and received information about their personal identifying information being discovered on the dark web. However, the District Court denied standing for injunctive relief claims, finding that this claim for injunctive relief is based entirely on the speculative risk of a second data breach and that the future harm of a second cyberattack is too speculative and not sufficiently imminent. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss the breach of express contract claim, finding that Mr. Cooper's Privacy Policy "appears to be a statement of corporate policy rather than an express contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants." Conversely, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of implied contract claim. Judge Godbey agreed that Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to allege the existence of an implied contract to safeguard the personal identifying information. The Court noted that other courts have found implied contracts where plaintiffs are required to provide personal identifying information as a condition of receiving defendant's services. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss the negligence claim, finding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a duty of care. Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Mr. Cooper was negligent in securing Plaintiffs' personal identifying information and that, based on Mr. Cooper's own regulatory filings, it is well-aware of the risk of such an attack. The District Court found that plaintiffs alleged a series of cybersecurity failures, including that Mr. Cooper: (1) Failed to properly encrypt customers' personal identifying information, or used 'deprecated encryption protocols'; (2) Failed to delete personal identifying information 'after it no longer needed to be retained'; (3) Stored personal identifying information 'in a vulnerable, internet-accessible environment; (4) Failed to use 'up-to-date authentication measures'; (5) Failed to apply needed software patches 'to eliminate known vulnerabilities'; and (6) Failed to monitor traffic on its network . . . to detect malicious activity. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that Mr. Cooper obtained a benefit from the plaintiffs by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage. The Court noted that no money was paid for the particular purpose of data security. For the invasion of privacy claim, the Court found that the Texas Supreme Court is likely to reject a negligent theory of invasion of privacy and dismissed the claim because plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants intentionally invaded their privacy. The District Court also granted the motion to dismiss the breach of confidence claim, finding that breach of confidence claims are limited to the trade secrets context and declined to reinterpret breach of confidence outside of that context. The District Court deferred judgment on the negligence per se claim and 19 state law claims until the class certification stage. For negligence per se, Judge Godbey found that because a law other than Texas law may apply, and because the law governing negligence per se varies between states, the Court defers judgment on this claim until choice of law analysis is completed. A copy of the District Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uIQkjX NASCAR ENTERPRISES: Warren Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Carl Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NASCAR ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01448 (M.D. Fla., July 25, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach Defendant disclosed in July 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Defendant obtained and stored the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, 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. The Defendant's misconduct – failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Private Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach – caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members across the United States, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant is a privately owned company that sanctions over 1,500 races at over 100 tracks in 48 U.S. states, as well as in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Europe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Epps Suit Remanded to San Bernardino Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Larell Epps v. National Distribution Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. EDCV 24-1915 JGB (SPx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied as moot Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the class action. On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff Epps individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino against National Distribution Centers, LLC (NDC) and Does 1 through 100. The proposed class is defined as the California Class which consists of six sub-classes: (1) Meal Period Class, (2) Meal Period Premium Wages Class, (3) Rest Period Class, (4) Rest Period Premium Wages Class, (5) Wage Statement Class, and (6) Waiting Time Class. All classes include current and former hourly non-exempt employees in California during specified time periods ranging from one to four years prior to filing. On September 6, 2024, Defendant removed the action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), claiming federal jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. The complaint alleges five causes of action against NDC under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code: (1) failure to provide meal periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226 and 512; (2) failure to provide rest periods, Cal. Lab. Code Section 226; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, Cal. Lab. Code Section 226;( 4) failure to timely pay final wages at termination, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201-203; and (5) unfair business practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. Plaintiff worked as an hourly non-exempt employee of Defendant from approximately August 2023 through May 24, 2024. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to (1) authorize or permit legally compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period premium wages; (2) authorize and permit rest periods and/or pay rest period premiums; (3) furnish accurate wage statements; and (4) timely pay final wages. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's unlawful conduct constitutes unfair competition. On March 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand arguing that Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy for the putative class exceeds the $5,000,000 CAFA jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiff made a factual attack on NDC's estimates by contesting its evidence and reasoning without introducing extrinsic evidence of his own. In its notice of removal, Defendant asserted that the amount in controversy requirement under CAFA is independently satisfied by the complaint's waiting time penalties and claims related to unpaid premiums, totaling an aggregate amount in controversy of $7,845,258.24 excluding attorneys' fees. Defendant relied on the declaration of Michelle Montesano, HRIS Analyst for NFI Management Services, LLC, who reviewed NDC's employment data and determined there are 4,539 non-exempt employees in California who have separated employment from NDC between July 18, 2020 to present day. The District Court found that NDC provided sufficient evidentiary support through the Montesano declaration, noting that the Montesano NOR Declaration is competent evidence because it does not reveal any statement, other than one made by the declarant, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." However, the Court determined that NDC failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that CAFA's amount in controversy requirement is met because its calculations rely on unreasonable assumptions. Regarding waiting time penalties, the District Court found that NDC's calculation used the total number of terminated employees for the entire class period - i.e., July 18, 2020 to present day - whereas the statute of limitations for waiting time penalties is only three years. The District Court explained that the Terminated Class includes former employees whose waiting time penalties are barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to California Labor Code Section 203. Therefore, the District Court could not rely on the Montesano declaration to determine the estimated amount in controversy for this claim because the miscalculation inflates the estimated amount. The District Court also found that NDC relied on unreasonable assumptions when calculating unpaid premiums. NDC estimated meal and rest period premiums total at least $3,662,115.84 by assuming one meal and one rest period violation per putative class member per week. However, the District Court determined that NDC's assumptions lack factual support and noted that it would be just as consistent with the complaint to assume a frequency of once-per-quarter violation based on the complaint's allegations of sporadic and intermitted practices. The District Court distinguished this case from others where courts found similar violation rates reasonable, explaining that unlike the cases Defendant relies on which involve complaints that allege more facts to support a pattern and practice of California Labor Code violations, the facts in the complaint associated with unpaid premiums include limiting language that renders Defendant's assumed violation rate unreasonable. On March 21, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, strike class claims, and stay proceedings. However, because the Court granted the motion to remand, it found that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the Motion to Compel. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is denied as moot. The District Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that "NDC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the estimated AIC for the putative class exceeds the $5,000,000 CAFA jurisdictional minimum." The District Court denied as moot Defendant's motion to compel arbitration due to the remand. The District Court vacated the July 28, 2025 hearing and directed that the case is remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino. A copy of the District Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zqqjfi NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Gonzalez Sues Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-01145 (W.D. Pa., July 29, 2025), is brought to remedy Nationwide's systemic and deceptive denial or reduction of UM/UIM benefits and to obtain appropriate relief for similarly situated policyholders across Pennsylvania as a result of the Defendants breach of contract. On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff executed a rejection of stacking form for Policy No. 58G111111 issued by Nationwide. On April 30, 2021, Nationwide issued the OPP (policy no. 5837J347009) to Gonzalez, which was a new policy of insurance under Pennsylvania law. Nationwide deceptively told Gonzalez that the policy was a renewal policy despite the policy containing reductions in UM/UIM coverage. Because the OPP was a new policy, Nationwide was legally required to obtain new UM/UIM stacking waivers from Gonzalez. Nationwide did not do so and instead misrepresented that the OPP was a renewal. Plaintiff was seriously injured in a November 2021 accident3 and submitted a UIM claim to Nationwide under her auto insurance policy (policy no. 5837J347009). Nationwide denied Gonzalez stacked coverage based on the rejection-of stacking form she signed in November 2020 and falsely represented to Gonzalez that she was entitled to only $25,000.00 in coverage on her UIM claim. Nationwide knew that the OPP was a new policy of insurance and that the November 2020 rejection-of-stacking form was invalid. Nationwide knew that Gonzalez was entitled to stacked coverage of $50,000.00 on her UIM claim. Nationwide nonetheless deceived Gonzalez into believing that she was entitled to only $25,000.00 in coverage. As a result of Nationwide's misrepresentation, Gonzalez agreed to settled her UIM claim for $25,000.00 on November 1, 2022. Had Gonzalez known that she was entitled to $50,000.00 in coverage, she would have settled her claim for substantially more than $25,000.00, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was insured by Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company at all relevant times. Nationwide are affiliated insurance carriers operating under the Nationwide brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Giannetti, Esquire SWARTZ CULLETON PC 429 First Avenue, Suite 100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-238-7610 Fax: 412-200-7595 Email: agiannetti@swartzculleton.com - and - Patrick, Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-8282 Facsimile: 215-754-4443 Email: phoward@smbb.com NBA PROPERTIES: Whalen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Whalen, Victor Fuentes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NBA Properties, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01030 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 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-06125-JAV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. NBA Properties, Inc. (NBAP) is the marketing and licensing arm of the National Basketball Association (NBA).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com NESTLE WATERS: Patane Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING, HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S. SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER, DIANE BOGDAN, and PARESHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381-VDO (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 14-day extension -- from Aug. 6, 2025, to Aug. 20, 2025 -- of the deadline to file their reply memorandum in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant takes no position on this motion, and Plaintiffs have not previously moved to extend the deadline at issue. Good cause for granting this motion includes the following: The Defendant has essentially had over a year and a half to develop and brief its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. But the current scheduling order gives Plaintiffs only seven days to reply to Defendant's opposition. The Plaintiffs request for a total of three weeks to reply to the Defendants' brief thus provides for a small degree of parity. Without an extension, the Plaintiffs would need to base their class-certification reply on future Daubert oppositions. The increased burden to counsel of briefing multiple motions also provides good cause for an extension. On July 30, 2025, Defendant filed two Daubert motions against the Plaintiff's economics expert (Phillip Johnson, PhD) and survey expert (J. Michael Dennis, PhD) in conjunction with its opposition to class certification. Nestle is a company that specializes in the production and distribution of bottled water products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=joCtiX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Bryan Caforio, Esq. Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Esq. Max Straus, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com jcuevas@susmangodfrey.com mstraus@susmangodfrey.com - and - Alexander Schmidt, Esq. ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT, ESQ. Fairways Professional Plaza 5 Professional Circle, Suite 204 Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Telephone: (732) 226-0004 E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law - and - Steven Williams, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 250 W 55th Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 S. Main St., Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com NEVADA HEART: Response to Nguyen's Class Complaint Due on Aug. 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled GIA NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEVADA HEART & VASCULAR CENTER, LLP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01134-GMN-EJY (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada signed the Parties' stipulation extending NHVC's deadline to file a response to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint to Aug. 25, 2025. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 AND 6-2, Plaintiff Gia Nguyen and Defendant Nevada Heart & Vascular Center, LLP ("NHVC"), stipulate and agree to extend NHVC's response date to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint up to and including Aug. 25, 2025. The Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Class Action Complaint on June 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against NHVC. On July 3, 2025, a representative of NHVC was personally served with the Complaint. Accordingly, NHVC's current response date was July 24, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2)(C). According to the Stipulation, this is the first stipulation for extension of NHVC's time to file a response to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. The matter is one of four currently known related putative class actions recently filed in this Court against NHVC, all arising out of a data incident suffered by Defendant Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC. Those actions are (1) Laurana Smith v. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC, et al. (2:25-cv-01123); (2) Gia Nguyen v. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC, et al. (2:25-cv-01134); (3) Rick Obringer v. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC, et al. (2:25-cv-01142); and (4) Lori Wallis v. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC, et al. (2:25-cv-01149). There are two additional related matters filed solely against Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC: Waudby v. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC (2:25-cv-1135) and Russo v. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC (2:25-cv-1145). Counsel for NHVC has conferred with counsel for the Plaintiff and understands that plaintiffs for these matters intend to seek consolidation. Accordingly, the Parties request this Stipulated Extension to allow time for the plaintiffs in these related actions to seek consolidation and file a consolidated class action complaint to which NHVC may then respond. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/25sfymjf from PacerMonitor.com. NATHAN R. RING -- nring@stranchlaw.com -- STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC, in Las Vegas, NV 89102; Jeff Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A., in Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, Attorneys for Plaintiff Gia Nguyen. JOSEPH P. GARIN -- jgarin@garinlawgroup.com -- GARIN LAW GROUP, in Las Vegas, NV 89144; Paulyne Gardner -- pgardner@mullen.law -- Bianca A. Valcarce -- bvalcarce@mullen.law -- MULLEN COUGHLIN, LLC, in Devon, PA 19333, Attorneys for Defendant Nevada Heart & Vascular Center, LLP. * * * The Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro directed the parties to appear for a hearing on Monday, August 18, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. PST regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate. Defendants Nevada Heart & Vascular Center, LLP and Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC have filed separate notices of non-opposition to the Motion. NEW YORK, NY: Gould Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gould, et al., v. The City of New York, Case No. 1:24-cv-01263 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order referring motion for class certification to Magistrate Judge Cho. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC] NEWMONT CORP: Continues to Defend Karas Class Suit in Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- Newmont Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Karas class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Karas v. Newmont Corp., et al. On January 31, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Newmont and Newmont’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The action was brought on behalf of an alleged class of Newmont stockholders who owned stock between February 22, 2024 and October 23, 2024 (the alleged class period). The Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs on May 6, 2025 who filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2025 adding Newmont Corporation's Chief Development Officer as a defendant and shortening the alleged class period to July 24, 2024 through October 23, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the alleged class period regarding the Company's operations, production, and costs in violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs further allege that the purported class members suffered losses and damages resulting from declines in the market value of Newmont's common stock after the Company announced its third quarter 2024 results and updated guidance on October 23, 2024. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Headquartered in Denver, CO, Newmont Corporation operates as a gold mining company and producer of copper, silver, zinc and lead. Its common stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "NEM." [BN] NYRSTAR US INC: Otero Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Otero, individually and for others similarly situated v. NYRSTAR US INC., NYRSTAR US MINING INC., and NYRSTAR TENNESSEE MINES - GORDONSVILLE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00072 (M.D. Tenn., July 29, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendants requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely their job duties, gather other fundamentally necessary tools and equipment, and attend required safety meetings, while on the Defendants' premises "off the clock," says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed Otero as one of its Hourly Employees. Nyrstar operates "two underground zinc mines; Gordonsville and Cumberland, and a processing plant located at the Gordonsville mine site" which employ approximately 325 employees."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com - and – 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 OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: 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. Occidental College, Case No. 2:25-mc-00070 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 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-mc-00316-JAV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Occidental College -- https://www.oxy.edu/ -- is a private liberal arts college in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 S. 4th Street, Ste. 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 621-6115 Fax: (314) 621-5934 Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com OCEAN PSYCHOLOGICAL: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KKW Trucking, Inc. The case is styled as Tricia Taylor, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Ocean Psychological Services Inc., Ocean Psychiatry, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0010157 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Ocean Psychological Services -- https://www.oceanpsychological.com/ -- is a private practice offering comprehensive assessments to children, adolescents, and adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com OKLAHOMA: District Court Dismisses Prisoner Suit v. Rankin ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma grants a motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled CHAD JEREMY ADAMS, Petitioner v. C. RANKIN, et al., Respondents, Case No. 5:24-cv-00838-HE (W.D. Okla.). Petitioner Chad Jeremy Adams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 habeas petition challenging the execution of his sentence. Respondent Warden William Chris Rankins moved to dismiss the petition and the Petitioner filed a response in opposition. The Petitioner also filed a motion to amend the petition to add claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Thereafter, United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the motion to dismiss and deny the motion to amend. The Petitioner has timely objected to the recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the matter. Having done so, the Court concurs with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge. As to the due process claim, neither the loss of telephone privileges nor the discretionary demotion in classification level implicate a protected liberty interest, Judge Heaton opines, citing Marshall v. Morton, 421 Fed. Appx. 832, 838 (10th Cir. 2011). In his objection, the Petitioner asserts that a protected liberty interest was implicated by the prison officials' alleged failure to follow policies, procedures, rules and regulations and failure to use proper forms. The Court disagrees. Because the Petitioner has not established a protected liberty interest implicated by the alleged conduct, the Court concludes that his due process claims fail and he is not entitled to habeas relief. The Respondent's motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted. As to the motion to amend, the Petitioner represents he is willing to pay the $405 filing fee required for a Section 1983 action. However, Judge Heaton notes that he has not proffered a sufficient basis for the Court to reject the stated reasons of the Magistrate Judge for denying leave to amend. The Court agrees with those reasons, including the fundamental shift in the basis for the case, the effort to turn the case into a class action, and other considerations impacting futility. The motion to amend is, therefore, denied. Judge Heaton says a certificate of appealability is required for state prisoners to appeal the dismissal of a Section 2241 habeas petition. The Court declines to issue one. Judge Heaton opines that the Petitioner cannot show that "reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should [be] resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented [are] adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further," citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. The motion to dismiss is granted and the motion to amend is denied. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is dismissed. A certificate of appealability is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/53e6vz2e from PacerMonitor.com. OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Defendant Must Face Arbitration Waiver Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Thelma Roper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oliphant Financial, LLC; Stillman P.C., d/b/a Stillman Law Office, Defendants-Appellants, No. 24-1933 (4th Cir.), Circuit Judges Harvey Wilkinson and David Benjamin, and Senior Circuit Judge William Traxler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Defendant Oliphant Financial, LLC, and Stillman P.C. d/b/a The Stillman Law Office, appealed the district court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration of the underlying suit. Plaintiff Thelma Roper sued Defendants in a purported class action complaint in the district court for violation of federal and Maryland consumer protection laws for filing collection suits in state court beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations. Roper had taken out a personal loan from Oliphant's predecessor-in-interest and defaulted on the loan; Oliphant sued Roper in state court to collect on the debt, but the state court dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants sought to compel arbitration of the action based on the arbitration provision in the loan agreement and the district court denied the motion, finding that Defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by filing the collection action. The Fourth Circuit applied a two-part test, "[] determine whether a party has waived the right to compel arbitration, a court must determine whether the party seeking to compel (1) Knew the right to compel existed, and (2) Acted inconsistently with the intention of enforcing the right to compel arbitration." Under Maryland law, a party acts inconsistently with the intent to compel arbitration when it litigates a case concerning the same claims as those it wishes to arbitrate. Defendants argued that the district court erred in denying their motion to compel arbitration because some of Roper's claims concern Oliphant's actions prior to institution of the collection suit and therefore would exist regardless of that litigation. The Fourth Circuit disagreed with this argument. The Fourth Circuit determined that Oliphant waived its right to compel arbitration of claims challenging its debt collection practices by filing collection actions in state court. The Fourth Circuit noted that while claims based on actions predating a collection suit would exist regardless of whether that suit was filed, Plaintiff asserted no such claims. Upon reviewing the complaint, the Fourth Circuit found that the complaint alleges that Oliphant sent letters to debtors within the statute of limitations demanding payment of the loans in full, but then waited more than three years - beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations - to sue. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the illegal actions complained of, therefore, do not constitute actions taken prior to the suit, but the filing of the suit beyond the statute of limitations. The Fourth Circuit further noted that while the complaint alleged in a general background section that Oliphant convinced some debtors to pay debts that were outside of the statute of limitations, the class action claims are not based on those actions, but rather include only debtors who Defendants sued outside of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration because they waived the right to do so. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order and dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before Circuit Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. A copy of the Fourth Circuit's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dglRsz OMNI HOTELS: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Beaver Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Omnibus Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned as DEAN BEAVER and LAURIE BEAVER, Plaintiffs v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; LC BROKERAGE CORP., a Delaware Corporation; LC INVESTMENT 2010, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; WILLIAM IMS, an individual; KELLY GINSBERG, an individual; BRETT ALEXANDER COMBS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00191-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.). The lawsuit is a class action concerning the rental of privately-owned condominiums ("villas") at Omni La Costa Resort & Spa, a world-renowned resort in Carlsbad, California, pursuant to a Rental Management Agreement ("RMA"). The certified Class is as follows: "All villa owners who participated in the RMA with LC Brokerage beginning four years before this action was filed to the present, excluding the defendants/counterclaimants in LC Investment 2010 v. La Costa Investments, San Diego Sup. Court. Case No. 37-2016-3113, or any officers, directors, employees, affiliates and immediate family members of the Defendants." Pending before the Court are four motions: (1) a motion for summary judgment filed by Omni Hotels Management Corporation ("Omni"), LC Brokerage Corp. ("LC Brokerage"), LC Investment 2010, LLC, William Ims, and Brett Alexander Combs (collectively, "Defendants"); (2) a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Dean Beaver and Laurie Beaver; (3) a motion to exclude the expert opinions of Defendants' experts David Lasater and Robert Griswold; and (4) a motion to exclude the expert testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert Jason Bass. For the reasons in this Order, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies as moot the remaining motions. The Omni La Costa Resort and Spa ("the Resort") boasts over 400 acres of luscious grounds in a semi-tropical California paradise. It has two championship golf courses and a top-flight wellness spa. For lodging, the Resort has about 600 rooms. Of these rooms, 137 are villas owned by private individuals. The remainder are hotel rooms owned by Omni. Nearly all villa owners rent their villas to the Resort's guests under a Rental Management Agreement ("RMA") with LC Brokerage. Among others, the RMA contains a provision stating: "The Agent shall set rental rates at which Agent will offer the Property for rental which will in Agent's sole business judgment, maximize the rental receipts for the Property." LC Brokerage delegated its responsibility to rent and manage the villas to its affiliate, Omni. Omni also rents and manages the other rooms at the Resort. Under the RMA, Omni receives 50% of villa revenues. Omni receives 100% of its hotel room revenues. Plaintiffs Dean and Laurie Beaver are husband and wife, who jointly own a villa at the Resort rented to guests under the RMA. According to Dean Beaver, he was happy with the returns on his villa for the first two years and became dissatisfied with diminishing returns over time. The Plaintiffs filed the instant action on Jan. 29, 2020. The core of their claims concerns Omni's alleged years-long scheme to self-deal through its management of the villas under the RMA. According to the Plaintiffs, although LC Brokerage is charged with operating the rental program, it has abdicated its responsibilities to Omni, which has abused its power under the RMA to intentionally steer guests into its hotel rooms rather than the villas--causing the Class Members to lose millions of dollars in revenue. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint. After the Court's orders on motions to dismiss, the following claims remain: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") under the "unfair" prong; (5) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); (6) conspiracy to violate RICO; and (7) unjust enrichment. Upon certification of the Class and completion of discovery several years later, the parties filed the instant motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude experts. Judge Battaglia says there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs' remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, RICO, and RICO conspiracy, all stem from allegations that the Defendants failed to meet their obligations under the RMA. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that summary judgment is required for each of the Plaintiffs' causes of action because their theories of liability are premised on incorrect interpretations of the RMA. The Court agrees. Judge Battaglia opines that the clear and unambiguous text of the RMA permits LC Brokerage to delegate its rights and duties under the contract to Omni, which include the authority to administer the rental program, set villa rates based on its business judgment, use the villas for overflow, and pursuant to express disclosures in the RMA, does not require Omni to prioritize the villas over hotel rooms. Because all of the conduct that the Plaintiffs challenge is clearly contemplated by, and disclosed in, the contract, the Court finds no genuine issue of dispute as to whether the Defendants breached their duties. Thus, the Defendants merit summary judgment in their favor on all of the Plaintiffs' claims. There being insufficient evidence of breach, the Court grants summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. And because the Plaintiffs' claims for RICO and RICO conspiracy are premised on this alleged breach, the Court grants summary judgment on these claims, as well. The Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty against LC Brokerage and Omni similarly fail, Judge Battaglia holds. Based on the foregoing, Judge Battaglia finds the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claim is foreclosed by the RMA's clear and unambiguous terms. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim. There being no breach of fiduciary duty, the Court grants summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty against William Ims and Brett Alexander Combs. Lastly, because the Court grants summary judgment in the Defendants' favor on all of the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court denies as moot the remaining motions--namely, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and the parties' motions to exclude experts. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies as moot all other pending motions. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in the Defendants' favor on all of the Plaintiffs' claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; (4) violation of UCL "unfair" prong; (5) RICO violation; (6) conspiracy to violate RICO; and (7) unjust enrichment. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, and close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Omnibus Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/229t2kva from PacerMonitor.com. * * * Following the Summary Judgment ruling, the Court has set various deadlines in the case. Specifically, the Court set a Briefing Schedule on the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Responses to the Motion are due by Aug. 18. Replies are due by Aug. 25. Sur-replies will not be accepted. The Motion Hearing is set for Oct. 30 at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. ON TIME CAPITAL: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against On Time Capital LLC. The case is styled as William Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. On Time Capital LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00928-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal., July 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. On Time Capital LLC -- http://ontimecap.com/-- offer a wide range of funding options and loans with no hidden fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com OPENAI INC: Court Issues Deposition Protocol in Authors Guild Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Deposition Protocol Order governing the conduct of depositions of fact witnesses in the lawsuit titled Authors Guild, et al. v. OpenAI Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). Consolidated Lead case: 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Ona says counsel and all parties currently in or added to the multi-district litigation (the "MDL") will comply with this Order, and to the extent consistent with this Order, with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unless specifically modified here, nothing in this Order will be construed to abrogate the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. The Class Plaintiffs are entitled to 105 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025, and exclusive of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Books1 and Books2 addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have 100 hours of deposition time with Microsoft ("MSFT") witnesses, exclusive of the time spent on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding particular datasets addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "Class Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03223), Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03416), Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−04625), Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-08292), Alter v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-10211), which have been consolidated in the superseding operative complaint titled Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (No. 25-md-3143). The News Plaintiffs are entitled to 130 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025. The News Plaintiffs will have 112 hours of deposition time with Microsoft witnesses. They will have a maximum of 64 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "News Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1: 23-cv-11195); Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1:24-cv-3285); The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv 01515); The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-04872); Ziff Davis, Inc., v. OpenAI Inc. (25-cv-0501) (D. Del.). The Defendants are entitled to 110 hours of deposition time with named Class Plaintiffs. The Defendants are entitled to the following deposition time with each News Plaintiff: 1) 112 hours with New York Times ("NYT") witnesses; 2) 100 hours with New York Daily News ("NYDN") witnesses; 3) 70 hours with each of CIR witnesses, Intercept witness, and Ziff Davis witnesses; and 4) presumptively, 70 hours with any additional News Plaintiff group that joins the MDL. The Defendants will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the Class cases and 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the News cases. The Order also provides, among other things, that all Parties agree to negotiate a deposition scheduling protocol to ensure compliance with the Federal Rules and so all parties receive proper notice of any upcoming deposition. All Parties reserve the right to move the Court for additional deposition time beyond these limits for good cause shown. All objections are reserved, including objections that depositions may be unnecessary, irrelevant, or duplicative. Standard rules and procedures for apex witnesses will govern and be individually addressed, including whether the witness qualifies as an apex witness. A full-text copy of the Court's Deposition Protocol Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ew6v85u from PacerMonitor.com. PACIFIC REGENT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Andrews Due March 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREWS REVOCABLE TRUST; LINDA ANDREWS, a Washington resident; KRISTEN ANDREWS, a resident of British Columbia; SUSAN ANDREWS, a resident of British Columbia, v. 919 109TH AVENUE OWNER, LLC, a foreign limited liability company d/b/a PACIFIC REGENT BELLEVUE SENIOR LIVING; COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC., a foreign corporation; FOUNTAINS BELLEVUE SL, LLC, a foreign company; WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC, a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01672-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting the Parties' stipulated motion to continue case schedule deadlines. The case schedule deadlines shall be continued six (6) months so that the new deadlines are as follows: Class certification of discovery cut-off: Jan. 5, 2026 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification: March 9, 2026 Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: March 23, 2026 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class: March 30, 2026 On Dec. 19, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling Order regarding class certification. Pacific is a senior living community in Bellevue, Washington offering independent living and assisted living. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mBv1aa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq. Joseph B. Jordan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., P.S. 1325 4th Ave Ste 600 Seattle WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 443-9722 The Defendants are represented by: Abraham K. Lorber, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 735 Market Street, 51 FL Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - John A Follis, Esq. ANDERSON HUNTER LAW FIRM P.S. 2707 Colby Ave., Ste. 1001 Everett, WA 98201 PACKAGING CORPORATION: Artuso Pastry Sues Over Fix Prices --------------------------------------------------------- Artuso Pastry Foods Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, SMURFIT WESTROCK PLC, SMURFIT KAPPA NORTH AMERICA LLC, WESTROCK CP, LLC, GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC, CASCADES INC., CASCADES USA INC., CASCADES HOLDING US, INC., PRATT INDUSTRIES, INC., GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND GREIF INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08856 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2025), is brought arising from a per se unlawful conspiracy among the Defendants to fix, raise, and maintain supracompetitive prices for containerboard sheets, linerboard sheets, and finished packaging products made from containerboard and/or linerboard (collectively, "Containerboard Products") in the United States, in violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to raise prices of Containerboard Products between November 1, 2020 and the Present (the "Class Period") through at least seven rounds of parallel price increases on containerboard and linerboard that raised prices of Containerboard Products by more than 30% during the Class Period. Defendants adopted a "value over volume" strategy that raised prices of Containerboard Products while reducing output. Defendants' conspiracy was facilitated by a consolidated market structure, vertical integration and ample opportunities to collude. The Defendants' conspiracy resulted in higher prices of Containerboard Products than would have existed in a competitive market, resulting in substantial profits to Defendants at the expense of purchasers of Containerboard Products. During the Class Period, Defendants engaged in numerous unprecedented and unjustified price increases, often implemented at the exact same time and for the exact same increase. The Defendants' conspiracy has unreasonably restrained trade in violation of Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. As a direct result of Defendants' conspiracy, Plaintiff and the Class have each paid artificially high prices for Containerboard Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Containerboard Products directly from Defendant. The Defendants is a leading manufacturers of Containerboard Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary D. McCallister, Esq. MCCALLISTER LAW GROUP, LLC 777 North Michigan Avenue #3502 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: 312-345-0611 Fax: 312-345-0612 Email: gdm@mccallisterlawgroup.com - and - Eric I. Unrein, Esq. CAVANAUGH, BIGGS & LEMON, PA 3200 SW Huntoon Street Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: 785-440-4000 Fax: 785-440-3900 Email: eunrein@cavlem.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Margaret MacLean, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. Katherine Boyd, Esq. Xin Huang, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com mmaclean@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com kboyd@lowey.com xhuang@lowey.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 369-8244 Email: cburke@burke.law klv@burke.law PACS GROUP: Menephee-Howard Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michelle Menephee-Howard, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. PACS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG02039 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00618. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges ten claims against PACS: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; (Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code and Violation of California Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Grace Y. Horoupian, Esq. Kristina Noel Buan, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 Email: ghoroupian@fisherphillips.com kbuan@fisherphillips.com PATROL SOLUTIONS: Sperber Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrol Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mandy Sperber, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Patrol Solutions, LLC, Patrol Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25CV130609 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Patrol Solutions, LLC -- https://www.patrolsolutions.com/ -- provide both unarmed and armed security guard services for a wide variety of clients in both the public and private sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com PREFERRED ELECTRIC: Graybar Electric Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Preferred Electric Services of WNY, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Graybar Electric Company, Inc. on its own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated pursuant to Article 3-A of the Lien Law v. Preferred Electric Services of WNY, Inc., et al., Case No. 812964/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie Cty., July 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Commercial - Contract." Preferred Electrical Services -- https://preferredelectricalservicesofwnyinc.com/ -- provides unparalleled service to all of Western New York.[BN] PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Ruiz Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE USA, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00805 (E.D. Tex., July 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and approximately 65,452 Class Members' sensitive and personally identifying information, which, as a result, was targeted, accessed, and stolen from Defendant's care by a notorious cybergang in a foreseeable, preventable, data breach. Due to Defendant's deficient data security, in January 2025 the Medusa ransomware hacked into Defendant's network systems and stole at least 300 gigabytes of files that contained Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII, including their full names in combination with Social Security numbers, benefit information, payroll information, email addresses, and photocopied passports and driver's licenses addresses, among other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek compensatory damages, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of Private Information in Defendant's possession; and (c) provide, at Defendant's own expense, all impacted Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant who, in order to apply for employment and/or work for Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd. provides commercial cleaning and janitorial services to a diverse range of corporate clients across the U.S.[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 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Hura Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Daeshia Hura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE USA, LTD., Case No. 4:25-cv-00816-JDK (E.D. Tex., July 29, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and approximately 65,452 Class Members' sensitive and personally identifying information ("PII"), which, as a result, was targeted, accessed, and stolen from Defendant's care by a notorious cybergang in a foreseeable, preventable, data breach. Due to Defendant's deficient data security, in January 2025 the 'Medusa' hacked into Defendant's network systems and stole at least 300 gigabytes of files that contained Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII, including their full names in combination with Social Security numbers, benefit information, payroll information, email addresses, and photocopied passports and driver's licenses addresses, among other sensitive data (collectively "Private Information"), causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). Employers like Defendant that collect, use, and benefit from employees' 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. This duty arises under contract, statutory and common law, industry standards, representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, and because it is foreseeable that the exposure of Private Information to unauthorized persons—and especially hackers with nefarious intentions--will harm the affected individuals, including but not limited to by invasion of their private health and financial matters. 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 cyberattacks, which failures caused and allowed criminal hackers to target, access, and steal Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information from Defendant's care, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. The Defendant provides commercial cleaning and janitorial services to a diverse range of corporate clients across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (868) 252-0878 Email: jnelson@milberg.com PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Moran Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Steven Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE USA, LTD., Case No. 4:25-cv-00806 (E.D. Tex., July 27, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a provider of commercial janitorial and facility services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna Loginov. Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Phone: 954.799.5914 Email: rachel@dapeer.com PUFFY LLC: Webb Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------ Cassandra Webb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PUFFY LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06970 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2025), is brought under the California's False Advertising Law, the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Federal Trade Commission's regulations as a result of the Defendants unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices. On its website, Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts--for example, "$1,350 IN SAVINGS"--from those listed regular prices. The Defendant uses countdown clocks to convey that its sales are limited time and on the verge of ending. The countdown clocks represent that the sale will end in a matter of hours. Far from being time-limited, however, steep sitewide discounts on Defendant's Products are always available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, or the prevailing market value of Defendant's Products, because Defendant's Products are always available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited time--quite the opposite, they are always available. The Defendant advertised that sales were going on, and Defendant represented that the Products the Plaintiff purchased were being offered at a steep discount from the purported regular prices that Defendant advertised. And based on Defendant's representations, the Plaintiff believed that she was purchasing Products whose regular price and market value were the purported list prices that Defendant advertised, that she was receiving substantial discounts, and that the opportunity to get those discounts was time-limited. These reasonable beliefs are what caused the Plaintiff to buy from Defendant when she did. The representations the Plaintiff relied on, however, were not true. The purported regular price was not the true regular price that Defendant sells the Product for, the purported discount was not the true discount, and the discount was ongoing-- not time-limited. Had Defendant been truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the "Puffy Lux Mattress – Hybrid / King" from Defendant's website, www.puffy.com. Puffy LLC sells and markets mattresses and bedding products online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: +1 (310) 656-7069 Email: simon@dovel.com vivek@dovel.com RAJEEV MAINI: Rodriguez Sues Over Misappropriation of Tips ---------------------------------------------------------- Hector Rodriguez and William Orgera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAJEEV MAINI, REKHA MAINI, THE METROPOLITAN CATERERS USA LLC d/b/a THE METROPOLITAN CATERERS and THE METROPOLITAN OF GLEN COVE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04205 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2025), is brought for wage theft and misappropriation of tips, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"). The Plaintiffs were supposed to receive approximately $150 plus tips for each event worked. Instead, they received their base wage but not their rightfully earned tips, which Defendants pocketed for themselves. The Plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and liquidated damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys' costs and fees. The Defendants intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly followed a pattern, practice, and/or policy of expropriating tips for themselves and refusing to disburse tips to their employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked and were employed by Defendants, individually and/or jointly, as event staff and bartenders. The Defendants own and operate a wedding venue and event space in Long Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 137 5th Avenue, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10010 Phone: 646.551.5694 RDB MANAGEMENT: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RDB Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kylah Johnson White, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. RDB Management LLC, Amada Senior Care 235 LLC, Case No. 25STCV22498 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." RDB Management -- https://www.rdbmanagement.com/ -- manages a selection of fine properties throughout Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Remington Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Remington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REFRESCO BEVERAGES US INC., a Georgia Corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-19588-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01425. The Plaintiff's Complaint includes a single claim for relief for Violation of Washington's Wage Transparency Law. The crux of the action is that Plaintiff alleges he applied for a job with Defendant a job posting that allegedly did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position in violation of Washington law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John S. Devlin, III, Esq. Erin M. Wilson, Esq. Priya B. Vivian, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-223-7000 Fax: 206-223-7107 Email: devlinj@ballardspahr.com wilsonem@ballardspahr.com vivanp@ballardspahr.com REILY FOODS: Tate Sues Over False and Misleading Packaging ---------------------------------------------------------- Lakema Tate, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. REILY FOODS COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 25STCV20401 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2025), is brought on behalf of California consumers of Defendant's Carroll Shelby's line of chili and seasonings products which includes Texas Chili, Chicken Chili, Taco Seasoning and Birria Taco Seasoning (collectively the "Products" or individually the "Product") who have purchased the Products with the Texas Representations on the front of the packaging which is false and misleading. The Defendant's marketing, labeling, and sale of the Products mislead reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are produced in Texas, by using the following phrase on the front label: "THE TEXAS ORIGINAL" (Texas Representations"). Consumers interpret the Texas Representations to mean that the Products are produced in Texas. Unfortunately for consumers, the Texas Representations are false and misleading because the Products are produced in Louisiana. By labeling the Products with the Texas Representations, Defendant creates consumer deception and confusion. A reasonable consumer purchases the Products believing that they are from Texas. However, a reasonable consumer would not deem the Products to be from Texas if they knew the Products were produced in Louisiana. The Defendant's misrepresentations about the Products were uniform and were communicated to Plaintiff, and every other member of the Class, at every point of purchase and consumption throughout the Class Period, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has purchased the Products. The Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling food products throughout the country, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com SEEK NOW: Violates FLSA, McPherson Suit Says -------------------------------------------- ROBERT W. MCPHERSON on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEEK NOW INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00464-RGJ (W.D. Ky., July 25, 2025) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Named Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs one-and one half times their respective regular rates for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and as such, Defendant has violated the FLSA. Named Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Named Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs by subjecting them to deductions, charges, and/or expenses that are typically borne by employers and are for the employer's benefit. Plaintiff McPherson has worked for the Defendant as a home inspector from approximately May 2020 to the present. Seek Now, Inc. is an insurance inspection platform and real estate services provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com SHOE CARNIVAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shoe Carnival, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03047-JWB-DTS (D. Minn., July 29, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.shoecarnival.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 (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers shoes and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, sneakers, boots, sandals, wedges and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SIMULATIONS PLUS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: New York, N.Y., August 9, 2025. Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Simulations Plus, Inc. (NASDAQ:SLP) resulting from allegations that Simulations Plus may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Simulations Plus 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=42476or 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 July 15, 2025, during market hours, Benzinga published an article entitled "Simulations Plus Sees Weaker Demand Persist, Outlook Softens." The article stated that Simulations Plus shares had declined "following the release of [Simulations Plus'] third-quarter 2025 earnings report." The article stated that Simulations Plus had reported sales of $20.4 million, representing a 10% year-over-year increase, but this fell short of the consensus estimate of $20.9 million." Further, "[t]his miss followed preliminary third-quarter sales figures released in June, which were already lower than expectations at $19 million to $20 million, compared to a consensus of $22.78 million." On this news, Simulations Plus' stock fell 25.75% on July 15, 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 [GN] SISTERS OF CHARITY: Jones Suit Removed to D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fletcher Jones, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. SISTERS OF CHARITY LEAVENWORTH HEALTH, Case No. 2025CV30029 was removed from the District Court, Broomfield County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02301. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts claims under the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CWMA"), Colorado's Civil Theft Statute, and the Denver Civil Wage Theft Ordinance for failure to pay wages due, including overtime (specifically that Defendant failed to include holiday premium pay in the regular rate for overtime), failure to provide meal and rest breaks in accordance with Colorado law, failure to pay minimum wage, and civil theft.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. STEWART, P.C. Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple, Suite 950 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801-658-6085 Email: jason.plowman@ogletree.com - and - Rebecca M. Lindell, Esq. 2000 South Colorado Boulevard Tower Three, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80222 Phone: 303.764.6800 Facsimile: 303.831.9246 Email: rebecca.lindell@ogletree.com SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Oregon Court Refuses to Dismiss Wilson TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled CHET WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKOPOS FINANCIAL, LLC d/b/a REPRISE FINANCIAL, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00376-MC (D. Or.). Plaintiff Chet Wilson brings this putative class action against Defendant Skopos Financial d/b/a Reprise Financial, alleging that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending solicitous text messages to phone numbers, like the Plaintiff's, on the national do-not-call registry ("DNC Registry"). The Plaintiff is a resident of Florence, Oregon. The Defendant is an auto-loan lender based in Texas. At least 30 days after the Plaintiff registered his phone number on the DNC Registry, that number received four text messages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 4, 2024, alleging that the Defendant violated the TCPA by sending those four text messages to a number on the DNC Registry. The Complaint further alleges that, as part of its business practice, the Defendant sends telemarketing solicitations via text message to consumers in hopes that they will apply for auto loans through the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks to bring a class action on that basis, claiming the unauthorized messages caused him and others harm, like aggravation, nuisance and invasion of privacy, wear and tear on their telephones, consumption of battery life, lost cellular minutes, and loss of value. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint, arguing the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief because: (1) the text messages at issue do not constitute "telephone solicitations" as defined by the TCPA and (2) Section 227(c) creates a cause of action for "telephone calls," not text messages. Judge McShane finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that the Plaintiff received "telephone solicitations." The Court, therefore, declines to dismiss the Complaint, finding that it plausibly alleges the Defendant initiated the text messages to a number listed on the DNC Registry for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. The Defendant raises a secondary argument in favor of dismissal. It contends that, because Section 227(c)(5) explicitly references "telephone calls" in its cause of action, it does not allow for plaintiffs to bring TCPA claims based on text messages sent in violation of the DNC Registry. Judge McShane holds that the Defendant is incorrect. Judge McShane points out that the cause of action provided in Section 227(c)(5) includes text messages. Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") decision to include text messages is congruent with Congress's overarching goals for the TCPA. Judge McShane opines that it t cannot be argued in good faith that text messages are so categorically different from phone calls that the former cannot be considered an invasion of consumer privacy when directed at numbers on the DNC Registry. On this point, Judge McShane points out that the Defendant is without support. The Court concludes that unsolicited text messages sent in violation of the DNC Registry can give rise to a cause of action under Section 227(c)(5). Hence, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/46ua3p5d from PacerMonitor.com. * * * Following the Court's ruling, Skopos Financial, LLC filed its answer to the Complaint, with Jury Demand. The Court has set a Rule 16 Conference for Aug. 27 at 10:00 a.m. in Eugene by telephone before Judge Michael J. McShane. SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Duffaydar Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonder Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Duffaydar securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 11, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit titled Duffaydar v. Sonder Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-2952 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Central District Court") naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. A lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed on December 23, 2024. The amended complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 16, 2023 and March 15, 2024, and alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's financial results and condition, including the Company's valuation of operating lease right of use assets, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 21, 2025 and the Central District Court took the defendant's motion to dismiss under submission. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible financial loss that could result from this matter. The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. Sonder Holdings Inc., provides short and long-term accommodations to travelers in various cities across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. It also operates boutique hotels. SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Porter Stockholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sonder Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Porter stockholder class suit in the the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On December 23, 2024, a putative stockholder of GMII filed a purported class action lawsuit titled Porter v. Metropoulos, et al., Case No. 2024-1336 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Gores Metropoulos Sponsor II, the directors and officers of GMII, and two of the Company's officers. The complaint purports to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in connection with the merger between GMII and Legacy Sonder and seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement. An amended complaint was filed on May 9, 2025, which dismissed one of the Company's officers. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2025. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible financial loss that could result from this matter. Sonder Holdings Inc., provides short and long-term accommodations to travelers in various cities across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. It also operates boutique hotels. SOUTH GEORGIA CENTER: Hodge Sues Over Recent Cyberattack -------------------------------------------------------- Doris Hodge, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SOUTH GEORGIA CENTER FOR CANCER CARE, LLC, and INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00852 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2025), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach occurred between December 13, 2024, and December 16, 2024, but was not discovered by Defendants until several months later. Following an internal investigation, Defendants learned the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, addresses, dates of birth, financial account details, and Social Security Numbers, as well as their protected health information "(PHI"), including diagnoses, lab results, medications, treatment information, health insurance and claims information, provider names and treatment dates. Plaintiff refers to both PII and PHI collectively as "Sensitive Information." The Defendants failed to promptly inform Class Members even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendants knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendants violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former patients and prospective patients, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient and Data Breach victim. ION, an oncology network that provides oncology practice management and advisory services to physicians, groups, hospitals, and investors throughout the country, lost control over its affiliated entity and client's patients' highly sensitive personal information, including SGCCC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a labor class suit in the Superior Court of California. On December 27, 2019, a former customer service agent at Oakland International Airport, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Santa Clara, against the Company alleging the following seven claims under the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly wages; (4) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (5) failure to timely pay all final wages; (6) unfair competition; and (7) civil penalties for the foregoing. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 15, 2021, that asserted the same causes of action and added a named plaintiff. The First Amended Complaint primarily seeks unpaid wages, interest thereon, and associated civil and statutory penalties, along with attorneys' fees and costs. On February 26, 2025, the Court granted class certification as to the first cause of action for failure to provide meal periods, denied certification on the second through fourth causes of action, and granted certification on the fifth and sixth causes of action only insofar as they are predicated on the first cause of action. The certified class consists of all of the Company's non-exempt ground employees in California who worked a shift in excess of five hours for the time period between October 24, 2014, forward. On April 17, 2025, the Company filed a summary judgment motion arguing that Plaintiffs' first cause of action, and all causes of action predicated thereon, failed as a matter of law. The motion was argued on July 9, 2025, and the Court has not yet issued a final order. Trial is currently set for August 11, 2025. The Company is currently not able to estimate a range of possible loss with regards to the litigation to which it is a defendant. Southwest Airlines Co. is a domestic airline that provides primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services. The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Retirement Savings Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a Retirement Savings Plan class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On January 28, 2025, two participants in the Company's retirement plans commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company, the Board, and certain of the Company's officers. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of participants and beneficiaries in the Southwest Airlines Co. Retirement Savings Plan, the Southwest Airlines Co. 401(k) Plan, and the Southwest Airlines Co. ProfitSharing Plan (collectively, the "Plan") who invested in the Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund from January 28, 2019 "through the date of judgment." The complaint asserts that defendants mismanaged Plan assets and failed to monitor the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things, failing to remove the Harbor Fund as an investment option. The complaint seeks various forms of declaratory and monetary relief as well as attorneys' fees, interest and other costs. The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Southwest Airlines Co. is a domestic airline that provides primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services. The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN] SPECTRUM BRANDS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06247 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.spectrumbrands.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., operates the Spectrum Brands online retail store, as well as the Spectrum Brands interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal SPRING ENERGY: Nock's TCPA Suit to be Transferred to Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Robert Nock, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC d/b/a Spring Power & Gas, RRH Energy Services, LLC and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, Defendants, v. Endurance Sales & Marketing, LLC, Third-Party Defendant, Civil Action No. 23-CV-1042 (LTS) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff's motion to transfer the case to the District of Maryland for consolidation with related putative class actions. Plaintiff Robert Nock, a Maryland resident, commenced the current action on February 8, 2023, claiming that Spring Energy RRH LLC made unsolicited phone calls offering its energy products and services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. and corresponding Maryland law. The complaint also names two Spring affiliates, RRH Energy Services, LLC and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC. Discovery revealed that the telemarketing calls were made by a Pakistani call center through a chain of third-party subcontractors. Spring contracted with Third-Party Defendant Endurance Sales & Marketing, LLC to provide door-to-door, residential-customer marketing services. Endurance subcontracted with Lonestar Marketing Group to locate sales agents, including Neil St. Louis, who then engaged the Pakistani Call Center. The parties dispute whether and to what extent Defendants knew or expected that Endurance would use subcontractors who procured telemarketing calls. The Endurance marketing campaign for Spring began on March 29, 2021, and ended on May 11, 2021. After more than two years of litigation, and with Defendants' summary judgment motion fully briefed and pending, Nock in May 2025 filed a motion to transfer the current case to the District of Maryland so that it can be consolidated with two other putative class actions – one filed by Nock a year ago, and the other filed recently by Nock's attorneys. Two Maryland Actions The two other putative class actions refer to: (A) On March 5, 2024, Nock filed a second putative TCPA class action against different set of defendants involved in a marketing campaign for a different energy company - Indra Energy. Both Neil St. Louis and the Pakistani Call Center were involved in the Indra campaign. Discovery is continuing, and Indra plans to file for summary judgment. (B) On April 7, 2025, Nock's attorneys filed another putative class action in the District of Maryland in the name of plaintiff Elias Savada against the Defendants in the current case (Spring, RRH, and Richmond), an additional affiliate of Defendants, individual Richmond shareholders, and the same Indra Defendants sued by Nock in his Maryland case (the "Savada" action). Although the Savada Action names both the Spring Defendants and the Indra Defendants, it asserts that the claims concern two different telemarketing campaigns for two different groups of Defendants because the Spring campaign ran from March 29 to May 11, 2021, while the Indra campaign ran from May 17 to June 9, 2021. Nock has argued that transfer and consolidation are warranted due to changed circumstances, principally including the filing of the two Maryland cases; the Spring Defendants' suggestion in their summary judgment motion that at trial they may try to attribute Spring-related calls to Indra; and deposition testimony of a former Spring officer raising the prospect that Spring will not be able to fund a judgment against it. As a result of those changes, Nock argued, Maryland is a more convenient forum that will provide the class with the best chance of recovery, and will avoid the prospect of inconsistent rulings. In opposition, the Spring Defendants argued that Nock's attorneys filed the Savada Action as a tactical gambit to forestall a ruling on Defendants' pending summary judgment motion and to obtain additional discovery to fend off summary judgment that Nock did not obtain. Defendants further argued that the Southern District of New York remains a more convenient forum and that they will be prejudiced by transfer and consolidation, particularly because the two Maryland actions and the instant action are at much different procedural postures. Plaintiff Nock seeks transfer long after he chose to file in the Southern District of New York. Even so, the New York District Court concludes that Nock has met his burden to demonstrate that the case should be transferred. Judge Lehrburger finds that while Nock has overstated the extent and import of changed circumstances, Defendants have validated Nock's empty-chair concern by not renouncing their "same-period" argument. Nock identified three developments as changed circumstances: (1) The filing of the two Maryland actions; (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment suggesting overlap between Spring and Indra campaigns; and (3) The prospect of Spring filing for bankruptcy. Nock made a strategic choice to file two separate actions against two different sets of defendants and waited almost a year before seeking transfer and consolidation. The New York District Court concludes that the interests of justice substantially weigh in favor of transfer. The Judge emphasizes that there is a strong policy favoring the litigation of related claims in the same tribunal in order that pretrial discovery can be conducted more efficiently, duplicitous litigation can be avoided, thereby saving time and expense for both parties and witnesses, and inconsistent results can be avoided. The overlap between the instant case, the Nock-Indra Action, and the Savada Action is self-evident. All three actions are putative class actions involving the same underlying facts and parties. Litigating the three actions separately is more expensive, time consuming, and resource intensive than if there were a single consolidated action in one venue. Maintaining separate overlapping class actions in two different districts undoubtedly will result in unnecessary duplication of efforts by the parties and the courts and presents the risk of inconsistent rulings. Judge Lehrburger says, "... there are multiple contingencies dependent on resolution of multiple motions – transfer, dismissal, consolidation of Nock-Indra with Savada, and consolidation of the [Spring] case with them. It is most sensible, and will be most just, for one court to consider the issues together. Having them considered by one court will be most efficient and will provide the best opportunity to eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings. The Maryland court is in the best position to do that, and the interests of justice substantially weigh in favor of transfer." A copy of Judge Lehrburger's judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XwIlHJ STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holtsclaw v. Stake Center Locating, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file for class certification for a further 30 days until September 2, 2025. The court notes that Plaintiff cites a discovery dispute as his primary reason for requesting an extension of time to file for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving minimum wage or overtime compensation. Stake is a provider of high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic network locating services. [CC] STAKE CENTER: Hourly Utility Locator Class Wins Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LOONSFOOT, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order certifying the following class: "All hourly Utility Locators who worked for SCL in Illinois who were subject to SCL's auto allowance policy, and/or per diem pay scheme at any time from Sep. 21, 2020, to Aug. 5, 2025." The Court appoints Plaintiff Michael Loonsfoot as class representative. The Court appoints the law firm of Josephson Dunlap, LLP and attorneys Richard M. Schreiber, Michael A. Josephson, and Andrew Dunlap, as well as the law firm of Bruckner Burch, PLLC and attorney Richard J. (Rex) Burch as class counsel. The Plaintiff claims SCL failed to pay employees for compensable "off-the-clock" work (work employees were allegedly required to complete during their meal breaks, as well as before clocking in and after clocking out). In addition, Plaintiff claims SCL paid its employees an allowance for "auto pay," but failed to include that amount in each employee's regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the appropriate amount of overtime pay. The Plaintiff claims that SCL's off-the-clock and auto pay policies violate the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") by depriving employees of overtime wages. Stake provides utility locating services to utility owners and operators across the country. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mL73X3 at no extra charge.[CC] SUGAR BEAR BROS: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Trippett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUGAR BEAR BROS., INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01200 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") 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. On June 19, 2025, and again on July 15, 2025, Plaintiff visited the Website intending to purchase an assortment of cakes and pastries to surprise his partner. Despite his efforts, Plaintiff could not complete a transaction due to the inaccessibility of the site. As a result, he was denied the opportunity to independently enjoy the same online services available to sighted customers. The Defendant's failure to make its Website accessible excludes blind and visually impaired users from participating in the digital marketplace and denies them equal access to goods and services. In doing so, Defendant violates Title III of the ADA, as well as state and local civil rights laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is visually impaired within the meaning of federal and state disability laws, with vision no better than 20/200 even with corrective lenses. The Defendant owns and operates a bakery known as Empire Cake, located in New York City, and sells a variety of cakes and pastries through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com T-MOBILE USA: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc. The case is styled as Aileen D. Ortiz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 25STCV22091 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com TARGET CORPORATION: Serrano Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Giovanni Serrano, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2502643 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01980-AH-MBK. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains 10 causes of action alleging: unpaid overtime pursuant to Labor Code Sections 510, 1198; unpaid meal period premiums pursuant to Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512(a); unpaid rest period premiums pursuant to Labor Code Section 226.7; unpaid minimum wages pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, 1197.1; final wages not timely paid pursuant to Labor Code Sections 201, 202; wages not timely paid during employment pursuant to Labor Code Section 204; non-compliant wage statements pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(a); failure to keep requisite payroll records pursuant to Labor Code Section 1174(d); unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2800, 2802; and violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Taylor Wemmer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 858.677.1400 Phone: 858.677.1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com taylor.wemmer@us.dlapiper.com - and - Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 3203 Hanover Street, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650.833.2000 Fax: 650.833.2001 Email: stephen.taeusch@us.dlapiper.com TEA DATING ADVICE: Doe II Sues Over Failure to Secure PII --------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe II, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEA DATING ADVICE INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06336 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2025), is brought arising out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. On July 25, 2025, Tea Dating announced that a data breach occurred on its network (the "Data Breach") when its app was breached, and an unauthorized third party was able to exfiltrate approximately 72,000 images, including 13,000 images of selfies or selfies featuring a photo identification that users submitted. Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive and personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). Incredibly, even after becoming aware of this initial Data Breach, on July 28, 2025, Defendant became aware of a second, more extensive Data Breach, that included users' real names, phone numbers, and extremely personal details. Hereinafter, both events are collectively referred to as the "Data Breach." As a result of this Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised, stolen and remains in the hands of those cybercriminals, and has been broadcast online, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to Defendant as a condition of and in exchange for obtaining services from Defendant. Tea Dating represents that it provides "dating safety tools that protect women" by performing "background checks, catfish image searches, sex offender searches, phone number lookup and criminal record searches."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com TEA DATING ADVICE: Doe Sues Over Catastrophic and Data Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06363 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2025), is brought arises from one of the most catastrophic and ironic data breaches in the digital age--a "safety" app designed to protect women exposed their most sensitive personal information to the darkest corners of the internet. On July 25, 2025, the unthinkable happened. 72,000 images--including Government-issued IDs--sat completely exposed on the internet, accessible to anyone with a web browser (the "Data Breach"). This was not an elaborate hack. Tea stored its most sensitive user data in a Google Firebase storage bucket configured for completely public access. Anyone who wanted could simply click and download the most sensitive personal information of women who trusted Tea with their safety. Unlike a typical breach, this Data Breach was discovered not by Tea's security team, nor even by ethical hackers, but by anonymous users on 4chan--the notorious imageboard known for harassment campaigns against women. Instead of protecting women like Jane Doe, Tea's shocking security failures handed their identities to the very predators they sought to avoid. The exposed data created a perfect kit for identity theft: high-resolution government IDs showing full names and addresses and selfies, many including EXIF location information, among other sensitive and private information. For women who used Tea to report dangerous men, the breach didn't just compromise their financial security--it potentially exposed them to physical danger from the very people they were warning others about – now with maps of Tea users floating around the darker corners of the web. There is also public online humiliation of the sexist, sexual, and violent kind, and the potential for deepfakes. Tea promised Jane Doe and millions of women anonymity. It promised to delete verification data. It promised safety. Tea broke every one of those promises. In an age where data breaches have become commonplace, this case is striking: an anonymity platform that exposed names, photos, and locations; a safety app that made its users less safe; a tool meant to allow women to protect themselves that instead handed their personal information to anyone passing by, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was required to provide, and did provide, her sensitive PII to Defendant Tea in order to use the Tea app. Tea -- "the first-ever dating safety platform for women" -- is an app that provides a suite of dating screening services to women, based on information about men obtained through crowdsourcing from the app's users and public records.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com TESLA INC: Autopilot & FSD Capability Suit Awaits Oral Argument --------------------------------------------------------------- Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the Autopilot and FSD Capability class suit awaits oral argument date in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's Autopilot and FSD Capability technologies and seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019, and February 17, 2023. An amended complaint was filed on September 5, 2023, naming only Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk as defendants. On November 6, 2023, Tesla moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 30, 2024, the Court granted Tesla's motion to dismiss without prejudice. On November 26, 2024, the court issued a final judgment in Tesla's favor, and on December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a date for oral argument. Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company. TESLA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ If you suffered a loss on your Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/tesla-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=160407&wire=1&utm_campaign=8 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Tesla, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between April 19, 2023 and June 22, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Tesla overstated the effectiveness of its autonomous driving technology; (ii) there was thus a significant risk that the Company's autonomous driving vehicles, including the Robotaxi, would operate dangerously and/or in violation of traffic laws; (iii) the foregoing increased the likelihood that Tesla would become subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny; (iv) accordingly, Tesla's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Tesla, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/tesla-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=160407&wire=1&utm_campaign=8 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] TESLA INSURANCE: Mishandles Total Loss Claims, Magana Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS MAGANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; TESLA INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; TESLA PROPERTY & CASUALTY, INC., a California corporation; TESLA GENERAL INSURANCE, INC., an Arizona corporation; STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a Texas corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV20622 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 11, 2025) alleges that Defendants have breached their statutory and contractual obligations under the California's Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations and California Insurance Code 790.03. The Plaintiff represents a class of policy holders who have been victimized and sustained damages as a result of the Tesla Defendants' misconduct. The Tesla Defendants' wrongful acts toward Plaintiff and the putative insured class run the gamut from significant delays in responding to communications about their claims and claim status, requesting duplicative or unnecessary documentation, dragging their feet in undertaking a meaningful investigation into the claims, dilatorily transferring claims between multiple adjusters, allowing without any justification multiple weeks and even months to pass without reaching a coverage determination, and delaying the issuance of settlement payments to their insureds even after they have received all the required documentation and the insureds' full cooperation in violation of the state law. The Tesla Defendants' wrongful and unreasonable delays and refusals to act have forced Plaintiff and the putative class members to wait months, or even years, without reliable transportation or the funds needed to obtain a replacement vehicle or to pay for necessary repairs. The Plaintiff alleges that the Tesla Defendants' systemic delays constitute a deliberate strategy to minimize claim payouts or, at a minimum, a failure to implement and maintain adequate claims-handling procedures which causes prolonged delays that deprive insureds of timely compensation. In this class action, the Plaintiff, for himself and for all other class members similarly situated, seek damages from the Tesla Defendants for their breaches of contract and bad faith conduct and to enjoin any further similar wrongful acts by the Tesla Defendants. The Plaintiff is an insured under an automobile policy underwritten and/or issued by the Tesla Defendants. Tesla Insurance Company offers basic insurance, comprehensive liability, and collision packages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maro Burunsuzyan, Esq. David Scott, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN A Professional Law Corporation 800 North Brand Boulevard, 8th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 507-5188 Facsimile: (818) 507-5199 E-mail: marob@marolaw.com davids@marolaw.com TEXAS ALCOHOL: Nelson Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Meranda Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEXAS ALCOHOL AND DRUG TESTING SERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-03495 (S.D. Tex., July 29, 2025), is brought arising out of a July 2024 cyberattack and data breach (the "Data Breach") resulting from TADTS's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its subjects' personal identifying information, including Private Information. In providing such services "to businesses, government agencies, and individuals across the country" TADTS collects a significant amount of data – including test subjects' personally identifiable information ("PII") such as names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license/government-issued identification, passport number, bank/financial information, credit/debit card information, biometric information, as well as health information including health insurance information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"). TADTS collects, uses, and derives a benefit from its subjects' extremely sensitive Private Information — and it assumes a significant duty to protect that information. The Data Breach compromised and exposed subjects' Private Information such as name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license/government-issued identification, passport number, bank/financial information, credit/debit card information, username and password, email and password, health insurance information, USCIS or alien registration number, and biometric information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided certain PII and PHI to Defendant. TADTS touts itself as "a nationally recognized leader in drug and alcohol testing, providing comprehensive solutions for businesses, government agencies, and individuals."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513-345-8291 Fax: 513-345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and – Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Steet, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 973-4855 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com THANG BOTANICALS: Faces Mazzeo Class Suit Over 7-OH Tablets ----------------------------------------------------------- JOE MAZZEO, individually on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THANG BOTANICALS, INC., and FTLS HOLDINGS LLC, collectively doing business as 7ΩHMZ, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:25-cv-04393 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2025) is a civil class action against the Defendants for their false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding their 7-Hydroxymitragynine ("7-OH") tablet products. 7-OH is an alkaloid (psychoactive chemical) found in the kratom plant (mitragyna speciosa). Kratom is both a plant and a drug. The plant originates from Southeast Asia where its leaves have long been ingested to produce stimulant and opiate-like effects. Use of kratom in the United States was practically non-existent until the last decade. Since then, Kratom has become a massively popular substance in the United States. This is because it is currently legal to consume, and because of the stimulant and opiate-like effects produced by its two major alkaloids: 7-OH and Mitragynine. However, what consumers do not know is that the opiate-like effects produced by Mitragynine and 7-OH are not the result of novel chemical interactions in the brain. Rather, these alkaloids are behaving, in part, exactly like opioids. That is, the Mitragynine and 7-OH found in the kratom plant activate the same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine, heroin, and other opiates. Consequently, kratom consumption has the same risks of addiction, dependency, and painful withdrawal symptoms, among various other negative side effects. But it gets worse. While both active alkaloids in kratom interact with the opioid receptors, 7-OH is substantially more potent than mitragynine, says the suit. Indeed, some studies have shown that 7-OH is potentially more potent than morphine in activating the mu-opioid receptor, which is the receptor associated most strongly with opioid addiction. In raw kratom though, 7-OH does not appear in great quantities, making up less than 0.05% of kratom powder by weight. For raw kratom powder consumers this means that normal doses of kratom powder do not contain enough 7-OH to produce the intense narcotic effects (and concomitantly strong withdrawals) characteristic of traditional opioids. This is not to say that kratom can be consumed with abandon—kratom is highly addictive and will induce opioid withdrawal symptoms if taken too frequently -- rather, this is to say that in comparison to raw kratom addiction, the withdrawal symptoms from pure 7-OH consumption would be substantially worse. 5. Defendants do not sell raw kratom. The Defendants' Tablets are pure 7- Hydroxymitragynine. 14mg of it to be precise. This makes Defendants' 7-OH Tablets substantially more addictive than even kratom, and the withdrawal symptoms significantly worse, the suit further alleges. Thang owns and operates the 7-OHMZ website, www.7ohmz.com, and also advertises, markets, distributes, and sells its 7-OHMZ Products in New York, and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, 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: ndeckant@bursor.com THREATCO SOUTH: Faces Henry Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Threatco South, LLC, d/b/a Survival Clothing & Footwear, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08900 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against Threatco South for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://survivalmiami.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 16, 2025, the Plaintiff visited Survivalmiami.com, and intended to buy a T-shirt. However, while browsing the site, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility issues that prevented her from completing the purchase. She asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Threatco South's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Threatco South, LLC operates the website that offers urban-style apparel, sneakers, denim, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TRAIL PLAZA: Isaacson Sues Over Discriminatory Barriers ------------------------------------------------------- Dena Isaacson, by and through her next friend, ITZHAK ISAACSON, and others similarly situated v. TRAIL PLAZA, LLC and BOTECO DO MANOLO DEERFIELD LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61520-RS (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA"), and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the Defendants' discriminatory architectural barriers. The Plaintiff has previously visited the Subject Premises and desires to return to take advantage of the goods, services, and facilities made available to the public. However, the continued existence of discriminatory architectural barriers and non-compliant policies deters her from doing so. Due to the physical accessibility issues outlined in this Complaint, Plaintiff has been denied equal access to the Subject Premises and prevented from fully enjoying the services and benefits provided there. These denials will persist until such barriers are properly addressed and removed. The Plaintiff has suffered actual injury by encountering physical accessibility barriers at the Subject Premises and continues to be harmed by Defendants' failure to remedy these ADA violations. The Plaintiff has been both directly and indirectly injured due to the continued existence of physical barriers and Defendants' refusal or neglect to bring the property into compliance with ADA requirements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff requires the use of both a walker and a wheelchair for mobility and requires assistance in daily living. BOTECO DO MANOLO is a Brazilian-style restaurant offering a diverse menu of South American-inspired dishes, including skewered meats, ceviche, empanadas, and traditional snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 844-702-8867 Email: WassenbergL@gmail.com TRIPLE CANOPY: Jackson Sues Over Unlawfully Failed to Pay Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Shyhira Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., CONSTELLIS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04268 (E.D. Pa., July 29, 2025), is brought contending that Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay her and other similarly situated individuals employed in the position of Security Officer or in positions with similar job duties ("Class Plaintiffs") overtime compensation owed pursuant to the requirements of and in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Philadelphia Wage Theft Ordinance ("PWTO"). Specifically, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs overtime compensation for compensable work that they were required to perform at their job site(s) at the beginning and end of their shifts including but not limited to time spent donning and doffing essential gear, time spent "arming up" and "downloading" weapons at the armory, and time spent proceeding between security gates, locker rooms, the armory, and the guard mount. Accordingly, Plaintiff contends that she and Class Plaintiffs are owed unpaid overtime compensation and wages which were denied to them as a result of Defendants' unlawful pay practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was employed in the position of Security Officer from August 2023 until July 2025. Triple Canopy, Inc. is a for-profit corporation, formed in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq. Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-273-1054 Fax: 215-525-0210 Email: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com UNITED STATES: Federal Judge Blocks Ban on Birthright Citizenship ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Lifke of South Carolina Daily Gazette reports that a federal judge in Maryland ordered a nationwide halt -- again -- to a Trump administration order that sought to deny citizenship to babies born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or green-card holder. The ruling dated August 7 by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman is the fourth to block President Donald Trump's executive order since June. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges around the country had exceeded their authority by issuing nationwide blocks to presidential orders. But the justices said lower courts could issue nationwide injunctions to class-action lawsuits on behalf of all newborns in the U.S. who might be affected. Boardman rejected a request to include parents in the class-action suit. But she identified a nationwide class of children born in the U.S. who "unquestionably would be citizens but for the Executive Order" -- an order the judge said is "almost certainly unconstitutional." She wrote that the plaintiffs -- eight undocumented mothers who are pregnant or gave birth in the U.S. -- "are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim because the Executive Order contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth amendment," which says that "all persons" born in the U.S. are citizens of the country and of the state in which they were born. While the immigrants would be harmed in the absence of an injunction, Boardman wrote, there would be little harm to the government by continuing to extend birthright citizenship while the lawsuit plays out. Boardman rejected the government's argument that she should limit her injunction to Maryland. "That relief must include every child in the United States who is subject to the Executive Order. After all, the Executive Order does not target only children born in Maryland; it seeks to deny citizenship to 'persons born in the United States,'" she wrote. A government attorney declined to comment on the order, and emails seeking comment from the White House were not immediately returned. But immigrant advocates welcomed Boardman's order. "This is a national issue that affects every single one of us in this country," said Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, which filed suit with the immigrant women. (The national immigrant advocacy organization originally stood for Central American Solidarity Association.) The Maryland suit was one of several around the country that were filed soon after Trump's order on "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which he issued on Jan. 20, his first day back in office. It claimed that birthright citizenship was never meant to be a universal right, and it said that anyone born after Feb.19 -- a month after the order was signed -- would be denied citizenship unless one parent was a citizen or permanent legal resident. The order was swiftly challenged. Three judges, including Boardman, issued nationwide injunctions to halt the order. When those were upheld on appeal, the government took the case to the Supreme Court, which said a national injunction could only be issued in a class-action suit with a legitimate nationwide class of plaintiffs. Within hours of that ruling, attorneys for CASA were back in court, filing paperwork to turn their case into a class-action suit, adding women from North and South Carolina, among other states as plaintiffs. Boardman's approval of a class-action suit, and a national preliminary injunction, comes almost a month after a U.S. District judge in New Hampshire did the same thing. Frimpong called Trump's order "just a part of the usual fear tactics to make people afraid of what they believe the federal government will do -- even though it will never happen because it is blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional." She said she anticipates that the Trump administration will again appeal the decision. She predicts the case will go through the ordinary course of litigation. "What we are looking forward to is, once and for all, putting the issue to bed and our courts making absolutely clear that the 14th Amendment is not up for debate, and it's not up for subjective interpretation," Frimpong said. "It is the law, and it is going to remain the law." [GN] UNITED STATES: James Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germaine James v. United States of America, Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1zWwnx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. VENTURE GLOBAL: Labaton Is Lead Counsel in Securities Fraud Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Venture Global, Inc. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-CV-4642 (JAV) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the unopposed motion of Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the selection of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as lead counsel and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as liaison counsel for the class. The action was originally commenced by FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund LLC against Venture Global, Inc. and certain of its officers, alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On February 17, 2025, a securities class action was filed, Bowes v. Venture Global, Inc., et al., seeking relief on behalf of all shareholders that purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to Venture's registration statement for an initial public offering held on January 24, 2025. "The Complaint alleged that investors bought Venture stock based on false or misleading information in Venture's registration statement and prospectus regarding Venture's ability to deliver liquefied natural gas faster and at a lower cost." The Court received seven motions to serve as lead plaintiff in the Bowes case. Before the Court could rule on those motions, Plaintiff Gerald Bowes filed a notice of voluntary discontinuance pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). On April 15, 2025, the FirstFire action was filed in Virginia. "The Complaint in FirstFire alleged that the registration statement and prospectus were false and misleading, in that they did not disclose production issues with respect to one of its pending projects, or that costs with respect to another project were internally projected to be substantially more than what was disclosed. Three motions to proceed as lead plaintiff were filed in FirstFire by Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, the Pompano Retirement System, and Kevin McVey and Todd Havill. The Pompano Retirement System subsequently withdrew its motion. McVey and Havill filed a notice of non-opposition to Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund's motion, concluding they did not have the largest financial interest. On June 2, 2025, the district court granted Defendants' motion to transfer venue of the FirstFire action to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act directs the Court to appoint the most adequate plaintiff to serve as lead plaintiff. The Court must adopt a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group that: (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to notice; (bb) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . The Court found that Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund met its burden of demonstrating that it is the most adequate party to serve as lead plaintiff and therefore grants its motion. Statutory notice was timely published in the Bowes case on February 17, 2025. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund filed its motion for appointment as lead plaintiff 60 days later, on April 18, 2025. Accordingly, it satisfied the first requirement to become the presumptive lead plaintiff. The Court also found that Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund is the movant asserting the largest financial interest. Courts apply a four-factor test considering: (1) Total shares purchased 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); (2) Net shares purchased (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); (3) 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) Approximate losses suffered. "Of these factors, courts have consistently held the fourth, the magnitude of the loss suffered, most significant." Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund purchased more than 2 million shares of Venture stock between January 24, 2025, and February 13, 2025, and did not sell any of those shares during the class period. The Fund has asserted losses of $17,512,283 on those stock transactions as of the day the Bowes action was filed and The Fund's asserted loss was $32,876,804 as of the date the FirstFire action was subsequently filed. McVey and Havill, the only other remaining movants, purchased only 6000 shares of Venture stock during the class period, and suffered a financial loss of $129,046." The second requirement for Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund to become presumptive lead plaintiff was therefore met. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund made a preliminary showing that it satisfies Rule 23 requirements. Like other members of the proposed class, IMRF claims that Defendants issued false and misleading statements that persuaded investors to participate in the IPO and purchase common stock, resulting in losses to its investors." Nothing suggests the Fund has any conflict of interest with the proposed class or is subject to unique defenses. The Fund certified it is willing to fulfill lead plaintiff duties and has retained experienced counsel. Given the lack of opposition, no proof was offered rebutting this presumption. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund selected Labaton as lead counsel and Cohen Milstein as liaison counsel. According to the Court, 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. and therefore the Court approved the selection of both firms as counsel. The Court established the following schedule: within 45 days, lead plaintiff will either amend the operative complaint or indicate they do not intend to amend. Defendants will file their anticipated motion to dismiss within 60 days of either filing of an amended complaint or notification that lead plaintiff does not intend to amend. Lead plaintiff shall submit any opposition to the motion to dismiss 60 days after the motion is filed. Reply briefs shall be due 30 days after the opposition brief is filed. A copy of the Court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aryEjN from PacerMonitor.com VETERANS SECURITY: Kofa Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ George Kofa, individually, and Carla Ransom, individually, On behalf of themselves And all others similarly situated, v. Veterans Security Services, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Dale Lee a/k/a Dale Marceaux, individually, Jason Alexander, individually, and Steve Allen Gibson, individually, Case No. 5:25-cv-00875-D (W.D. Okla., Aug. 6, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for mischaracterizing the Plaintiffs as "independent contractors," unpaid overtime compensation, compensation for benefits and related penalties and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and prospective members of the collective are individuals currently and formerly employed by the Defendants in the state of Oklahoma and elsewhere to work as Security Officers. The Security Officers were paid on hourly basis who worked more than hours in a work week, and who were denied the statutorily required overtime premium for all hours worked over 4o hours in a work week, asserts the suit. Veteran Security was founded in 2015. The company's line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald T. Shinn, Jr., Esq. HB LAW PARTNERS PLLC 4217 28th AVE NW, Suite 101 Norman, OK 73069 Telephone: (405) 561-2410 Facsimile: (405) 563-9085 E-mail: Ron@hblawpartners.com VIVID SEATS: Tracks Website Users Interaction, Janiga Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN JANIGA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, v. VIVID SEATS INC., a Delaware corporation; VIVID SEATS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:25-cv-02051 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 6, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of all California residents who have accessed the Website, www.vividseats.com. According to the complaint, when users visit the Website, the Defendant causes tracking technologies to be installed, executed, embedded, or injected in visitors' browsers. These include, but are not limited to, the following Google Ads/DoubleClick Tracker, Facebook Pixel Tracker, Twitter Tracker, Segment Tracker, and FullStory Session Replay Tracker. The third parties who operate the trackers use pieces of User Information collected via the Website for their own independent purposes tied to broader advertising ecosystems, profiling, and data monetization strategies that go beyond Defendant’s direct needs for their own financial gain, the lawsuit says. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded or a user performs a tracked action. When triggered, the pixel transmits data from the user's browser to a third-party server. This data typically includes page views, session duration, referrer URLs, IP address, browser and device details, and other interaction metadata, the suit asserts. The Defendants own and operate a website, www.vividseats.com.[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 WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Court Grants Final OK on DeCarlo Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joseph DeCarlo, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Watermark Retirement Communities, LLC, and Does 1-100, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-01659-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of the class action settlement. The Court finds the class action settlement as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The judgment establishes that each and every Releasing Party shall be permanently barred and enjoined from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting any Released Claim against any Released Party in any court or any forum upon the Effective Date. The Settlement Class encompasses all persons who resided at one of the Watermark California Communities at any time during the Settlement Class Period who contracted with and paid money to Watermark pursuant to a Residency Agreement, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration. The class specifically includes residents who either never agreed to arbitration provisions in writing or rescinded acceptance within the prescribed 30-day period. The settlement covers 18 Watermark California Communities including The Watermark at Almaden, Fountains at Sea Bluffs, Fountains at Carlotta, Watermark at San Ramon, Cottages of Carmel, Watermark at Napa Valley, Watermark at Westwood Village, Watermark by the Bay, Crown Cove, Raincross at Riverside, Whittier Place, Fremont Hills, Sagebrook Senior Living at San Francisco, Watermark Laguna Niguel, Sonrisa Senior Living, Hacienda Mission San Luis Ray, Watermark at Rosewood Gardens, Lakeside Park, and Watermark at Beverly Hills. The Settlement Class Period runs from March 6, 2019 through April 28, 2025, with specific variations for individual communities: 1. The Watermark at Almaden: February 1, 2023 forward 2. Sonrisa Senior Living: October 19, 2023 forward 3. Hacienda Mission San Luis Ray: September 1, 2023 forward 4. Watermark Laguna Niguel: September 15, 2023 forward 5. Fountains at Sea Bluffs: March 6, 2019 through March 31, 2023 6. Fountains at Carlotta: March 6, 2019 through April 30, 2023 7. Watermark at San Ramon: October 1, 2020 through April 14, 2024 8. Cottages of Carmel: March 6, 2019 through April 14, 2024 9. Watermark at Napa Valley: October 1, 2020 through April 14, 2024 10. Watermark at Westwood Village: April 1, 2021 through April 14, 2024 11. Watermark by the Bay: March 6, 2019 through June 30, 2024 12. Crown Cove: March 6, 2019 through June 30, 2024 13. Raincross at Riverside: March 6, 2019 through June 30, 2024 14. Whittier Place: March 6, 2019 through June 30, 2024 15. Fremont Hills: March 6, 2019 through September 4, 2024 16. Sagebrook Senior Living at San Francisco: April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2024 The Court finds that the proposed Settlement Class meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and is certified for settlement purposes only. The Named Plaintiff was approved "as an adequate and typical representative of the Settlement Class." Class Counsel approved for settlement administration includes Stebner Gertler & Guadagni, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP, and Marks, Balette, Giessel & Young, P.L.L.C. Judge Fischer orders that the approved Settlement Administrator (CPT Group) shall carry out settlement administration in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Stipulation. Judge Fischer approves Groceries for Seniors as the cy pres recipient for settlement funds not distributed to Settlement Class Members. Under the Settlement Stipulation, "settlement funds not paid to Settlement Class Members will be paid by cy pres to Groceries for Seniors." Within 60 days after all Settlement Awards and cy pres payments have been paid, Plaintiff is required to file a compliance report detailing amounts paid to class members and the cy pres recipient. A copy of Judge Fischer's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=viOTrt WHITESTONE HOME: Douglass Seeks Approval of Class Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a SAATVA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00460-DSC (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement. Saatva is an American privately held e-commerce company that specializes in luxury mattresses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pmDKyA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com WINDGATE RANCH: Engle Suit Removed to D. Nebraska ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Teri L. Engle, individually, and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, and Brian J. Engle, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. WINDGATE RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Nebraska nonprofit corporation, and VANDELAY INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company, Case No. CI25-162 was removed from the District Court for the State of Nebraska for the County of Douglas, to the United States District Court for District of Nebraska on July 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00479-BCB-JMD. The Plaintiffs allege nineteen separate causes of action, in addition to a claim for class certification, which include the following: fraudulent assumption of identity and capacity; fraudulent misrepresentation; breach of the duty of candor/duty to disclose material facts; breach of fiduciary duty; equitable recission/cancellation of instruments; slander of title; wrongful recordation; wrongful foreclose attempt; quiet title/declaratory relief; defamation; liable per se and slander per se; tortious interference with contractual and business expectancy; action for an accounting; unjust enrichment; violations of the Nebraska Deceptive Trade Practices Act; violation of Nebraska Consumer Protection Act; violation of federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; violation of Nebraska Collection Agency Act; and negligence.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael T. Gibbons, Esq. Michael J. Leahy, Esq. WOODKE & GIBBONS, PC, LLO 619 N. 90th Street Omaha NE 68114 Phone: (402) 391-6000 Fax: (402) 391-6200 Email: mgibbons@woglaw.com mleahy@woglaw.com XIAODI HOU: Court Grants $11.7MM Legal Fee Award in Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Norman Wilhoite and Judith Wilhoite, derivatively on behalf of TuSimple Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Xiaodi Hou, Mo Chen, Cheng Lu, Guowei "Charles" Chao, and Hydron, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 23cv2333 BEN (MSB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Approval of Service Awards. The Judge found that the amount of fees awarded is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under either the 'percentage-of-recovery' or lodestar methods. The Court noted that the Settlement has created a fund of $42,500,000 in cash that has been funded into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and TuSimple and its shareholders will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel. The Court determined that Plaintiffs Counsel have devoted more than 6,825.53 hours, with a lodestar value of $5,520,883.95, to achieve the Settlement. A fee of 27.5% of the Settlement Amount represents a multiplier of 2.12 to the aggregate lodestar. Accordingly, Judge Benitez grants the Fee and Expense Application in its entirety. Plaintiffs Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees of 27.5% of the $42,500,000 Settlement Amount ($11,687,500), plus expenses in the amount of $328,216.05, together with the interest earned on both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The Court also approves service awards, ordering that Plaintiffs Norman Wilhoite, Judith Wilhoite, Jason Nusbaum, and Richard A. Green are granted a Service Award in the amount of $7,500 each, for their time spent directly related to their representation of TuSimple in the Actions. A copy of Judge Benitez's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tTCedS ZURU LLC: Garcia Files Suit Over Slack-Fill Scam ------------------------------------------------ SILVIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZURU, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01908 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, to increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, the Defendant deceptively sells its products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are nowhere near full. The Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to its 12-fluid-ounce "Monday Moisture + Hyaluronic Acid Shampoo" product sold in opaque containers. The Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space, says the suit. The Defendant markets the Product in a systematically misleading manner by representing them as adequately filled when, in fact, they contain an unlawful amount of empty space or "slack-fill," the suit asserts. The Defendant's slack-fill scheme not only harms consumers, including Plaintiff, but it also harms its competitors who have implemented labeling changes designed to alert consumers to the true amount of product in each container, the suit alleges. Zuru LLC, doing business as Monday Haircare, manufactures and sells a popular line of haircare products throughout 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 ZYNEX INC: Continues to Defend Tuncel Securities Fraud Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zynex Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Tuncel securities fraud class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On March 20, 2025, a putative Zynex shareholder filed a securities fraud class action against the Company, its current CEO Thomas Sandgaard, and current CFO Daniel Moorhead, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Tuncel v. Zynex Inc. et al., No. 25-cv-913. The complaint alleges that Zynex and the individual defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, including an oversupply scheme, and that the Company had inflated its revenue as a result, violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, which prohibits making untrue statements of material fact in connection with the sale of a security. The complaint also alleges the Company concealed that its filing of false claims drew scrutiny from insurers, and that it was reasonable likely the Company would face adverse consequences, including removal from insurance networks and penalties from the federal government. The complaint seeks class certification and unspecified damages. The defendants are in the process of engaging counsel to represent them in this matter. Zynex is a medical device manufacturer that produces and markets electrotherapy devices for use in pain management and physical rehabilitation. The Company's products are small, battery powered electronic devices which deliver electric pulses via wires and electrode pads. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] ********* 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 ***