250820.mbx

250820.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 19, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 165 Headlines 1922 LP: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Remove Physical Barriers 21 MAIN NORTH: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action 27455 SDH: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Coker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Heward Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Masias Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: McClin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Pauda Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Weissman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 808 LEX RESTAURANT: Argudo Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages A.J.M. PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brammer Says ABM INDUSTRY: Bonilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACTELION PHARMACEUTICAL: TRACLEER Suit Trial Set for March 2026 ACTION FAMILY COUNSELING: McCabe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AIS INFOSOURCE LP: Petty Files Suit in S.D. Texas AKZO NOBEL COATINGS: Crosby Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Latronico Says ALTEYA INC: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Tossed AMERICAN AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Private Party Antitrust Suit AMERICAN CONSUMER CREDIT: Dinkel Files Suit in D. Massachusetts AMERICAN ECONOMY: Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal AMERICAN ECONOMY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response AMERICAN HOME SHIELD: Worthey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio AMN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gardner and Smith Say ANNIEGLASS INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website APPLE INC: Collins Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct APPLE INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Bodenburg iCloud Storage Suit ARCTIC GLACIER: Faces Brousseau Suit Over Unprotected Private Info ARTUSO PASTRY: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AT&T MOBILITY: Gonzalez Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Fla. ATHENA BITCOIN: Gnadinger Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J. ATHENA HEALTH: Discloses Health Info to Google, Class Suit Alleges ATI INC: Excludes Non-Discretionary Bonuses in Pay, Luna Suit Says AUTUMN HILLS OPERATING: Mardiros Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BAILLIE LUMBER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Clemons Says BAILLIE LUMBER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Roberts Suit Says BAILLIE LUMBER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Losee Says BECKER PROFESSIONAL: Garcia Files Suit in D. Massachusetts BEST IN TOWN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Artrip Alleges BIG FACE COFFEE: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BIRDSONG CORPORATION: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Virginia BITCOIN DEPOT: Faces Hall Suit Over Private Data Breach BLEIBURG RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says BOSTON INTERIORS: Faldonie Sues Over Inaccessible Website BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Revised to Dec. 5 BREMONT WATCH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says BRIDGEWATER CHOCOLATE: Faldonie Sues Over Inaccessible Website BRUCKNER TRUCK: Eggleston Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BSREP III COCONUT: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination CAG BEAUTY: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAJUN OPERATING: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Carfora Suit Transferred to S.D. New York CAPSTONE GREEN: Nov. 13 Settlement Hearing in “Spitzer” CATALYST BRANDS: Arcand Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Hitch Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CENTURY SNACKS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 16, 2026 CERES CLASSIC: Appeal from VRDO Class Certification Remains Pending CERES CLASSIC: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Camelot" Deal CERES CLASSIC: Deal in Interest Rate Swap Suit Awaits Final OK CERES CLASSIC: Deal in Oklahoma Firefighters' Suit Has Prelim OK CH ROBINSON: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Moreno Partly OK'd CHAZ DEAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says CHENEGA GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Status of Class Action CHIME FINANCIAL: White Files Suit in W.D. Washington CLARENCE CARTER: Court Dismisses Colbert from Bull Suit CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clement Says CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES: Ferry Sues Over Failure to Protect Data CLAWDADDY INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COINBASE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sullivan Says COLBY AUTO: Mattingly Suit Removed to D. Arizona COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McQueen Says COMEDY PARTNERS: Gets Final Court OK of Zimmerman/Kaplan Suit Deal CORE TRAINING: Calcon Sues Over Disclosure of Confidential Info CORSO COMMERCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Barz Due Nov. 7, 2025 CRACKER BARREL: Faces Fritsch Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations CULTUREFLY LLC: Zuno Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert. Bid in Conriquez Suit Due Oct. 15 CUSTOM CABLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shipley Alleges DAVITA INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jones Says DELTA AIR: Goodyear Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes DIGICERT INC: Conohan Sues Over Unlawful Installation of Software DISH DBS: Appeal from Dismissal of Lingam Suit Remains Pending DISH DBS: Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit Remains Pending DR MANAGEMENT: Moriceau Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA DRESS FOR LESS: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ECG GARDEN: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wage, Rattenni Alleges ERIC WEINSTEIN: Wills Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Justus Suit Transferred to D. Colorado F&A PIZZA INC: Nunez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination FANATICS INC: Goldberger & Honnold Sue Over Anticompetitive Scheme FAVORITE WORLD: $4.7MM Class Settlement in Minor Gets Initial Nod FINWISE BANK: Coucil Files Suit in D. Utah FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Court Okays Distribution of Net Settlement Fund FREE FLOW: Angel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages FROOOGAL LIMITED: Faces Hernandez Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GEICO: Plaintiff Seeks Voluntary Dismissal of Claims w/o Prejudice GEORGIA: Transgender Seeks Continued Access to Medical Care GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION: Valentine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOOGLE LLC: Bid for Omnibus Sealing Stipulation Granted in Calhoun GOOGLE LLC: Files Renewed Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Bid to Exclude UnProduced Exhibits Partly OK'd HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS: Blubaugh Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania HEALTHPRO BRANDS: Roberts Suit Removed to C.D. California HOME DEPOT: Carranza Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. HOME DEPOT: Carranza Suit Removed to E.D. California HOME DEPOT: Jankowski Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection HOME SERVICE CLUB: Fulbright Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ILLINOIS: Kainz Suit Seek Class Certification INFINITE SERVICES: Balneg Files Suit in E.D. New York INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 8, 2026 J.M. PACKAGING: Riley Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA JOHN AGUILAR & COMPANY: Villatoro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JVS SOCAL: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KAISER FOUNDATION: Stebakov Suit Removed to N.D. California KELSIER VENTURES: Seeks to Vacate TRO in Hurlock Class Suit KEN YOUNGERMANN: McCauley Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers KEURIG DR PEPPER: Aguilar Suit Removed to C.D. California KEURIG PEPPER: Beverages Contain Synthetic Citric Acid, Suit Says KIMCO OF TAMPA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property LANGERS JUICE: Georgopoulos Files Suit in N.D. California LAST SECOND MEDIA: Tirado Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana LESLIES POOLMART: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response LINEAGE INC: City of St. Clair Sues Over Misleading Statements LIVE VENTURES: Bid to Dismiss Sieggreen Class Suit Remains Pending LIVE VENTURES: Parties in Sanchez Suit Agree to Mediation LSG1 NARANJA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges M.S.H. INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Cantwell Says MAJESTIC CENTER PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property MANDARINA PRINTING: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MANHATTAN PAINTING: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Andrade Alleges META PLATFORMS: Calvert Suit Transferred to N.D. California MIT45 INC: Parties Seek to Modify Pre-Trial Schedule MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend McAulifffe Class Suit in N.Y. MONCLER USA: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access MONSANTO COMPANY: Potenti Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Shaver Suit Transferred to N.D. California MORAN SHIPPING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stewts Alleges MORLEY COMPANIES: Cocagne Seeks Approval of Collective Notice MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 4, 2026 MV REALTY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Predatory Lending Scheme NATERA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Calcaterra Due Dec. 17 NATIONAL GENERAL: King Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment NATURESTAR LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Moved to April 3, 2026 NBT BANCORP: Filing for Conditional Status Extended to Sept. 15 NELNET INC: Walsh FCRA Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey NESTLE WATERS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response NEXSTAR MEDIA: Trial in Local TV Ad MDL Set for April 2026 NORTH-EAST DECK: Lipinski Must File Class Cert Bid by June 8, 2026 NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Still Defends MOVEit Data Breach Suit OLYMPUS AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sorensen Says OPENAI INC: Denial Sues Over Unlawfully Acquired Copyrighted Works OVERTIME SPORTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Prieto Suit Claims PELOKITOS LLC: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PERFECT PINSTRIPES: Groove Seeks OT Pay for Technicians Under FLSA PERIZIA OF CONEY: Flores Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches PHILIP MORRIS: Kelly Class Action in Florida Ongoing PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Harrell Suit Over Deceptive Premium Motor Fuel PRIMO WATER: Spring Water Products Contain Carcinogens, Nadel Says PURFOODS LLC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $4.25MM QUIP NYC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RANGE HOOD: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind REDEFINE MEALS: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RIZZOLI BOOKSTORES: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SARRIA ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property SEA EL: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website SECURICO LIFE INSURANCE: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Pahlkotter Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop SHADE STORE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing SHADE STORE: Parties Seek Sept. 12 Class Cert. Reply Date SHARK WHOLESALE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SIRIUS XM: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Balmores Due Oct. 30, 2026 SKECHERS USA: Faces Garcia Suit Over Delinquent Wage Payments SOUTHERN TIRE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Okelola Says SP PLUS CORP: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SPICE HOUSE: Echols Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website SPROUTS FARMERS: Washington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SSP AMERICA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Hill Says STAPLES CONTRACT: Hudson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STRENGTH CO: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SUSANA HO: Arroyo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages SWIFT BEEF: All Proceedings in Garza Stayed until Nov. 25 TEA DATNG: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Violation THOREK MEMORIAL: Cottrell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TRANSDEV NORTH: Fails to Pay Military Leave, Corrales Says ULTA SALON: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website UNION PACIFIC: Wins Summary Judgment on Disparate Impact Claims UNITED HEALTH: Mitchell Wins Bid for Class Certification UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert. Bid in Rietheimer Due March 19, 2026 UNITED STATES: Faces Barco Over Unlawful Confinement Conditions VALLEY VIEW: Faces F.F. Suit Over Alleged Gender Discrimination VALU AUTO: Filing for Conditional Class Certification Due Oct. 17 VELOCITY RAIL SOLUTIONS: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VESTA MINE: Graw Wins Bid for Conditional Certification VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over ID.4 Steering Model Defect VOLUME SERVICES: Adler Suit Removed to S.D. California WALGREEN CO: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination WANDERU INC: Charges Hidden Fees to Resell Tickets, Zambrano Says WARNER BROS: Lindauer Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. WASHINGTON TIMES: Discloses Viewing Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Says WIN WASTE: White Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ZONI LANGUAGE: Ortega Suit Seeks to Certify Representative Class ZR CONSULTING: Mott Seeks More Time to File Class Certification [^] Top Securities Class Action Law Firms Announced ********* 1922 LP: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Remove Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Garcia, on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1922 L.P., Case No. 4:25-cv-03568 (D. Colo., Aug. 1, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Defendant, as property owner, is responsible for complying with the ADA for both the exterior portions and interior portions of the Property. Even if there is a lease between Defendant and a tenant allocating responsibilities for ADA compliance within the unit the tenant operates, that lease is only between the property owner and the tenant and does not abrogate the Defendant's requirement to comply with the ADA for the entire Property it owns, including the interior portions of the Property which are public accommodations. The Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of revisit is to be a return customer of La Ruche, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 1922 L.P. is a Texas limited partnership that transacts business in the State of Texas and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com 21 MAIN NORTH: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM FORTNER, and AUTUMN McMANUS, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. 21 Main North Beach, LLC, and Lovin' Oven Catering of Suffolk, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-05893-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson III entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motions as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the fair labor standards act is granted. The Court conditionally certifies the following eight collectives under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): Server Tip-Credit Notice Collective: "Servers paid less than minimum wage without proper notice of tip credit"; Bartender Tip-Credit Notice Collective: "Bartenders paid less than minimum wage without proper notice of tip credit"; Server Tip-Credit Overtime Collective: "Servers who worked overtime without proper tip credit notice"; Bartender Tip-Credit Overtime Collective: "Bartenders who worked overtime without proper tip credit notice"; Server Tip-Share Collective: "Servers who were required to share tips with supervisors or cover shortages"; Bartender Tip-Share Collective: "Bartenders who were required to share tips with supervisors or cover shortages"; Server Multiple-Rate Overtime Collective: "Servers paid at multiple hourly rates with improper overtime Calculations"; Bartender Multiple-Rate Overtime Collective: "Bartenders paid at multiple hourly rates with improper overtime calculations." The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith regarding the content, form, and distribution of the proposed notice and consent-to-join forms. Within 21 days of the entry of this Order, the parties shall file either a joint proposed notice or competing versions for the Court's consideration. The Plaintiffs' Placeholder Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (DE 5) is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for class certification supported by evidentiary and legal materials consistent with Rule 23, after completing appropriate discovery. On November 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action The Plaintiffs allege that they, along with over one hundred similarly situated servers and bartenders, were subject to common compensation policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that Defendants paid them subminimum hourly wages-- 2.13 per hour for servers and $4.50 per hour for bartenders -- while claiming a tip credit of $5.12 and $2.75 per hour, respectively. The Plaintiffs filed this action on October 15, 2024, alleging violations of the FLSA and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tofG94 at no extra charge.[CC] 27455 SDH: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. 27455 SDH, LLC, CHINA FUN J OF NARANJA, INC. D/B/A CHINA FUN, and MEAT GIANT CORPORATION D/B/A MEAT GIANT, Case No. 1:25-cv-23575 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned and operated a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza located at the following address: 27455 S. Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Coker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Coker, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leon W. Coker, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMET, 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 PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX, CORP; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANYLLC f/k/a MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., SAFETY COMPONETS 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; Case No. 2:25-cv-09601-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his military/civilian firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Heward Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lee Heward, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; 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-09632-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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 perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. 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: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Masias Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Masias, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; 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-09624-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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 perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. 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: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: McClin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Linton McClin, Jr., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; 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-09613-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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 perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. 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: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Pauda Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Rodriguez Pauda, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; 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-09638-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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 perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. 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: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Ruth Ann Thomas, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; 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-09609-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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 perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. 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: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Weissman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Weissman, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMET, 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 PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX, CORP; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANYLLC f/k/a MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., SAFETY COMPONETS 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; Case No. 2:25-cv-09601-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his military/civilian firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 808 LEX RESTAURANT: Argudo Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marcelo Fernando Argudo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 808 LEX RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a IL GRADINO, and TERRENCE LOWENBERG and TODD COHEN, as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-06251 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although Plaintiff MARCELO FERNANDO ARGUDO has worked approximately 60 to 66 hours per week from in or around May 2021 to the present, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs has been employed by Defendants. 808 LEX RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a IL GRADINO, is a New York domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 A.J.M. PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brammer Says --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BRAMMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.J.M. PACKAGING CORPORATION; and ROBERT E. EPSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12499-BRM-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 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 Brammer was employed by the Defendants as a foreman. AJM Packaging Corporation manufactures paper and plastic products. The Company distributes products such as paper plates, cups, bowls, and bags. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150 West Jefferson, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 739-1953 Email: etereziu@forthepeople.com ABM INDUSTRY: Bonilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABM INDUSTRY GROUP LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maria Reina Bonilla, aka Maria Martinez, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated v. ABM Industry Group LLC, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Kaiser Permanente International, Kaiser Permanente Ventures LLC, Case No. 25STCV22684 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ABM -- https://www.abm.com/ -- is one of the world's largest providers of integrated facility, engineering, and infrastructure solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 487-1998 Fax: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com ACTELION PHARMACEUTICAL: TRACLEER Suit Trial Set for March 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., a company acquired by Johnson & Johnson in 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland scheduled the trial for TRACLEER class suit in March 2026. In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals U.S., Inc. and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively Actelion) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER. TRACLEER is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In September 2024, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. Trial is scheduled for March 2026. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd develops drugs and therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension. The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Allschwil, Switzerland. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd operates as a subsidiary of Actelion Ltd. [BN] ACTION FAMILY COUNSELING: McCabe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Family Counseling-SCV, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony McCabe, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Action Family Counseling-SCV, Inc., Action Family Counseling, Inc., Action Family Counseling-Bakersfield, Inc., Case No. 25STCV22676 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Action Family Counseling -- https://www.actionfamily.org/index.html -- offers drug and alcohol addiction treatment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com AIS INFOSOURCE LP: Petty Files Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AIS InfoSource L.P. The case is styled as Robin Raychelle Petty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIS InfoSource L.P., Case No. 4:25-cv-03538 (S.D. Tex., July 31, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. American Infosource, LP (AIS) -- https://aisinfo.com/ -- operates as a diversified financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Elliot Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5528 Shadow Crest Street Houston, TX 77096 Phone: (872) 365-7060 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: awolf@milberg.com AKZO NOBEL COATINGS: Crosby Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Demarcus Crosby, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00845-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 30, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees worked more than 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s) during the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. The Defendant knew or should have been aware that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees had a daily meal break deduction taken even though they did not receive an uninterrupted meal break. Further, Defendant knew or should have been aware that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and were entitled to be paid overtime for such work, but Defendant willfully elected not to fully compensate its employees during all times relevant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt production associate from March 2023 through July 2025 at Defendant's facility in Columbus, Ohio. The Defendant is engaged in the production of numerous paints and coatings within the United States and globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Latronico Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Latronico, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03159 (D. Minn., Aug. 7, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries Allianz inflicted on Plaintiff and over 1.4 million others due to the Defendant's 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 Allianz exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information like full names, Social Security numbers, policy and contract numbers, dates of birth, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email. On July 16, 2025, a hacker gained access to Allianz's cloud-based customer relationship management system and obtained PII on a majority of Allianz's customers, financial professionals, and some employees. On July 17, 2025, Allianz discovered the Data Breach on July 17, 2025. Allianz 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. Allianz's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to Allianz with the understanding Allianz would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. Allianz is a provider of financial and retirement life insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Maureen Kane Berg, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 596-4097 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com mkberg@locklaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com ALTEYA INC: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ALTEYA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06529 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://alteyaorganics.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants 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). The 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. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://alteyaorganics.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-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=0CszxS at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Private Party Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the private party antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 5, 2022 and December 7, 2022, two private party plaintiffs filed putative class action antitrust complaints against AAG and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that AAG and JetBlue violated U.S. antitrust law in connection with the previously disclosed NEA. These actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023. The private party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on February 3, 2023. On February 2, 2023 and February 15, 2023, private party plaintiffs filed two additional putative class action antitrust complaints against AAG and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively. In March 2023, AAG filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case asking to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and consolidate it with the cases pending in that venue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that motion. The remaining cases were consolidated with the other actions in the Eastern District of New York. In June 2023, the private party plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, followed by a third amended complaint filed in August 2023. In September 2023, AAG, together with JetBlue, filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In September 2024, the court denied that motion. AAG and JetBlue filed answers to the private party plaintiffs' third amended complaint in October 2024, and the parties are now engaged in discovery. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and are defending against them vigorously. American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a network air carrier. It provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. American Airlines Group Inc. was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. AMERICAN CONSUMER CREDIT: Dinkel Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Consumer Credit Counseling, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Dinkel, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. American Consumer Credit Counseling, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12125-IT (D. Mass., July 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. American Consumer Credit Counseling, Inc. -- https://www.consumercredit.com/ -- is a leader in the credit counseling industry and has national counseling experience, dedicated to helping people regain control of their finances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com AMERICAN ECONOMY: Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasner v. American Economy Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11047 (D. Mass., Filed June 24, 2021), the Hon. Judge Denise J Casper entered an order granting motion for leave to file documents under seal to the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification by American Economy Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana. The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance. American operates as an insurance company.[CC] AMERICAN ECONOMY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GLASNER, DWIGHT SEELEY, PAMELA SEELEY, ARIJ ALI, MALINA ALI, and THOMAS LARSEN, as trustee of THE LARSEN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 1:21-cv-11047-DJC (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal their Response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The following are the proposed sealed documents: 1. Defendants' Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification; 2. Exhibit B-1 – Transcript from the deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert Toby Johnson, taken in this matter on March 28, 2025; 3. Exhibit B-2 – Transcript from the deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert Toby Johnson, taken in the matter of Maria Cortinas, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, on January 9, 2025; 4. Exhibit C-1 – Defendants' Expert Report by R. Wade Vandiver dated March 27, 2025 (Vandiver Report). Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants have conferred on the documents proposed to be filed under seal and both parties are in agreement that the documents should be sealed. American offers auto, home, renters, condo, boat, car, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and landlord protection insurance services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sT0viY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. Nicholas J. Ramacher, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY, & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2880 E-mail: dpt@dcglaw.com njr@dcglaw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Michael J. Murtha, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mmurtha@jw.com mbrown@jw.com AMERICAN HOME SHIELD: Worthey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Home Shield Corporation. The case is styled as Nicole Worthey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Home Shield Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01598 (N.D. Ohio, July 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act/Junk Fax Prevention Act. American Home Shield Corporation -- https://www.ahs.com/ -- is an American home warranty company based in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com AMN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gardner and Smith Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL GARDNER and ASHLEY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., AMN SERVICES, LLC, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., and KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06509 (N.D. Cal., August 1, 2025) arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are clinicians who accepted travel assignments from Defendants to relocate and work at facilities located California, Texas, and Ohio. Allegedly, AMN has adopted practices that result in systematic underpayment of wages owed. These practices include: (1) failing to pay for mandatory pre-employment onboarding and training, even though this work is required before an employee may begin their assignment; (2) requiring employees to bear essential business expenses--including travel, licensing, credentialing, testing, and uniforms--in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802; (3) denying or underpaying premiums for missed or non-compliant meal and rest periods, despite routinely subjecting workers to schedules and staffing conditions that prevent lawful breaks; (4) systematically miscalculating the "regular rate of pay" by excluding per diems, stipends, and other forms of non-discretionary compensation, resulting in the underpayment of overtime wages and meal and rest break premiums; and (5) failing to timely pay wages owed both during employment and upon separation, and failing to furnish accurate wage statements, says the suit. AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. is a healthcare staffing company headquartered in San Diego, CA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, 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 moore@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com ANNIEGLASS INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Annieglass, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08931 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 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://annieglass.com (hereinafter "Annieglass.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. Annieglass provides to the public a website known as Annieglass.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view bowls, plates, vases, drinkware, home decor items, lighting, 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 APPLE INC: Collins Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct ---------------------------------------------------- James Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06399-SK (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2025), is brought to address Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and alleviate harm to competition and consumers. This complaint focuses on five examples of Apple using these mechanisms to suppress technologies that would have increased competition among smartphones. Suppressing these technologies does not reflect competition on the merits. Rather, to protect its smartphone monopoly--and the extraordinary profits that monopoly generates--Apple repeatedly chooses to make its products worse for consumers to prevent competition from emerging. By maintaining its monopoly over smartphones, Apple is able to harm consumers in a wide variety of additional ways. For example, by denying iPhone users the ability to choose their trusted banking apps as their digital wallet, Apple retains full control both over the consumer and also over the stream of income generated by forcing users to use only Apple--authorized products in the digital wallet. Apple also prohibits the creation and use of alternative app stores curated to reflect a consumer's preferences with respect to security, privacy, or other values. Because Apple's conduct harms the competitive process, the harms from that conduct flow even more widely, affecting all smartphone consumers. Apple's smartphone monopoly means that it is not economically viable to invest in building some apps, like digital wallets, because they cannot reach iPhone users. This means that innovations fueled by an interest in building the best, most user focused product that would exist in a more competitive market never get off the ground. The Plaintiff therefore brings this case to rid smartphone markets of Apple's exclusionary conduct, secure just compensation for the consumers most directly impacted by that conduct, and ensure that the next generation of innovators can upend the technological world as we know it with new and transformative technologies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone 13 Pro on September 24, 2021, directly from Apple's Fresno, California Fashion Fair retail store. Apple is a global technology company with headquarters in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, Suite 600 Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com APPLE INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Bodenburg iCloud Storage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lisa Bodenburg, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Apple Inc., Defendant-Appellee, No. 24-3335 (9th Cir.), Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a putative class action against Apple Inc. alleging breach of contract and violations of California's consumer protection laws based on Apple's allegedly deceptive representations about its iCloud data storage plans. Apple offers customers iCloud cloud-based storage service. Upon initially signing up for iCloud, all customers receive 5 GB of iCloud storage for free. Customers seeking additional storage can upgrade to iCloud+, Apple's premium storage plans offering 50 GB, 200 GB, or 2 TB of storage for monthly fees of $0.99, $2.99, and $10.99, respectively. The iCloud Legal Agreement governs the plans and states: "Your Account is allocated 5GB of storage capacity as described in the iCloud feature pages. Additional storage is available for purchase, as described below." The Agreement includes a choice-of-law provision expressly designating California law. Plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg is an Apple customer who signed up for iCloud to pair with her Apple devices. Seeking more storage, Bodenburg reviewed the terms of the Agreement and elected to purchase the middle-tier iCloud+ plan, which provides 200 GB of cloud storage at a cost of $2.99 per month. Based on her review of the Agreement, Bodenburg expected that the plan would provide her with 200 GB of cloud storage in addition to the 5 GB of storage that she already received from Apple for free. However, after purchasing the iCloud+ plan, Bodenburg found that her total iCloud storage was only 200 GB, not 205 GB. She alleges that Apple violated the terms of the Agreement and wrongly overcharged her by failing to provide the further 5 GB of storage that she was owed. In August 2023, she brought this putative class action seeking to represent other similarly situated subscribers within the United States who, during the Class Periods, paid for an Apple iCloud subscription. The operative First Amended Complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and False Advertising Law (FAL) based on Apple's allegedly deceptive representations about its plans. Plaintiff sought compensatory damages, restitution, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief. Apple moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion, finding Plaintiff had not stated a claim for breach of contract because Apple fulfilled its contractual obligation to provide additional storage. The court further found Plaintiff had not stated claims under the UCL, CLRA, or FAL because her claims did not satisfy the reasonable consumer test or the heightened pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court dismissed without leave to amend. Bodenburg timely appealed. The Appeals Court examined whether Plaintiff stated a plausible claim for breach of contract. The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) Plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) Defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals concluded that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach of contract because she cannot allege a cognizable contractual breach. The iCloud Legal Agreement expressly obligated Apple to provide additional storage, but it did not expressly obligate Apple to provide an "additional 200 GB of storage." "That Bodenburg subjectively believed that additional storage meant 205 GB did not alter the contract's clear language," Circuit Judge M. Smith opined. The Appeals Court then examined Plaintiff's claims under California consumer protection laws, which prohibit unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. To survive dismissal, each claim must pass two tests: (1) the 'reasonable consumer' test set forth in California case law, and (2) the heightened pleading standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Under the reasonable consumer standard, plaintiffs must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by defendant's business practices. This requires more than a mere possibility that the defendant's representations 'might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing [them] in an unreasonable manner. The Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff cannot plausibly prove that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by Apple's statements. While some consumers might share Plaintiff's expectation that purchasing a 200 GB plan would result in 205 GB total storage, this expectation is not reasonable as a matter of law because it derives only from the potential ambiguity in Apple's statements and lacks support in any express representation by Apple. To survive dismissal, Bodenburg must show something more: that Apple's statements would be unambiguously deceptive to an ordinary consumer. Because Apple's statements were neither ambiguous nor misleading when considered in context, a reasonable consumer reviewing Apple's statements would not plausibly share Bodenburg's expectation of additional storage, ruled Judge Smith. "Thus, Bodenburg could not state a plausible claim under California's consumer protection laws. For the same reasons that Bodenburg's claims did not satisfy the reasonable consumer test, they also did not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements." Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of this putative class action. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision can be found at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wKip6A ARCTIC GLACIER: Faces Brousseau Suit Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDY BROUSSEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCTIC GLACIER U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04440 (E.D. Pa., August 1, 2025) arises out of a recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated the highly sensitive personal information of an unknown number of individuals from Defendant's computer network. In July 2025 the notorious Qilin ransomware gang confirmed it obtained sensitive company data, staff details, and other private information from Defendant through an attack on Defendant's systems, which it posted on the Qilin blog. Defendant has failed to provide important details about the data breach and give impacted persons notice. Moreover, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect private information from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms caused by the data breach. Plaintiff seeks remedies for Defendant's negligence, negligence per se, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breaches of implied contract, for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and for declaratory and injunctive relief, including actual and statutory damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief; attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing this action; and all other remedies the Court deems just and proper. Headquartered in Bala Cynwyd, PA, Artic Glacier U.S.A., Inc. manufactures packaged and crushed ice products in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK, LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com ARTUSO PASTRY: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ARTUSO PASTRY FOODS CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-06552 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.artusopastry.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 10, 2025, to access the Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to the Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase an Italian dessert, specifically a "New York Style Cheesecake." The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com AT&T MOBILITY: Gonzalez Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ALINA GONZALEZ, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Case No. 2020-001293-SP-24, was removed from the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on Aug. 8, 2025. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02119-E to the proceedings. In May 2020, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against AT&T Mobility LLC in Miami-Dade County Court bringing claims for breach of contract and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act related to an administrative fee issue. AT&T Mobility, LLC -- https://www.att.com/ -- also known as AT&T Wireless and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American telecommunications company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Gnadinger Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RACHEL GNADINGER, MADELINE MCCAUSLAND, and JOANNE NEBUSHORNING, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATHENA BITCOIN, INC., MATIAS GOLDENHÖRN, SAM NAZZARO, ERIC GRAVENGAARD, GILBERT VALENTINE, ROUTINE MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A ONE STOP SHOPPE, JIAH CORP., D/B/A HOLMDEL EXXON, AND JOHN DOE CONVENIENCE STORES, Defendants, Case No. MID-L-003296-25, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 1, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-14063 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' negligence/gross negligence and alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Based in Florida, Athena Bitcoin, Inc. operates a network of bitcoin and other crypto ATMs. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric R. Fish, Esq. Kamille E. Perry, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1011 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 E-mail: efish@bakerlaw.com kperry@bakerlaw.com ATHENA HEALTH: Discloses Health Info to Google, Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE and JOHN DOE v. ATHENA HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12233 (D. Mass., Aug. 8, 2025) is an action against Athena Health for surreptitiously divulging health information to Google via Google's online marketing systems, known as Google Analytics, when patients exchanged communications with their healthcare providers via Patient Portals provided by Athena Health. According to the complaint, Athena Health similarly deployed Google analytics technology within the patient portal mobile application it offered patients that shared data with Google. As a Patient Portal provider, Athena Health operates as a "business associate" under HIPAA, which requires Athena Health to maintain patients' Protected Health Information in a manner consistent with HIPAA regulations. Athena Health provides health information technology services in the United States, providing patient portal access to millions of patients. Athena Health hosts online Patient Portals for healthcare providers across the country and similarly provides a patient portal mobile application, both of which allow patients to manage their healthcare online by, e.g., viewing medical records, scheduling appointments, and messaging members of their care team. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Appel, Esq. KETTERER, BROWNE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 336 South Main Street Bel Air, MD 21014 Telephone: (617) 359-4981 E-mail: michael@KBAattorneys.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Emily Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq.] COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, No. 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Joseph Amhad, Esq. Thomas Fraser, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460 Houston TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com ahmad@azalaw.com tfrashier@azalaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-110 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ATI INC: Excludes Non-Discretionary Bonuses in Pay, Luna Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PRESTON LUNA, individually and for others similarly situated v. ATI INC. d/b/a ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01173 (W.D. Pa., August 1, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code and relevant California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. According to the complaint, the Defendant has employed Plaintiff Luna as a shift lead and non-destructive technician in California since approximately February 2015. Throughout his employment, the Defendant paid Plaintiff under its bonus pay scheme, which does not include non-discretionary bonuses in calculating Plaintiff's regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Thus, under its bonus pay scheme, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees overtime wages of at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, ATI Inc. produces metals including titanium and titanium alloys, nickel-based alloys and superalloys. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com AUTUMN HILLS OPERATING: Mardiros Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autumn Hills Operating Company, LP, et al. The case is styled as Araz Mardiros, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Autumn Hills Operating Company, LP, Autumn Hills Health Care Center, Case No. 25STCV22618 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Autumn Hills -- https://autumnhillshealthcarecenter.com/ -- offers skilled nursing, 24-hour care, rehabilitation, dietary services, IV therapy, pain management, wound care, psychological services, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com BAILLIE LUMBER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Clemons Says ---------------------------------------------------------- BRAXTON CLEMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAILLIE LUMBER CO., L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00741 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' full name, Social Security Number, and other personal information (collectively, "PII" or "Private Information"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, because of the cyberattack on February 11, 2025 (the "Data Breach"), the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft. By obtaining, collecting, using, and profiting 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. Defendant admits that the unencrypted Private Information was impacted during the Data Breach, says the suit. Baillie Lumber Co LP manufactures hardwood lumber. The Company distributes lumber, plywood, and millwork. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1400 - #653 Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ebrehm@sirillp.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com BAILLIE LUMBER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Roberts Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TAHJ ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAILLIE LUMBER CO., L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00733 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that 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, says the suit. Baillie Lumber Co LP manufactures hardwood lumber. The Company distributes lumber, plywood, and millwork. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BAILLIE LUMBER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Losee Says --------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT LOSEE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAILLIE LUMBER CO., L.P., Case No. 1:25-cv-00731 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2025) is a class action suit against Baillie for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on Feb. 11, 2025, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected (Data Breach). While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as February 2025, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until July 31, 2025. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. 4. Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from state and federal statutes and regulations, and common law principles. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party— an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. The Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of hardwood lumber.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1400 - No. 653 Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ebrehm@sirillp.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com BECKER PROFESSIONAL: Garcia Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Becker Professional Development Corporation. The case is styled as Michael Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Becker Professional Development Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-12151 (D. Mass., July 31, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions Becker Professional Education -- https://www.becker.com/ -- is a company that offers educational resources for professionals in the areas of accounting and finance.[BN] BEST IN TOWN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Artrip Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- EMILY ARTRIP; TRACINA MAJORS; and TIFFANI RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEST IN TOWN, INC. dba THE FURNACE; GREGORY L. JACKSON; GRAHAM G. JACKSON; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01289-JHE (N.D. Al., Aug. 11, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers. Best in Town, Inc. dba The Furnace operates as an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at Birmingham, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Tortorici, Esq. SCHILLECI & TORTORICI, P.C. 100 Centerview Drive, Suite 205 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: (205) 978-4211 Email: jpt@schillecitortoricilaw.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara Street, Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 90066 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: jellzey@eksm.com BIG FACE COFFEE: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ James Watson, and other similarly situated individuals v. BIG FACE COFFEE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23459-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") for blind-inaccessible website. The Plaintiff uses the internet to help him navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet and websites provide him with a window into the world that he would not otherwise have. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for offering and maintaining a website that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left him feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave him a sense of isolation and segregation, as he is unable to participate in the same browsing, shopping experience, and access to the same information, sales, and services, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public. The Defendant has violated the provisions of the ADA by failing to interface its website with software used by visually impaired individuals. Thus, Defendant has violated the following provisions either directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements. Defendant's violations have resulted in Defendant denying Plaintiff effective communication on the basis of her disability in accordance with the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles. The Defendant constructed, or caused to be constructed, and/or became a beneficiary of the website https://www.bigfacebrand.com (hereinafter "website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com BIRDSONG CORPORATION: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birdsong Corporation. The case is styled as Felicia Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Birdsong Corporation doing business as: Birdsong Peanuts, Case No. 2:25-cv-00464-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., July 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury/ Motor Vehicle. Birdsong -- https://www.birdsongpeanuts.com/ -- buys, cleans, and ships peanuts to manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Carroll, Esq. COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP 3311 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 999-9999 Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com BITCOIN DEPOT: Faces Hall Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- QUINCEY HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BITCOIN DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04317-WMR (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2025) arises from Bitcoin Depot's failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain and protect their highly sensitive personally identifiable information, which was impacted in a data breach that Defendant disclosed in July 2025. On June 23, 2024, Bitcoin Depot detected suspicious activity on its network and commenced an internal investigation which was completed by July 18, 2024 confirmed the unauthorized intrusion into its systems. Bitcoin Depot did not begin to notify victims of the data breach including Plaintiff, that their sensitive PII was stolen, until a year later, presumably because there was an ongoing parallel investigation by federal agencies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members now bring this action to recover for the harm they suffered and assert the following claims: (i) Negligence, (ii) Negligence per se, (iii) Invasion of Privacy, (iv) Breach of Implied Contract, (v) Unjust Enrichment, (vi) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (vii) violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Bitcoin Depot, Inc. operates cryptocurrency ATM networks in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Rd., Suite 208 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@jgibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL, 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Elena Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 157 Columbus Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (347) 395-5666 E-mail: elena@almeidalawgroup.com BLEIBURG RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BLEIBURG RESTAURANT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04434 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.keens.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently January 20, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of placing a food order online. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.keens.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's Website offers services online to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for services, access navigation bar descriptions, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous services and location of the Defendant. BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 BOSTON INTERIORS: Faldonie Sues Over Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Faldonie, and all others similarly situated v. BOSTON INTERIORS HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12128 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to make its website, https://www.bostoninteriors.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). This case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant through the Website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the Stores, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website. The Defendant denies the blind access to goods, services and information made available through the Website by preventing them from freely navigating the Website, 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 Defendant specializes in home furniture, decor, and accessories, offering a wide selection of modern and classic pieces for residential and commercial spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Revised to Dec. 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA HETTINGER, v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge James Boasberg entered a revised scheduling order as follows: EVENT DATE Close of class certification discovery: Oct. 30, 2025 The Plaintiff's motion for class certification Dec. 5, 2025 and class certification expert disclosures: The Defendant' opposition to class Feb. 9, 2026 certification and class certification expert disclosures: The Plaintiff's reply re class certification Mar. 27, 2026 and expert rebuttal: Bozzuto is engaged in renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WqAhOi at no extra charge.[CC] BREMONT WATCH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BREMONT WATCH COMPANY, INC, Case No. e 1:25-cv-04422 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, us.bremont.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on November 22, 2024, to access the Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a watch (Supermarine 300M GMT). The Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because he was looking for a reliable and stylish timepiece suitable for various occasions and settings. He wanted to find a store that offers a diverse selection of high-quality watches with modern design, the suit says. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the watch (Supermarine 300M GMT), that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, asserts the suit. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BRIDGEWATER CHOCOLATE: Faldonie Sues Over Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Faldonie, and all others similarly situated v. BRIDGEWATER CHOCOLATE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12129 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to make its website, Bridgewaterchocolate.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). This case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant through the Website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the Stores, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website. The Defendant denies the blind access to goods, services and information made available through the Website by preventing them from freely navigating the Website, 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 Defendant specializes in manufacturing and selling gourmet handmade chocolates, gift boxes, and related confectionery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BRUCKNER TRUCK: Eggleston Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joshua Eggleston, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BRUCKNER TRUCK SALES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-20769-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01467. The Defendant Bruckner's violated Washington's wage transparency statute, RCW 49.58.110. See generally Compl. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Bruckner's failed to include wage scale or salary range and a general description of benefits in public job postings, as required by Washington law. The Plaintiff purports to represent a class of applicants who viewed or applied to Bruckner's job postings in Washington that did not include the required disclosures.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William M. Symmes, WSBA # 24132 Abigail Maurer, WSBA #58756 WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 800 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509-609-3820 Fax: 206-628-6611 Email: wsymmes@williamskastner.com amaurer@williamskastner.com BSREP III COCONUT: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Ariza, on behalf of others similarly situated v. BSREP III COCONUT GROVE TRS LLC, d/b/a MAYFAIR HOUSE HOTEL & GARDEN, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-23447-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 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.mayfairhousemiami.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical hotel. Defendant also offers for booking and sells to the public its hotel room accommodations through the Website, which acts as a critical point of booking and sale for Defendant's hotel room accommodations that are also available for booking and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical hotel. 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 blind and visually disabled in that he suffers from optical nerve atrophy, a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a hotel selling hotel room accommodations that Plaintiff intended to patronize in the near future located in Miami, Florida.[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 CAG BEAUTY: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. CAG BEAUTY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06488 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://shopkkapparel.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants 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. The 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. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://shopkkapparel.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CAJUN OPERATING: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Victor Ariza, on behalf of others similarly situated v. CAJUN OPERATING COMPANY, d/b/a CHURCH'S TEXAS CHICKEN, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23418-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 30, 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.churchs.com. 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 restaurants nationwide 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 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Carfora Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Carfora, Sandra Putnam, Juan C. Gonzales, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated individuals v. California Institute of Technology, Case No. 2:25-mc-00069 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the California Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-mc-00321-KPF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The California Institute of Technology (branded as Caltech) -- https://www.caltech.edu/ -- is a private research university in Pasadena, California a.[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 The Defendant is represented by: Ryan H Weinstein, Esq. ROPES AND GRAY LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 975-3310 Fax: (310) 975-3400 CAPSTONE GREEN: Nov. 13 Settlement Hearing in “Spitzer” ----------------------------------------------------------- A final settlement hearing date has been set for November 13, 2025 in the case captioned Spitzer v. Flexon, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08659, Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On October 13, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Spitzer v. Flexon, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08659, naming certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers as defendants. The suit alleges various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements and allegedly inadequate disclosure regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects and the circumstances leading up to the restatement of the Company’s quarterly and annual financial statements. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between June 14, 2021, and September 22, 2023, and seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages and other relief, including attorney’s fees. The Company is not a named respondent in this matter and has not engaged legal counsel. The parties reached agreement on a settlement amount and on April 4, 2025, the parties filed an unopposed motion for the court to approve settlement and notice procedures. A preliminary hearing date was held on June 5, 2025, and a final settlement hearing date has been set for November 13, 2025. Expenses up to the $1.3 million insurance deductible amount have either been incurred or accrued. About Capstone Green Energy Capstone Green Energy builds microturbine energy systems and battery storage systems that allow customers to produce power on-site in parallel with the electric grid or stand-alone when no utility grid is available. Capstone Green offers microturbines designed for commercial, oil and gas, and other industrial applications. As of March 31, 2025, the Company had $74.9 million in total assets, $82.6 million in total liabilities, $13.9 million in redeemable noncontrolling interests and $21.5 million in total stockholders' deficiency. CATALYST BRANDS: Arcand Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julie Arcand, for herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 25-2-19180-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01445. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that JCPenney sent her emails with false and misleading subject lines in violation of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: 425.233.8650 Fax: 425.412.7171 Email: dan@hattislaw.com che@hattislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Guite, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: rguite@sheppardmullin.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Hitch Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Austin Hitch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, a foreign general partnership doing business as VERIZON WIRELESS; SEATTLE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership doing business as VERIZON WIRELESS; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-19444-2-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01469. The Plaintiff's first cause of action is based on the assumption that the putative class members were "subject to one or more written or oral covenants, agreements, or contracts restricting, restraining, or prohibiting them from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William M. Symmes, Esq. Abigail Maurer, Esq. WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 800 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509-609-3820 Fax: 206-628-6611 Email: wsymmes@williamskastner.com amaurer@williamskastner.com CENTURY SNACKS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 16, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALORIE ROBLES, et al., v. CENTURY SNACKS, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-03166-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the Sept. 15, 2025 pleadings: Class certification motion and March 16, 2026 Plaintiffs' expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and May 14, 2026 Defendants' expert disclosures due: Class certification reply due: May 28, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Octo. 28, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 25, 2026 Century offers a complete product portfolio of nuts, trail mixes and candy, and services sales channels across the United States and around the world. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hMJMQH at no extra charge.[CC] CERES CLASSIC: Appeal from VRDO Class Certification Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal from the order granting the motion for class certification in the antitrust lawsuit styled City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., remains pending, Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (MS & Co.) is a defendant in three antitrust class action complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the SDNY under the caption City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate Demand Obligations ("VRDO"). The consolidated complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. The complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims. On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted leave to appeal that decision. Ceres Classic L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products. CERES CLASSIC: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Camelot" Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of New York granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit styled Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On August 13, 2021, the plaintiff in Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. filed in the Supreme Court of NY a purported class action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws against ViacomCBS ("Viacom"), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters, including MS & Co., of two March 2021 Viacom offerings: a $1,700 million Viacom Class B Common Stock offering and a $1,000 million offering of 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock (collectively, the "Offerings"). The complaint seeks certification of the class of plaintiffs and unspecified compensatory damages and alleges, inter alia, that the Viacom offering documents for both issuances contained material misrepresentations and omissions because they did not disclose that certain of the underwriters, including MS & Co., had prime brokerage relationships and served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos Capital Management LP, ("Archegos"), a fund with significant exposure to Viacom securities across multiple prime brokers. The complaint also alleges that the offering documents did not adequately disclose the risks associated with Archegos's concentrated Viacom positions at the various prime brokers, including that the unwind of those positions could have a deleterious impact on the stock price of Viacom. On November 5, 2021, the complaint was amended to add allegations that defendants failed to disclose that certain underwriters, including MS & Co., had intended to unwind Archegos's Viacom positions while simultaneously distributing the Offerings. On February 6, 2023, the court issued a decision denying motions to dismiss as to MS & Co. and the other underwriters, but granting the motion to dismiss as to Viacom and the Viacom individual defendants. On February 15, 2023, the underwriters, including MS & Co., filed their notices of appeal of the denial of their motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Viacom and the individual Viacom defendants. On April 4, 2024, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision as to MS&Co. and other underwriter defendants that had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos, dismissed the remaining underwriters, and upheld the dismissal of Viacom and its officers and directors. On July 25, 2024, the Appellate Division denied the plaintiff's and MS&Co.’s respective motions for leave to reargue or appeal the April 4, 2024 decision. On January 4, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, which the defendants appealed. In February of 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On April 3, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Ceres Classic L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products. CERES CLASSIC: Deal in Interest Rate Swap Suit Awaits Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement agreement in the antitrust class action lawsuit styled In Re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation still awaits final court approval, Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Beginning in February of 2016, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (MS & Co.) was named as a defendant in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") styled In Re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS & Co., together with a number of other financial institution defendants violated U.S. and New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in connection with alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rate swaps trading. Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased interest rate swaps from defendants, as well as on behalf of three operators of swap execution facilities that allegedly were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to develop such platforms. The consolidated complaints seek, inter alia, certification of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. On December 15, 2023, the court denied the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On December 29, 2023, the class plaintiffs petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that decision. On February 28, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class claims. On July 11, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Ceres Classic L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products. CERES CLASSIC: Deal in Oklahoma Firefighters' Suit Has Prelim OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit styled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et al., Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 16, 2023, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (MS & Co.) and its affiliate, together with a number of other financial institutions, were named as defendants in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the SDNY styled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et al., alleging, inter alia, that they violated U.S. antitrust laws in connection with their alleged effort to fix prices of gilts traded in the United States between 2009 and 2013. The complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 16, 2024, the court granted defendants' joint motion to dismiss, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. In October of 2024, MS&Co. and certain other defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. litigation. On March 17, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Ceres Classic L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products. CH ROBINSON: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Moreno Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS MORENO, v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02844-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting in part and denying part CHR's motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to strike. Dismissal is with leave to amend, as this is Moreno's first opportunity to amend and the record is insufficient to conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile. Moreno may file a first amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this order as to those claims by Aug. 14, 2025. Moreno may not add new claims or otherwise amend his complaint absent leave of the Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The case management conference is reset for Sept. 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by Sept. 10, 2025. Moreno fails to allege sufficient facts to plausibly state claims for meal and rest break violations and failure to pay minimum wage. The Plaintiff's claim under Section 226 for inaccurate wage statements fails because it is wholly derivative of the underlying wage and hour claims, which, as discussed above, are not sufficiently alleged. The case is a wage and hour class action involving Plaintiff Carlos Moreno and Defendants C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., C.H. Robinson Company, and various Doe defendants. Specifically, Moreno contends that Defendants misclassified its truck drivers as independent contractors and failed to provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, furnish timely and accurate wage statements, and pay minimum wage. C.H. is a global logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wjK05r at no extra charge.[CC] CHAZ DEAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHAZ DEAN, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06551 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.chazdean.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on January 29, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a hair conditioner (Lavender Cleansing Conditioner). Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the hair conditioner (Lavender Cleansing Conditioner), that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, asserts the suit. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 CHENEGA GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Status of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYA KALANTARI and ETHAN LAGE, v. CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00961-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: (1) Conditionally certify the Plaintiffs' CWA claims as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (2) Conditionally certify the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (3) Direct the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with a list of all hourly non-exempt security guards employed by the Defendant at the CDC campus in Ft. Collins, Colorado who worked at least one shift in excess of 2 hours between Jan. 28, 2022 and the present, including the employees' names, last known addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of work; (4) Authorize the Plaintiffs to send the Notices and Op-Out Forms attached as the Plaintiff's Exhibits 6 and 7 to all individuals in the Chenega Class whose information is provided by Defendants through the addresses within their above described contact information and provide follow-up contact to assure receipt of such Notices and Forms; (5) Authorize the Plaintiffs to send the Notice and Consent Form to all individuals in the Overtime Sub-Class whose information is provided by the Defendants through the addresses within their above described contact information and provide follow-up contact to assure receipt of such Notices and Forms; (6) Designate the Plaintiffs to serve as the representatives of the Chenega Class and Overtime Sub-Class; (7) Grant such other relief the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA"), and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards ("COMPS") Orders by splitting up their work week to avoid the payment of overtime, requiring them to work during their unpaid meal breaks, and failing to provide them with all rest breaks they were entitled to under the above laws. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant violated the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class, under within-referenced state wage and hour law, along with a Collective, under the FLSA, consisting of: "All affected employees, who were hourly employed security guards (officers, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains) at the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") campus in Fort Collins, Colorado anytime between Jan. 28, 2021, to the present." Chenega hired Kalantari as a security guard in July of 2019 and Kalantari continued to work for Chenega until July of 2024. The Defendant is an international security company which provides security and fire and emergency management services to U.S. Government customers around the world. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QkYlC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trent R. Taylor, Esq. David H. Miller, Esq. THE WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 551-7663 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: ttaylor@wilhitelawfirm.com dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com CHIME FINANCIAL: White Files Suit in W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chime Financial Inc. The case is styled as Joyce White, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chime Financial Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01453 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Chime Financial, Inc. -- https://www.chime.com/ -- is an American financial technology company, based in San Francisco, California, that provides fee-free mobile banking services through two national banks, Stride Bank and The Bancorp Bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: jdennett@tousley.com CLARENCE CARTER: Court Dismisses Colbert from Bull Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN BULL, et al., v. CLARENCE H. CARTER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00041 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss. The Defendant's request to dismiss Plaintiff Kathryn Colbert is granted. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims is denied. An appropriate Order shall enter. Accordingly, the Court finds that the individual Plaintiffs' allegations in the Complaint satisfy the injury in fact requirement and the Defendant's standing argument fails. The Court agrees and finds that DHS's interview practices involve factual determinations that the Court cannot construe in the Defendant's favor at this stage. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion will not be granted on this ground. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' due process allegations involve factual determinations which are improper to construe in the Defendant's favor at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion will be denied as to the Plaintiffs' procedural due process claims. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t2cYQw at no extra charge.[CC] CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clement Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, SAFE FLEET HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00617-RK (W.D. Mo., Aug. 8, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of the Defendant, the putative class members. The Data Breach occurred on or about April 13, 2024. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of Safe Fleet's current and former employees, including Plaintiff. This Private Information included but is not limited to name and Social Security number. The Private Information was "acquired" by cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. According to Defendant's report to the Office of the Maine Attorney General, 7,478 individuals were affected. The Data Breach resulted in the compromise and theft of highly sensitive personal information belonging to numerous Class Members, including, but not limited to, full names and Social Security numbers, valuable data that is a prime target for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what information was accessed. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves. The Defendant provides trucking logistics and support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq.] STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Ste. 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com Gerard Stranch, IV gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com service@eksm.com CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES: Ferry Sues Over Failure to Protect Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Ferry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, SAFE FLEET HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00593-FJG (W.D. Mo., July 30, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. The Defendant is a trucking logistics and support services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@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 CLAWDADDY INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CLAWDADDY, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06553 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.clawdaddysnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 10, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to place an online order for seafood. The Defendant's Website offers services online to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for services, access navigation bar descriptions, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous services and location of the Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com COINBASE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sullivan Says --------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE, INC.; and COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06567 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard Coinbase users' highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite their duties to safeguard individuals' PII, on May 11, 2025, Coinbase became aware of a cybersecurity incident as Coinbase received an email communication through Coinbase, Inc., a subsidiary of Coinbase Global, Inc. The email was from an unknown threat actor claiming to have obtained information about certain Coinbase customer accounts, as well as internal Coinbase documentation, including materials relating to customer-service and account- management systems. As a direct and proximate result of Coinbase's negligent failure to implement reasonable data security measures, Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was exfiltrated and is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their PII—risks which may last for the rest of their lives. Coinbase, Inc. provides data and transaction processing services. The Company offers digital currency wallet and platform for general transactions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com COLBY AUTO: Mattingly Suit Removed to D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Blake Mattingly, as an individual, and a class of others similarly situated v. Colby Auto Investments, LLC dba Valley Car Group, an Arizona limited liability company, Darren Colby and Malana Colby, as husband and wife; Case No. CV-10-845-PHX-GMS was removed from the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona, to the United States District Court for District of Arizona on Aug. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02744-ROS. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim against Defendants for an alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John F. Lomax, Esq. Kimberly Dennis, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One East Washington Street, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2556 Phone: 602.382.6000 Email: jlomax@swlaw.com kdennis@swlaw.com COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McQueen Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MCQUEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-06622 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. According to the complaint, as part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of its students, applicants, and faculty, including the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of the Plaintiff's and Class members' personal 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 personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On May 16, 2025, Columbia University experienced a data breach, wherein unauthorized cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant’s inadequately secured computer network and stole files containing the sensitive personal information of approximately 868,969 individuals (the Data Breach). According to Columbia University, the personal information accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information (PII), including but not limited to names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, contact information, financial account information, health insurance information, and demographic information. The Defendant's misconduct -- failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal 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 Personal 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. The Defendant is a higher education institution, offering academic degrees in a variety of disciplines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com COMEDY PARTNERS: Gets Final Court OK of Zimmerman/Kaplan Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Joseph Zimmerman, Anthony DeVito, and Sean Donnelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Paramount Global, Comedy Partners and Does 1-10, Defendants, consolidated with Michael Kaplan, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comedy Partners, a New York general partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-2409 (VSB), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the parties' class action settlement, and dismissed the actions with prejudice. The Settlement Agreement was negotiated with the assistance of an experienced mediator, Hon. Louis M. Meisinger (Ret.), at arm's-length by experienced counsel, who were fully informed of the facts and circumstances, and the strengths and weaknesses of the Actions. The Settlement Agreement was reached after the Parties had engaged in mediation and extensive settlement discussions, and after the exchange of information, including information about the size and scope of the Settlement Class. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on the basis that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, all Settlement Class Members, and is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court concluded that the Settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated by Class Counsel with significant experience litigating class actions, copyright and licensing-related actions in the media and entertainment industries, and other complex litigation, and is the result of vigorous arm's-length negotiations undertaken in good faith. The Court found that the distribution of the Class Notice constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances to Settlement Class Members and constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of, among other things, the pendency of the Actions, the nature and terms of the proposed Settlement, their right to object or to exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement, and their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The Court received no objections to the Settlement Agreement from Class Members, and zero Class Members have requested to be excluded from the Class. The Court certified the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities, their agents, successors in interest, affiliates, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators who are or were parties to Recording Contracts with Comedy Partners whose works have been distributed by digital audio transmission via SiriusXM Radio pursuant to such Recording Contracts between May 19, 2013, up to and including December 31, 2022." The law firms of Johnson & Johnson LLP, Pearson Warshaw, LLP, and Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet, LLP are appointed, solely for settlement purposes, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court approved Class Counsel's request for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and awarded Class Counsel $3,666,666.66 as reasonable Attorneys' Fees and $78,073.50 in reasonable Expenses, inclusive of the award of reasonable costs incurred in the Actions. The Court found that the requested Attorneys' Fees and Expenses are reasonable under the percentage of the Settlement Amount. The Court concluded that Class Counsel achieved a favorable result for the Settlement Class by obtaining Defendants' agreement to make significant funds available to Settlement Class Members, without the need for the submission of any claim form. Among other things, the Class Counsel devoted substantial effort to pre- and post-filing investigation, legal analysis, and litigation. Class Counsel prosecuted the Settlement Class's claims on a contingent fee basis, investing significant time and accumulating costs with no guarantee that they would receive compensation for their services or recover their expenses. The Court awarded an Incentive Award in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to each Class Plaintiff, payable from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date, Class Plaintiffs, each of the Settlement Class Members, and all Releasing Parties shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged against Defendants and the Released Parties any and all Released Claims. Class Plaintiffs, each of the Settlement Class Members, and all Releasing Parties, as well as anyone bringing claims through or on behalf of them, shall be permanently barred and enjoined from the commencement, assertion, institution, maintenance or prosecution of any of the Released Claims against Defendants or any Released Party in any action or other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration tribunal, administrative forum, or forum of any kind. The Actions and all claims contained therein, as well as all the Released Claims, against Defendants by Class Plaintiffs and Releasing Parties are dismissed with prejudice. The terms of the Settlement Agreement and of this Final Approval Order shall be forever binding on, and shall have res judicata and preclusive effect in, any and all pending and future lawsuits related to the Released Claims maintained by Class Plaintiffs and all other Settlement Class Members, as well as their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. The Court directed the parties to implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Administrator is directed to provide Class Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court ruled that any Class Settlement Payments that are uncashed after 180 Days of mailing shall be returned to Defendants to be credited by Defendants to the respective Settlement Class Members' accounts with Defendants. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor the Settlement contained therein, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Settlement Agreement or the Settlement is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission or evidence of the validity of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of Defendants. A copy of the Court's Final Approval of the Class Settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QWVXsY CORE TRAINING: Calcon Sues Over Disclosure of Confidential Info --------------------------------------------------------------- CALCON MUTUAL MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a ONETRUST HOME LOANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROCH LASSIG; RICHARD RUBY; THE CORE TRAINING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02065-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2025) is an action alleging the Defendants' misappropriation, reckless handling and illegal disclosure of OneTrust's trade secrets. According to the complaint, the Defendants published false and disparaging statements, and communicated their own false and disparaging statements concerning OneTrust's business including but not limited to: 1) That OneTrust "didn't honor any of its agreements"; 2) That mortgage loan officers (MLOs) such as Evans, will not have a "good experience" because Lassig didn't have a good experience; 3) That OneTrust was "a broke little mortgage guy . . . . That couldn't do nothing"; 4) That choosing OneTrust was "a gigantic mistake"; 5) That, when considering OneTrust for employment, a top MLO such as Evans shouldn't be "looking at this kind of shit"; and 6) Other statements identified in this Complaint or that will be identified during the course of discovery that falsely described the quality, value, or integrity of OneTrust's business operations and financial practices. OneTrust is of the information and belief that such statements continue to the present day, says the suit. The Defendants knew the statements were false when made or acted with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity and published them with the intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff's economic interests and to dissuade others from doing business with the Plaintiff or consider them as a prospective or actual employer. These statements were communicated to third parties, including mortgage professionals, prospective branch managers and MLOs, and others in the industry, who understood them to be statements of fact about Plaintiff's business, the suit alleges. The Core Training, Inc. is a coaching company in the U.S. focusing in real estate and mortgage business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James W Brody, Esq. Ronald J. Gapp, Esq. Scott Harkless, Esq. BRODY GAPP LLP 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 2047 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (415) 246-3995 E-mail: james@brodygapp.com ron@brodygapp.com scott@brodygapp.com CORSO COMMERCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Barz Due Nov. 7, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY BARZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CORSO COMMERCE, LLC and BRUMATE, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00918-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order modifying the Court's July 8, 2024, Scheduling Order as follows: Event Date Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Nov. 19, 2026 Motions in Limine: Last Date to File Motion for Class Nov. 7, 2025 Certification: Last Date to File Opposition to Motion for Jan. 16, 2026 Class Certification: Last Date to File Reply in Support of Motion Mar. 10, 2026 for Class Certification: Expert Discovery Cut-Off: July 3, 2026 Last Date to Hear Motions: Sept. 17, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bhEKhq at no extra charge.[CC] CRACKER BARREL: Faces Fritsch Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES FRITSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, Plaintiff, v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00540-DRC (S.D. Ohio, August 1, 2025), alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiff Fritsch was formerly a full-time Cracker Barrel employee, working at the company's Harrison, Ohio restaurant in 2024 and 2025, who was required to pay the illegal tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage. Allegedly, the Defendant collected the tobacco surcharge in violation of the ERISA and in violation of its duties to plan participants and the medical plan itself. The Defendant's plan materials used for communicating information about the surcharge with participants make no mention of an opportunity to earn the full reward for the entire plan year by completing a reasonable alternative standard, instead informing participants that successful completion of the cessation program would remove the surcharge only prospectively. The plan materials also do not include a disclosure that the recommendations of an individual's personal physician would be accommodated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to have these unlawful fees returned, and for plan-wide relief under Title 29 of the U.S. Code Section 1109. Headquartered in Lebanon, TN, Cracker Barrel operates a chain of restaurants throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO & WILLIAMS LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, 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 wagner@steuvesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com CULTUREFLY LLC: Zuno Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Culturefly, LLC. The case is styled as Yesenia Zuno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Culturefly, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61519-WPD (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CultureFly -- https://culturefly.com/ -- is home to a team of pop-culture fanatics who strive to create amazing and original products for hardcore and casual fans alike.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert. Bid in Conriquez Suit Due Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; a California corporation; C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting continuance to the following deadlines (or later dates of the Court's choosing): Class Certification Motion Due: Oct. 15, 2025 Class Certification Opposition Due: Dec. 1, 2025 Class Certification Reply Due: Jan. 10, 2025 On July 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel were notified that John Giovannone, lead counsel for the Defendants, moved firms and that transferring the files between firms would take additional time. The Parties stipulate that precertification discovery is nearly complete, with a brief continuance needed to depose the second and final 30(b)(6) witness for CWS prior to the Plaintiffs filing their motion for class certification. On March 27, 2024, the Parties filed a joint scheduling proposal regarding class certification. On April 4, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Class Certification Deadlines due to pre-certification class data production, including discrepancies and data gaps; Cushman is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ziNN4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Kristen B. Doyan, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-190 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com jboxer@maternlawgroup.com kdoyan@maternlawgroup.com - and - Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Telephone: (310) 312-0299; Facsimile: (310) 312-0296 E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com bass@law-rm.com The Defendants are represented by: John R. Giovannone, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-6300 E-mail: jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com - and - Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. David Danning, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com ddanning@gleasonfavarote.com CUSTOM CABLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shipley Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM SHIPLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM CABLE CONSTRUCTION INC. d/b/a CUSTOM UTILICOM INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01663 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 8, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Shipley was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Custom Cable Construction is in the business of providing telecommunication contracting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com DAVITA INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jones Says ------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVITA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02458-STV (D. Colo., Aug. 7, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in April 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Accordingly, the Defendant delivers care to more than 1.7 million patients. On April 12, 2025, Defendant became aware of a ransomware incident that encrypted certain elements of its IT Network. Upon discovery, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Interlock, a ransomware group, accessed Defendant's IT Network and claims to have stolen 20+ terabytes of data. The cyberattack prevented access to Defendant IT Network by Defendant’s employees. Additionally, Interlock attempted ransom negotiations with Defendant but when the negotiations failed, it is reported that Interlock published Plaintiff and Class Members Private Information on the dark web. The Defendant has since confirmed that it is aware of the ransomware group's claims, and that Private Information was in fact published on the dark web by Interlock. In response to the publication of patients' Private Information, Defendant launched a comprehensive review of the data to identify the exact types of Private Information compromised as well as identify patients affected by the Data Breach, says the suit. The Defendant is a leading provider of kidney care services in the United States, offering dialysis and related services to patients with chronic kidney failure and end-stage renal disease through a network of outpatient centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com DELTA AIR: Goodyear Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class for the assertion of breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims in this action: -- Breach of Contract "All current and former Delta ground employees who were governed by the Hours of Work Contract and were not paid overtime rates for weekly overtime during work periods in which they worked a full-time irregular schedule and swapped off some or all of their scheduled hours, from Dec. 12, 2017 to the date on which certification is granted." -- Unjust Enrichment "All current and former Delta ground employees who were governed by the Hours of Work Contract and were not paid overtime rates for weekly overtime during work periods in which they worked a full-time irregular schedule and swapped off some or all of their scheduled hours, from Dec. 12, 2019 to the date on which certification is granted." The Plaintiff also moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) for the appointment of DiCello Levitt LLP as Class Counsel for the certified class. Delta is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jJWanG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Anna Claire Skinner, Esq. Madeline E. Hills, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com askinner@dicellolevitt.com mhills@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jonathan Palmer, Esq. KNIGHT PALMER, LLC 1360 Peachstreet Street, N.E. Suite 1201 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 228-4822 Facsimile: (404) 228-4821 E-mail: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com DIGICERT INC: Conohan Sues Over Unlawful Installation of Software ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Conohan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIGICERT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07037 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2025), is brought for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law as a result of the Defendants' unlawful installation and use of data broker software. The Defendant uses data broker software on its website--https://www.thawte.com/ (the "Website")--to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website on March 9, 2025. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls https://www.thawte.com/ (the "Website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com DISH DBS: Appeal from Dismissal of Lingam Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- DISH DBS Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an appeal from the dismissal of the Lingam securities class action lawsuit remains pending. On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was filed against DISH Network and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of DISH Network's securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023 class period. In general, the complaint alleged that DISH Network's public statements during that period were false and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that DISH Network allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer data and DISH Network's operations were susceptible to widespread service outages. In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and on October 20, 2023, they filed a First Amended Complaint that abandoned the original allegations. In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, during the class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G network build-out that prevented scaling and commercializing the network to obtain enterprise customers. The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S. Allen, DISH Network's Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John Swieringa, DISH Network’s President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer; Dave Mayo, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President of Network Development; Marc Rouanne, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President and Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting the same theory, on February 23, 2024. The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban and James Allen as individual defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on March 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion without granting plaintiffs permission to further amend. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and briefing is underway. "DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages," the Company said. DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide digital broadcast operations, including satellite uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to third-party pay-TV providers. DISH DBS: Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ The data breach class action lawsuit filed by Susan Owen-Brooks remains pending, DISH DBS Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action complaint against DISH Network, our parent, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16, 2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. On September 27, 2024, the Court granted DISH Network's motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to eight of the eleven named plaintiffs and as to certain causes of action. On October 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which deletes the allegations as to the dismissed plaintiffs and causes of action, leaving three named plaintiffs and causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment. "DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages," the Company said. DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide digital broadcast operations, including satellite uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to third-party pay-TV providers. DR MANAGEMENT: Moriceau Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ELDA MORICEAU, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. DR MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and RPB SENIOR LIVING, LLC DBA BELLA MAR ROYAL PALM BEACH., a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 9:25-cv-80992 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 11, 2025) seeks overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff performed non-exempt work as a laborer and related activities in Palm Beach County, Florida for Defendants. She was employed with Defendants from May 2023 through April 2025. DR MANAGEMENT is an assisted living and staff management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com DRESS FOR LESS: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23451-XXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 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 has failed to reasonably accommodate blind and visually disabled customers who want the ease of access and use of the POS devices to make their purchases in the retail stores. This failure to provide reasonable accommodation includes the failure to include in the POS devices a blind interface system, an audio interface system, working assistive listening devices, a tactile keyboard, and/or screen reader technology or other auxiliary aids for the blind and visually disabled. All of these auxiliary aids were and are readily accessible to Defendant and should have been made available to its blind and visually disabled customers, such as Plaintiff, but were not. The Defendant thus has failed to provide its blind and visually disabled customers the ability to use the POS devices like other, non-visually disabled customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with pathologic myopia with central chorioretinal atrophy secondary to her myopia. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls, either directly or through franchise agreements.[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 ECG GARDEN: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wage, Rattenni Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES RATTENNI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ECG GARDEN CITY, INC. d/b/a EL CERRO MEXICAN BAR & GRILL; HERIBERTO IBARRA, individually; SALVADOR IBARRA, individually; and RAY GARCIA, individually, Case No. 4:25-cv-10375-JD (D.S.C., Aug. 11, 2025) is a collective action for actual damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to give the Plaintiffs notice that they were paying Plaintiffs with the Tip Credit and failed to give Plaintiffs notice that Plaintiffs could keep all of their tips, except for the Tip Pool. This action is also brought individually and as a class action for payment of wages and for other relief under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, South Carolina Code Ann. section 41-10-10, et. seq. (SCPWA). Rattenni is a citizen and resident of Horry County, South Carolina. El Cerro is a company maintaining offices and agents in Horry County, South Carolina. El Cerro is an employer of individuals and operates a restaurant in Horry County, South Carolina, doing business as El Cerro Mexican Bar & Grill.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 1459 Stuart Engals Blvd., Suite 202 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 Facsimile: (843) 614-6417 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com ERIC WEINSTEIN: Wills Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERIC WEINSTEIN DDS, P.C., Case No. 1 1:25-cv-04445 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) arises because the Defendant's website, www.islanddentalassociates.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Justus Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dustin Justus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Evolve Bancorp Inc., Lineage Bank, Case No. 2:25-cv-02385 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02357-CYC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN] F&A PIZZA INC: Nunez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against F&A PIZZA INC. The case is styled as Christina Nunez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. F&A PIZZA INC. T/A DOMINOS, DADASH PIZZA LLC, Case No. 25STCV22520 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." F&A PIZZA INC. T/A Domino's -- https://www.dominos.com/en/ -- is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF FLORIDA, LLC, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23455-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 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 has failed to reasonably accommodate blind and visually disabled customers who want the ease of access and use of the POS devices to make their purchases in the retail stores. This failure to provide reasonable accommodation includes the failure to include in the POS devices a blind interface system, an audio interface system, working assistive listening devices, a tactile keyboard, and/or screen reader technology or other auxiliary aids for the blind and visually disabled. All of these auxiliary aids were and are readily accessible to Defendant and should have been made available to its blind and visually disabled customers, such as Plaintiff, but were not. The Defendant thus has failed to provide its blind and visually disabled customers the ability to use the POS devices like other, non-visually disabled customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with pathologic myopia with central chorioretinal atrophy secondary to her myopia. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of over 8,000 retail stores.[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 FANATICS INC: Goldberger & Honnold Sue Over Anticompetitive Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mitchell GOLDBERGER and Bruce HONNOLD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FANATICS, INC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06369 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2025) alleges that Defendants have engaged in an anticompetitive scheme in the market for newly issued, fully licensed Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues trading cards produced by Fanatics resulting in inflated prices and reduced competition for purchasers of such cards. According to the complaint, fanatics secured exclusive licenses across all six Major U.S. Professional Sports League licensors, eliminating competitors and securing monopoly power. The Plaintiffs allege Fanatics' deals with all Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues and Players Associations were accomplished without any open bidding process. In addition, Fanatics also acquired a controlling share of GC Packaging, an essential card manufacturer used by Fanatics' only remaining Pro Sports Trading Cards competitor, Panini America Inc., and then restricted production to choke off Panini's supply, resulting in supply disruptions and contract cancellations, says the suit. Headquartered in Jacksonville, FL, Fanatics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells licensed fan gear, jerseys, lifestyle and streetwear products, headwear, and hardgoods. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William V. Reiss, Esq. Ellen Jalkut, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com EJalkut@RobinsKaplan.com FAVORITE WORLD: $4.7MM Class Settlement in Minor Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA AYANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditionally certifying the settlement class, providing for notice, and scheduling order: 1. The Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement is granted upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Order. 2. The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class for the purposes of settlement. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Davida Minor and Asha Ayanna as Class Representatives for settlement purposes. 4. The Court preliminarily appoints Brandon Brouillette, Craig W. Straub, and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal, P.C. as Class Counsel. 5. The Court preliminarily finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The proposed Class Notice complies with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process, and notice is to be sent to the Settlement Class Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and pursuant to the deadlines in the Agreement. The Settlement Agreement contemplates certification of the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. "All individual consumers who, during the Class Period, purchased one or more Class Products from Defendant's website www.shapermint.com at a discounted price below the listed MSRP price listed on the website for personal, family, or household purposes while residing in California. Excluded from the from the proposed Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendant and its officers, directors, and employees; (ii) any person who validly opt outs of the Settlement in a timely manner; (iii) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to the case; (iv) anyone who received a full cash refund of the Product(s); and (v) any natural person or entity that entered into a release with Defendant prior to the Effective Date arising from the same representations, advertising, marketing and/or sales on the Defendant's website, www.shapermint.com, underlying the claims in the operative complaint in the Action. The Settlement requires Shapermint to provide benefits in the form of vouchers to the Settlement Class, which Plaintiffs estimate based on their review of Settlement Class member purchases data to be worth roughly $4,700,000. In addition, Defendant will provide $475,000 to the Settlement Costs Fund to pay for Settlement Costs. Favorite is a retailer of clothing and clothing accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KL9yp2 at no extra charge.[CC] FINWISE BANK: Coucil Files Suit in D. Utah ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FinWise Bank, et al. The case is styled as Keeba Coucil, Raymond Delgado Sandoval, on their own behalf and all others similarly situated v. FinWise Bank, FinWise Bancorp, American First Finance, Case No. 2:25-cv-00642 (D. Utah, Aug. 4, 2025). The nature of suit s stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. FinWise -- https://www.finwise.bank/ -- helps fintechs offer financial products, supports them with technology, and streamlines loan processes, aiming to advance financial technology.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yevgen Kovalov, Esq. Jennifer F. Parrish, Esq. James E. Magleby, Esq. MAGLEBY CATAXINOS & GREENWOOD 141 W. Pierpont Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 359-9000 Fax: (801) 359-9011 Email: kovalov@mcgiplaw.com parrish@mcgiplaw.com magleby@mcgiplaw.com FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Court Okays Distribution of Net Settlement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Mohammed Usman Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Franklin Wireless Corp., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony Joseph Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for distribution of net settlement fund to authorized claimants. The Court entered its order on July 23, 2025, approving the distribution of settlement funds to class members who submitted valid claims in this class action lawsuit. The Claims Administrator, Epic Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., completed the process of reviewing all 933 submitted claims in the action. According to the Court, "all Claimants who submitted deficient Claims were, upon review in accordance with the procedure approved by the Court, notified of such deficiency, and given an opportunity to contest and/or cure the deficiency. None of the deficient Claims have disputed their rejected claims or currently ask for Court review of the deficient claims." Judge Battaglia ruled that the administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator, Epiq, in accepting and rejecting Claims are approved. Specifically, the administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator accepting those Claims set forth in Exhibit C-1 to the Mahan Declaration are approved, and said claims are hereby accepted for payment from the Net Settlement Fund. Likewise, the administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator rejecting those claims set forth in Exhibit C-2 to the Mahan Declaration are approved, and said Claims are hereby rejected, disallowed, and shall not be paid. The Court approved the distribution plan whereby the funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (after deducting any payments requested in the cost estimate to complete the Initial Distribution and the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns) shall be distributed on a pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants identified in Exhibit C-1 to the Mahan Declaration, at the direction of Lead Counsel pursuant to the Amended Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation. Under the approved distribution scheme, the Court ordered that: (a) Epiq will calculate award amounts to all Authorized Claimants by calculating their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund in accordance with the Court-approved Plan of Allocation; (b) Epiq will eliminate from the Initial Distribution any Authorized Claimant whose pro rata share calculates to less than $10.00, which Claimants shall not receive any payment from the Net Settlement Fund; (c) after eliminating Claimants who would receive less than $10.00, Epiq will recalculate the pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund for Authorized Claimants who would have received $10.00 or more; and (d) Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Initial Distribution checks within the time allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement. The Court established strict deadlines, ordering that any person asserting claims filed after May 19, 2025, the date used to finalize the administration by the Claims Administrator, are finally and forever barred from asserting such claims. No new Claims may be accepted after May 19, 2025, and no adjustments to Claim Forms, which would result in an increased Recognized Loss amount may be accepted after May 19, 2025. Regarding the distribution checks, the Court ordered that "the checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants shall bear the notation 'DEPOSIT PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF ISSUE DATE.' Plaintiff's Counsel and the Claims Administrator are authorized to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimants who have not cashed their check within said time." After Epiq has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants negotiate their Initial Distribution checks, if there is any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after at least six months after the Initial Distribution, then, if feasible and economical, Epiq will conduct a second distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (the "Second Distribution"), pursuant to which any amounts remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the Initial Distribution, after deducting Epiq's fees and expenses incurred in connection with administering the Settlement for which it has not yet been paid (including the estimated costs of such Second Distribution), and after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be distributed in an equitable and economic fashion to Authorized Claimants in the Initial Distribution who cashed their distribution checks and would receive at least $10.00 from such re-distribution. If there are any remaining funds after completion of the Second Distribution, if cost effective, Epiq will conduct a further distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, pursuant to which all funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund, after deducting Epiq's unpaid fees and expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection with administering the Net Settlement Fund (including the estimated costs of such distribution), and after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be distributed to Authorized Claimants who cashed their most recent distribution. The Court granted broad protection to those involved in the settlement administration, finding that all persons involved in the review, verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Claims submitted herein, or otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund (including, but not limited to Plaintiff's Counsel and the Claims Administrator) are released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such involvement. One year after the Initial Distribution, or the Second Distribution if it occurs, the Claims Administrator is authorized to destroy the paper or hard copies of the claims and all supporting documentation, and one year after all funds have been distributed, it may destroy electronic copies of the same. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oj7znc FREE FLOW: Angel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Raymundo Vasquez Angel, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FREE FLOW INC. (D/B/A ANGAAR), PARMINDER SINGH, and RICKY SINGH, Case No. 1:25-cv-06256 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2025), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12, § 146-1.6 (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Vasquez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Vasquez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Vasquez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked over 10 hours per day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker and dishwasher at the restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian restaurant, located in Columbus Circle, New York under the name "Angaar."[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 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FROOOGAL LIMITED: Faces Hernandez Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FROOOGAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-04444 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, us.bremont.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on October 1, 2024, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase a sofa bed "Wickham." The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 GEICO: Plaintiff Seeks Voluntary Dismissal of Claims w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO), et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff seeks leave to voluntarily dismiss all of its claims without prejudice. GIECO provides motorcycle, ATV, RV, boat, snowmobile, travel, pet, event, homeowner, renter, and jewelry insurance options. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4eRTHB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. John Tangren, Esq. Eaghan S. Davis, Esq. Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com edavis@dicellolevitt.com fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com edawkins@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. Gabrielle Higgins, Esq. Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com gabrielle@bencrump.com brendan@bencrump.com GEORGIA: Transgender Seeks Continued Access to Medical Care ----------------------------------------------------------- ISIS BENJAMIN; FANTASIA HORTON; NAEOMI MADISON; BRYNN WILSON; and JOHN DOE; on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v. COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER, in his official capacity; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RANDY SAULS, in his official capacity; STATEWIDE MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. MARLAH MARDIS, in her official capacity; and CENTURION OF GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04470-VMC (N.D. Ga., Aug. 8, 2025) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to rectify the Defendants' violations of their constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and to ensure that Plaintiffs and Class Members have continued access to the medically necessary care they require. The Plaintiffs and the putative class they seek to represent are transgender people with gender dysphoria in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition—characterized by clinically significant stress due to the incongruence between one's gender identity and sex assigned at birth—that requires medical treatment. The Plaintiffs were each diagnosed with gender dysphoria by GDC healthcare providers. The Plaintiffs have also been prescribed, or are in the process of seeking evaluations for, gender dysphoria treatment inclusive of hormone therapy. On May 8, 2025, Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia, signed Senate Bill 185, S.B. 185, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2025) (SB185), a law that prohibits the use of state funds to pay for gender dysphoria treatment for people in GDC custody, including but not limited to the hormone therapy that Plaintiffs and Class Members rely on. During hearings about SB185, bill sponsors indicated that the statute was also intended to prohibit incarcerated people from accessing gender dysphoria treatment via "self-pay." Since the law's passage, several named Plaintiffs have also reported the same. Accordingly, SB185 bans hormone therapy and other forms of medically necessary care for incarcerated people with gender dysphoria, regardless of medical need, while permitting those same treatments for people with other medical conditions, the suit says. Plaintiff Isis Benjamin is a transgender woman with gender dysphoria. She first entered GDC custody in 2020, and most recently in March 2025, and is currently incarcerated at Coastal State Prison. The putative class in this case is defined as "All individuals incarcerated in GDC who are seeking or receiving gender dysphoria treatment now proscribed by SB185." Defendant Tyrone Oliver has been the Commissioner of GDC since 2022. As Commissioner, he is responsible for the overall administration of GDC correctional facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C. R. Early, Esq. A. Chinyere Ezie, Esq. Celine Zhu, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Phone: (212) 614-6464 E-mail: eearly@ccrjustice.org cezie@ccrjustice.org czhu@ccrjustice.org - and - D. Korbin Felder, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS P.O. BOX 12046 Jackson, MS 39236 Telephone: (601) 228-6101 E-mail: kfelder@ccrjustice.org - and - Amanda Kay Seals, Esq. Matthew R. Sellers, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W Peachtree St NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: seals@bmelaw.com sellers@bmelaw.com GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, 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 ("PAGA"), v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification until Sept. 15, 2025. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products including apparel, accessories, eyewear, watches, and jewelry. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHZGOX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Jacqueline Ahumada, Esq. Nicky Jatana, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION: Valentine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global K9 Protection Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ralph Valentine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Global K9 Protection Group, LLC, Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25627848 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Global K9 -- https://www.globalk9protectiongroup.com/ -- is an elite detection company, delivering tailored and efficient screening solutions, and specialising in K9 services for the air cargo industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com - and - Joshua Samson Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite No 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (818) 456-6168 Fax: (888) 505-0868 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Bid for Omnibus Sealing Stipulation Granted in Calhoun ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, ET AL., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Parties' omnibus sealing stipulation with regard to Daubert motions and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The sealing requests generally fall into three categories: -- Confidential names of internal Google projects -- Personal information of putative class members (e.g., addresses, emails, search history, and IP address history) -- Google internal company documents containing business proprietary information (e.g., PowerPoints, employee comments, tables). Google is an American multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=saiSM2 at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Files Renewed Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA and IAN GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its renewed and substantially narrowed motion to seal exhibits filed in connection with class certification briefing. Google seeks to seal certain materials that raise privacy concerns such as contact information for current and former Google employees who are not parties to this litigation. Pursuant to the compelling reasons standard, Google's tailored sealing requests are warranted. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Azrz6R at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Kristine Forderer, Esq. Christopher M. Andrews, Esq. Alexandra Cubaleski, Esq. Joyce Rodriguez-Luna, Esq. Robert E. Earles, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com kforderer@cooley.com candrews@cooley.com acubaleski@cooley.com jrodriguez-luna@cooley.com rearles@cooley.com HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Bid to Exclude UnProduced Exhibits Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN; NINA ARIZUMI; ROBERT ESPINOSA; ERWIN YOUNG; PUANANI BADIANG; SABRINA FRANKS; RONALD LUM; DAN SAIKI; BRANDEE AUKAI, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.; HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP (D. Hawaii), the Hon. Judge Helen Gillmor entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 1 to exclude exhibits not produced in discovery. The Plaintiffs' request for additional depositions about Exhibit 2311 is granted in part. The Plaintiffs may depose Peter Ingram, Robin Kobayashi, and Bhawna Mundotia for one hour each about Exhibit 2311. All other requests for exclusion and for additional discovery and depositions set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1 and accompanying brief are denied. The Defendants acknowledge that they were late to disclose Exhibit 2307. The late disclosure, however, is harmless because it does not contain any new information about which Plaintiffs were previously unaware. Exhibit 2307 is consistent with the already conducted deposition testimony that the majority of the senior officers agreed with the decision to implement the vaccine policy and that the Board approved the policy. Hawaiian offers non-stop service to Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and international destinations. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VjztU6 at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO MORALES, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08401-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff shall move the Court, on Aug. 20, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., for an Order granting final approval of the within class action settlement agreement, Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs, and related relief . Healthcare provides collection services to health care sector. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jg0hxZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Mark Jensen, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com mjensen@kimlf.com HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS: Blubaugh Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Solutions Insurancy Agency LLC. The case is styled as Jeffery Blubaugh, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Healthcare Solutions Insurancy Agency LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04406 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Healthcare Solutions Insurance Group -- https://www.hsigfl.com/ -- assists individuals and businesses with their Medicare insurance and retirement needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxwell Cory Nelson, Esq. MCN LAW LLC 8600 W. 110th Street, Suite 214 Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: (913) 358-5800 Email: mcorynelson@mcnlawllc.com HEALTHPRO BRANDS: Roberts Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chrystal Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHPRO BRANDS INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,, Case No. 25STCV19202 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07165. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, requesting Defendant be enjoined "from continuing to disseminate and/or including the Misrepresentations and Omission detailed herein in the marketing, advertising, website pages, packaging and labeling of the Product." The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief ostensibly covering both Defendant's packaging / labeling, and also Defendant's marketing and advertisement materials. The Defendant in no way concedes such relief is justified or appropriate. The demanded injunctive relief, however, would require Defendant to incur significant time and costs overhauling its materials [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Adams, Esq. Lucas K. Hori, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 18575 Jamboree Rd., 9th Flr. Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 714-641-5100 Facsimile: 714-546-9035 Email: madams@rutan.com lhori@rutan.com HOME DEPOT: Carranza Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MARIA CARRANZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-8939 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 1, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00643 to the proceeding. The case arises from Home Depot's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. owns and operates home improvement retail stores. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. Alexander Grodan, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. Zachary Princi, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: (949) 399-7107 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com zachary.princi@morganlewis.com HOME DEPOT: Carranza Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Carranza, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-8939 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02173-JDP. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf of a putative class for: alleged violation of Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); alleged violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a) (unpaid meal period premiums); alleged violation of Labor Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); alleged violation of Labor Code Sections1194, 1197, 1197.1 (unpaid minimum wages); alleged violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203 (final wages not timely paid); alleged violation of Labor Code Sections 204 and 210 (wages not timely paid during employment); alleged violation of Labor Code Section 226(a) (failure to provide accurate wage statements); and alleged violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. Alexander Grodan, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. Zachary Princi, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.949.399.7107 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com zachary.princi@morganlewis.com HOME DEPOT: Jankowski Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ Benjamin Jankowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Home Depot, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09144 (N.D. Ill., August 1, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Defendant Home Depot uses computer vision in its stores to perform facial recognition, thereby collecting its customers' facial geometry. However, the Defendant failed to make publicly available written policies containing retention schedules or guidelines for permanently destroying these facial-geometry scans. The Defendant also failed to obtain its customers' informed, written consent before collecting and disclosing the facial scans. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other individuals who had their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information collected, captured, otherwise obtained, used, and/or stored, when visiting a Home Depot location in Illinois at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, to prevent Defendant from further violating Illinois law, and to recover damages for Defendant's violations of his and other Class Members' statutorily protected rights to privacy under BIPA. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Home Depot owns and operates home improvement retailer stores across North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 - and - Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 321-0246 E-mail: jamisen@lcllp.com - and - Christopher Cornelius (IL 6343186) LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 (312) 483-1032 E-mail: chris@lcllp.com HOME SERVICE CLUB: Fulbright Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Service Club of California Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Alora Fulbright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Service Club of California Insurance Services doing business as: Choice Home Warranty, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01940-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Home Service Club (HSC) -- https://hscwarranty.com/ -- is a home warranty company serving homeowners looking for a mix of traditional and unique coverage optionss.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com ILLINOIS: Kainz Suit Seek Class Certification --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER KAINZ, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify the class. Illinois operates 25 adult correctional centers as well as boot camps, work camps and adult transition centers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RYEbR1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq. Patrick J. Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 224-2423 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com pcowlin@hq-law.com - and - Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. Matthew J. Turchyn, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (248) 335-5000 E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com lthomson@hertzschram.com mturchyn@hertzschram.com - and - Martin A. Dolan, Esq. DOLAN LAW PC 10 South LaSalle Street #3702 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 676-7600 E-mail: mdolan@dolanlegal.com INFINITE SERVICES: Balneg Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinite Services, Inc. The case is styled as Glenda Balneg, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Infinite Services, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04294-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.., Aug. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Infinite Services -- https://www.infiniteservices.org/ -- provides physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and counseling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 28, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A securities class action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2024 against the Company and certain officers following the modification of its segment reporting in the first quarter of 2024 to align to its new internal foundry operating model. In August 2024, the court ordered the case consolidated with a second, similar lawsuit, and in October 2024 plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint generally alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements about the growth and prospects of the foundry business and seeking monetary damages on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock or purchased call options or sold put options on its common stock from January 25, 2024 through August 1, 2024. In early March 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend, and in late March 2025 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In April 2025 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In July 2025, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss without granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Given the procedural posture of the case, including that the plaintiffs may appeal the district court's decision, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from the matter. Intel is an American multinational corporation and technology company. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 8, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a New York corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-03065-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Stan Bastian entered an order on class certification discovery deadlines as follows: 1. The parties shall disclose their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) material no later than Aug. 29, 2025. 2. Discovery is open for all purposes necessary regarding class certification and merits regarding Plaintiff Mr. Rojas. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before June 8, 2026. The Defendant shall file any response on or before July 17, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before Aug. 7, 2026. The Court will set a hearing following briefing, if necessary. International is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z6pvI3 at no extra charge.[CC] J.M. PACKAGING: Riley Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Riley, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly-situated v. J.M. Packaging Corporation, a Domestic Profit Corporation, and Robert E. Epstein, Individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-12490-SKD-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Aug. 19, 2013, the Plaintiff began working as a Maintenance Mechanic for AJM, a manufacturer of paper products owned by Epstein. Accordingly, the Defendants utilized a payment policy they called, "Spot Pay." However, Spot Pay violates the FLSA for at least two reasons: 1) it failed to properly compensate Plaintiff his overtime rate for all hours worked over forty in a workweek because it used a lower rate of pay to underpay for overtime (over 40 hours/week) while using a higher rate for deductions when less than 40 hours were worked and; 2) treated Plaintiff as an hourly employee by making deductions from his pay in weeks where Plaintiff works less than forty. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 19, 2013 to February 19, 2025, working at Defendants' 11800 Reeck Rd, Southgate, MI 48195 location. J.M. is a company specializing in the design and production of packaging solutions for various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150 West Jefferson, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 739-1953 E-mail: etereziu@forthepeople.com JOHN AGUILAR & COMPANY: Villatoro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Aguilar & Company, Inc. The case is styled as Anner Saenz Villatoro, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. John Aguilar & Company, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0010683 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." John Aguilar & Company offers transport services. The Company provides transfer of liquid and bulk sugar, sanitary wash, and corn syrups.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Talar DerOhannessian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 JVS SOCAL: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JVS SOCAL. The case is styled as Gabino Mendez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. JVS SOCAL, Case No. 25STCV22616 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." JVS SoCal -- https://jvs-socal.org/ -- offers hope and opportunity to our diverse community through job training, mentoring and education, combined with expert career guidance.[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 KAISER FOUNDATION: Stebakov Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Snezhana Stebakov, an individual on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California nonprofit corporation, THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV128256 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06564. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Accurate Pay Stubs; Failure to Pay Agreed Benefits; Violation of Unfair Competition Law; Failure to Provide Paid Sick Leave Notice; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; and Breach of Contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J. Rowley, Esq. Kerry Friedrichs, Esq. Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq. Daniela A. Archila, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: Vafaeenia@seyfarth.com kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com darchila@seyfarth.com - and - Landon R. Schwob, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: lschwob@fisherphillips.com KELSIER VENTURES: Seeks to Vacate TRO in Hurlock Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hurlock v. Kelsier Ventures, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03891-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: -- vacating the temporary restraining order (which likely became a de facto preliminary injunction); -- denying the original plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as withdrawn and moot due to the filing of a superseding amended complaint; and -- promptly cancelling the August 19 hearing. Kelsier is a venture capital firm that specializes in digital assets and web3 technology. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d5q6c7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq. George M. Padis, Esq. SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC 2200 Ross Avenue – Suite 4900W Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 432-2899 Facsimile: (214) 853-4367 E-mail: mas@sbaitilaw.com george.padis@sbaitilaw.com - and - M. Cris Armenta, Esq. M. CRIS ARMENTA, P.C. 217 Clancy Way Bozeman, MT 59718 Telephone: (310) 488-2080 Facsimile: (310) 421-1021 E-mail: cris@crisarmenta.com KEN YOUNGERMANN: McCauley Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- Maryanne McCauley, on behalf of others similarly situated v. KEN YOUNGERMANN, Case No. 4:25-cv-01157 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 1, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Defendant, as property owner, is responsible for complying with the ADA for both the exterior portions and interior portions of the Property. Even if there is a lease between Defendant and a tenant allocating responsibilities for ADA compliance within the unit the tenant operates, that lease is only between the property owner and the tenant and does not abrogate the Defendant's requirement to comply with the ADA for the entire Property it owns, including the interior portions of the Property which are public accommodations. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of revisit is to be a return customer of La Ruche, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 1922 L.P. is a Texas limited partnership that transacts business in the State of Texas and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Aguilar Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deysi Paola Aguilar, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., a Delaware corporation; THE AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., a Delaware corporation; MOTT'S LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership; COLTON SPENCE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVVS2503539 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02021. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Violation of Labor Code section 227.3; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ron Holland, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.655.1300 Facsimile: 415.707.2010 Email: ron.holland@gtlaw.com - and - Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq. Joseph M. Dietrich, Esq. Kristen Khair, Esq. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.732.6500 Facsimile: 949.732.6501 Email: bykerkr@gtlaw.com Joe.Dietrich@gtlaw.com Kristen.Khair@gtlaw.com KEURIG PEPPER: Beverages Contain Synthetic Citric Acid, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KESHA PETERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC. Case No. 1:25-cv-04410-MKB-PK (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2025) alleges that Defendant falsely represents to consumers through its packaging that Snapple Beverages products are "ALL NATURAL." The Defendant makes these claims in order to capitalize on consumers' preference for natural foods that do not contain synthetic ingredients. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the Defendant's claims are false because the Products contain synthetic citric acid, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff has purchased the Products. Now, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, she asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells Snapple beverages in various varieties throughout the United States, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC Joshua D. Arisohn 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com KIMCO OF TAMPA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. THE PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK LLC D/B/A PEP BOYS, Case No. 1:25-cv-23434-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property business to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business within the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. THE PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK LLC D/B/A PEP BOYS, owned and continues to own and operate a commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com LANGERS JUICE: Georgopoulos Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Langers Juice Company, Inc. The case is styled as Anastassia Georgopoulos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Langers Juice Company, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-06514-AGT (N.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Langer Juice Company -- https://langers.com/ -- is a food & beverages company based out of United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel Sena Guerra, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com LAST SECOND MEDIA: Tirado Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Last Second Media, Incorporated. The case is styled as Christine Tirado, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Last Second Media, Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-00344-JEM (N.D. Ind., July 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Last Second Media -- https://lastsecondmedia.tv/ -- offers per-inquiry advertising, using TV, radio, and cable, with pay-for-performance models, and up to 11 media channels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com LESLIES POOLMART: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslies Poolmart, Inc. The case is styled as Rudy Hurtado Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Leslies Poolmart, Inc., Case No. 25STCV22795 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Leslie's Poolmart -- https://lesliespool.com/ -- provides quality products and services for commercial pool and spa needs through a comprehensive program with OMNIA Partners.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fassina v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-11466 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order granting motion for leave to file documents under seal to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Class Certification by LM Insurance Corporation, Liberty Insurance Corporation, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Liberty is an American diversified global insurer.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE FASSINA, STEVEN EDELEN, and KENNETH BLACK, HEATHER TRYON, JOSHUA TRYON, CRAIG DOBBS, and NANCY DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION Case No. 1:22-cv-11466-DJC (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal their forthcoming response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, along with accompanying declarations and exhibits. The following are the proposed sealed documents: 1. Defendants' Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification; 2. Exhibit B-1 – Transcript from the deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert Toby Johnson, taken in this matter on March 28, 2025; 3. Exhibit B-2 – Transcript from the deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert Toby Johnson, taken in the matter of Maria Cortinas, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, on January 9, 2025; 4. Exhibit C-1 – Defendants' Expert Report by R. Wade Vandiver dated March 27, 2025 (Vandiver Report). Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants have conferred on the documents proposed to be filed under seal and both parties are in agreement that the documents should be sealed. Liberty offers home, farm, mobile, seasonal property, renters, personal umbrella, business owners, commercial insurance, and more. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YFGTvI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. Nicholas J. Ramacher, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY, & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2880 E-mail: dpt@dcglaw.com njr@dcglaw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Michael J. Murtha, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mmurtha@jw.com mbrown@jw.com LINEAGE INC: City of St. Clair Sues Over Misleading Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINEAGE, INC. ET AL., 2:25-cv-12383-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich., August 1, 2025) seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 against Lineage, the Company's senior officers and directors, and the underwriters of the initial public offering. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Lineage common stock in or traceable to the registration statement used in connection with the Company's July 2024 IPO. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's registration statement contained material misrepresentations about Lineage's business, historical financial results, and the industry trends purportedly facing the Company at the time of the IPO. The Plaintiff further claims that the registration statement failed to disclose that Lineage's financial and operational results had been temporarily inflated leading up to the IPO as a result of artificial market distortions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, increased supply of cold-storage facilities, and the imposition of unsustainable price increases by Lineage. Headquartered in Novi, MI, Lineage, Inc. is a cold storage focused real estate investment trust. Its common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "LINE." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com LIVE VENTURES: Bid to Dismiss Sieggreen Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Ventures Incorporated's motion to dismiss the Sieggreen Class Action remains pending, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On August 13, 2021, Daniel E. Sieggreen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated claimants (the "Plaintiff"), filed a class action Complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company, Jon Isaac, the Company's current President and Chief Executive Officer, and Virland Johnson, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants (collectively, the "Company Defendants"). The allegations asserted are similar to those in the SEC Complaint. Among other sought relief, the complaint seeks damages in connection with the purchases and sales of the Company's securities between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021. As of December 17, 2021, the judge granted a stipulation to stay proceedings pending the resolutions of the Motions to Dismiss in the SEC Complaint. On February 1, 2023, the final Motion to Dismiss relating to the SEC Complaint was denied, which was subsequently noticed in the Sieggreen action on February 2, 2023. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 6, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the Company Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss was heard and granted with Leave to Amend on September 30, 2024. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 31, 2024. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2024 and the briefing is complete. A hearing on the motion has not been set. Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with a strategic focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies. LIVE VENTURES: Parties in Sanchez Suit Agree to Mediation --------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the Sanchez wage and hour suit agreed to mediation that will start in the fall of 2025, Live Ventures Incorporated disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 27, 2022, Irma Sanchez, a former employee of Elite Builder Services, Inc. ("Elite Builders"), filed a class action Complaint against Elite Builders in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, which case was transferred to Stanislaus Count. The Complaint alleges that Elite Builders failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide lawful meal periods and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay all wages due upon separation as required by California law. The Complaint was later amended as a matter of right on October 4, 2022. Further, Ms. Sanchez has put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency on notice to exhaust administrative remedies and enable her to bring an additional claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties. The parties agreed to mediation and have exchanged materials relevant to a mediation that will be held in the Fall of 2025. Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with a strategic focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies. LSG1 NARANJA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. LSG1 NARANJA LAKES, LLC and SUNSHINE RETAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A FRESCO Y MAS No. 0385, Case No. 1:25-cv-23550 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned and/or operated a commercial property at 27359 S. Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com M.S.H. INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Cantwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. M.S.H., INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04432 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.plessers.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on Jan. 9, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a kitchen appliance (refrigerator). Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the kitchen appliance (refrigerator), that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, assert the suit. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MAJESTIC CENTER PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. MAJESTIC CENTER PLAZA, LLC; BIANCO CAFE BISTRO INC; SWEET BICHOTES INC; and BREADMAN MIAMI II CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-23458-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. MAJESTIC CENTER PLAZA, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com MANDARINA PRINTING: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mandarina Printing, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08896 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 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://uniqstiq.com (hereinafter "Uniqstiq.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, Uniqstiq.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. Annieglass provides to the public a website known as Annieglass.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view bowls, plates, vases, drinkware, home decor items, lighting, and gift sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law MANHATTAN PAINTING: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Andrade Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANHATTAN PAINTING & DECORATING CORP., IGBALE ERBELI, individually, and ARGJENT ERBELI, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-06540 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) seeks to recover agreed upon wages, underpayment caused by failure to pay overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt workers, such as painters, sprayers, and laborers (Non-Exempt Workers) who work or have worked for the Defendants. In order to provide services to its customers, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and other Non-Exempt Workers. Despite being non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other Non-Exempt Workers overtime compensation at the rate of one and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in any given workweek, the suit says. In that regard, the Defendants paid Plaintiff or other Non-Exempt Workers an arbitrary number of hours less than 40 on a paystub at their assigned hourly rate of pay and also paid them a flat sum of $200 per additional shifts worked. Thus, Defendants did not pay one and a half times Plaintiff and Non-Exempt Workers' regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Manhattan Painting is a painting and wall covering company in New York that offers painting and other renovative services. During the relevant time period, Manhattan Painting has been owned and operated by Igbale and Argjent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Katherine Bonilla, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 META PLATFORMS: Calvert Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Calvert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms Inc., was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-06406-KAW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (626) 550-1250 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: ekim@lcllp.com MIT45 INC: Parties Seek to Modify Pre-Trial Schedule ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.D. and L.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIT45, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00499-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the limited schedule set by the Court in its Dec. 4, 2024 Order. Specifically, the Parties request to extend all class certification related briefing deadlines by 60 days. The current case schedule and the Parties' proposed schedule is as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline The Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 27, 2025 Oct. 27, 2025 Certification: The Defendant's opposition to Oct. 8, 2025 Dec. 15, 2025 motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in further Nov. 18, 2025 Jan. 26, 2026 support of motion for class certification: On March 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this class action Complaint against the Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its kratom powder, capsule, gummy, and liquid extract products. On April 10, 2024, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss. MIT45 specializes in kratom products, offering a range of liquid kratom extracts. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iDVZJA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, 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 lsironski@bursor.com - and - Scott G. Braden, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. Nathan D. Thomas, Esq. Elizabeth M. Butler, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Facsimile: (801) 536-6111 E-mail: echristiansen@parsonsbehle.com nthomas@parsonsbehle.com lbutler@parsonsbehle.com MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend McAulifffe Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mobileye Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 28, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the McAuliffe class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 16, 2024, a putative class action captioned McAuliffe v. Mobileye Global Inc., et al., 1:24-CV-00310 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Mobileye and certain of its current and former officers. Following consolidation of the action with a substantively identical case, Le v. Mobileye Global Inc., et al., 1:24 - CV - 01390 (S.D.N.Y.), and the appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2024. In response to the defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on October 25, 2024, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2024. The second amended complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants’ alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the build-up of excess inventory by certain Tier 1 Mobileye customers, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Mobileye securities between January 26, 2023 and August 8, 2024. The second amended complaint also includes claims asserted by an additional plaintiff under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Mobileye Class A common stock offered in Mobileye's June 5, 2023 secondary offering. Mobileye and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 20, 2024. On January 24, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Mobileye's and the other named defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 21, 2025, Mobileye and the other named defendants jointly filed a brief in reply to the lead plaintiff's opposition brief. On April 16, 2025 the Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the second amended complaint in full without leave to amend, closing the case. On May 16, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 11, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a brief in support of their appeal. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. Mobileye is into the development and deployment of advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous driving technologies and solutions. MONCLER USA: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moncler USA, Inc, Case No. 0:25-cv-03144 (D. Minn., Aug. 7, 2025) arises because the Defendant's website, www.moncler.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, outerwear, shoes, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Potenti Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Potenti, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00768-SEP was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06430-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-2000 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Shaver Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Denise Shaver, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00774 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06431-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-2000 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MORAN SHIPPING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stewts Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- CLINT D. STEWTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORAN SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC.; and MORAN TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Moran Pollution & Safety Corp., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-03729 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 1, 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 Stewts was employed by the Defendants as a dockwalker. Moran Shipping Agencies, Inc. is a U.S. based steamship agency company, with its corporate office in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, Texas 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com MORLEY COMPANIES: Cocagne Seeks Approval of Collective Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JODI COCAGNE, individually, and on behalf others similiarly situated, v. MORLEY COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, a Domestic Profit Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-11114-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order approving Court-authorized notice to issue to the following putative collective: "All current and former hourly Customer Service Representatives ("CSR") employed by Morley Companies Incorporated at any time from April 26, 2021 to present who were credited with at least 40 hours in one or more workweeks." The putative collective is limited to the Defendant's hourly paid CSR employees who are/were similarly situated to the Plaintiff and subject to the Defendant's common policies and practices that are/were uniformly applied to the Plaintiff and all members of the defined putative collective ("Putative Collective"), resulting in the denial of overtime wages. The Plaintiff requests the Court issue an Order: (i) Granting the Plaintiff's motion and approving timely notice to issue to the proposed collective; (ii) Directing the Defendant to produce a list of all members of the Putative Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, last 4 digits of their social security numbers, dates of employment, cell phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format (e.g., Microsoft Excel) within 14 days of the entry of this Order; (iii) Approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent to join forms (attached as Exhibits 1 and 2), or, to the extent the Court does not approve the form and/or content of the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent to join form(s), directing the Parties to confer and submit a proposed notice and/or consent to join form within 14 days after entry of the Court's Order on the Plaintiff's Motion, and, to the extent an agreement is not reached, directing the Plaintiff to file a motion to approve collective action notice within 21 days of the Court's entry of the Order on Plaintiff’s Motion; (iv) Authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send the Court- approved notice and reminder notice of this action to the Putative Collective members via U.S. Mail, e-mail and text message; and (v) Approving a 90-day opt-in period during which the Putative Opt ins may join the Collective Action. Morley provides diversified commercial services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dOJ8Ff at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: africh@forthepeople.com MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 4, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN GABRIELLI, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-09533-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-1: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend Aug. 4, 2025 the pleadings: Class certification motion and Sept. 4, 2026 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due: The Defendant's motion to exclude Dec. 3, 2026 Plaintiff's expert(s) due: Class certification opposition and Dec. 3, 2026 Defendant's class certification expert disclosures due: The Plaintiff's opposition to Jan. 14, 2027 Defendant's motion to exclude expert(s) due: Fact discovery cut-off: Feb. 4, 2027 Class certification expert discovery April 5, 2027 cut-off: Motorola is an American consumer electronics manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UkCYdN at no extra charge.[CC] MV REALTY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Predatory Lending Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Round, writing for The Daily Record, reports that an Ocean City couple has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging a predatory lending scheme through which a realty company provides modest loans if homeowners agree to hire the company in the future -- without disclosing high future costs, lost home equity and clouded titles. The lawsuit, filed in Maryland federal court in late July, states that Florida-based MV Realty does not disclose that the "homeowner benefit agreement" is essentially a 4o-year lien, that the company does not even employ Realtors in most states and that homeowners can only escape by paying about 3% of their home's value. But the lawsuit doesn't name MV Realty -- which has been stopped from operating in several states in the past year -- as a defendant. Instead, the lawsuit is against Monroe Capital Corporation, a private equity firm that allegedly provided a loan allowing MV Realty to scale nationwide. The homeowners were almost always given less than $1,000, which they didn't have to pay back. They were not informed that the agreement was for 40 years and that MV Realty filed memoranda with state or local land record offices, clouding the title and making it difficult to refinance or sell. The complaint alleges that the "true purpose of (homeowner benefit agreements) was to so completely frustrate the homeowner that they capitulated and paid an onerous penalty to terminate (them)." "It's a classic predatory scheme. It's preying on people who need money fast, hiding the onerous terms in the agreement," said Drew LaFramboise, a principal at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, who is representing the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also represented by Lacey Logsdon McMullan of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and Thomas Keilty and Nicholas Bonadio of Keilty Bonadio. The Maryland couple, Justin Keller and Hailey Kardux, signed a "right-to-list" agreement with MV Realty in early 2022. They contacted the company later that year about listing their home for sale, and the company "proposed a list price that was well below market value," the complaint states. They tried to sell with another agent, but "could not obtain a sale price that would offset the expected termination penalty owed to MV Realty." Keller and Kardux took down the listing and are still living at the house. The third plaintiff, North Carolina homeowner Patricia Bandy, paid nearly $12,000 to cancel her agreement with MV Realty. Neither Monroe Capital Corporation nor MV Realty responded to requests for comment. The complaint brings claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs "seek to represent a class of more than 38,000 homeowners whose properties were encumbered by (homeowner benefit agreements) or who paid penalties to terminate them." The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, a nationwide injunction and declaratory relief. In the past year, MV Realty has been stopped from operating in some of its biggest markets due to violations of state consumer protection laws. Monroe has not been subject to similar litigation. State attorneys general in California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have each taken action against the company. Maryland has not taken any public action. In December, MV Realty agreed to a consent judgment releasing all Indiana clients from their agreements and ceasing operations in the state for at least five years; a similar consent judgment was reached in Minnesota in March. In February, Florida's attorney general secured an injunction preventing the company from enforcing the agreements; California won a preliminary injunction in September. And in Colorado, regulators revoked the company's license last year. Without Monroe Capital, LaFramboise said, MV Realty wouldn't have been able to expand nationwide. The complaint alleges that Monroe was "aware of the coercive, usurious, and deceptive aspects" of MV Realty's scheme. "Monroe was not just a passive investor," he said. "They didn't just throw money at this and take their hands off the wheel." [GN] NATERA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Calcaterra Due Dec. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL CALCATERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATERA, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-06342-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order modifying the pretrial schedule be modified as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Close of Fact Discovery: Oct. 29, 2025 Deadline to File Motion for Class Dec. 17, 2025 Certification and Any Expert Reports in Support Thereof: Deadline to File Opposition to Class March 18, 2026 Certification Motion and Any Expert Reports in Support Thereof: Deadline to File Reply in Support of May 6, 2026 Motion for Class Certification Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: TBD On Oct. 30 2024, the Court entered an Order amending the Case Management and Pretrial Order Deadlines Natera is a clinical genetic testing company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YXKmPf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristin J. Moody, Esq. Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: kmoody@bermantabacco.com avahdat@bermantabacco.com - and - Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com pblack@wolfpopper.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel J. Herling, Esq. Geoffrey A. Friedman, Esq. Paige E. Adaskaveg, Esq. Arameh Z. O'Boyle, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 432-6000 Facsimile: (415) 432-6001 E-mail: djherling@mintz.com gafriedman@mintz.com peadaskaveg@mintz.com azoboyle@mintz.com - and - Adam M. Tschop, Esq. NATERA, INC. 201 Industrial Rd., Suite 300 San Carlos, CA 94070-2396 Telephone: (650) 980-9190 E-mail: atschop@natera.com NATIONAL GENERAL: King Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The Court says that at the class certification stage, the Plaintiffs met the relatively low burden of providing a sufficient (albeit disputed) factual basis to move the case forward. That does not mean they will be able to meet their burden of proof to establish Article III standing at trial. The factual dispute underlying the Kings’ standing precludes partial summary judgment on Defendants’ liability. The parties' remaining arguments are moot. On May 5, 2025, the court certified a class as to Plaintiffs' UCL claim alleging unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of Cal. Ins. Code section 1861.16(b). The class is defined as: "Policyholders of NG Defendants (NGIC, INIC, IPIC, and MICG) who purchased California GDD private passenger automobile policies, including renewals, and were not offered the lowest available GDD rate within the control group during the Class Period. The control group is defined as NGIC, INIC, IPIC, and MICG from Jan. 22, 2011 to present; and includes PEIC during the period of April 19, 2013 to July 18, 2014. National is a property and casualty insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kSCibK at no extra charge.[CC] NATURESTAR LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Moved to April 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Little v. NatureStar, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00232 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 24, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L Thurston entered an order that: -- The non-expert discovery deadline is extended to Oct. 17, 2025. -- The deadline for designation of expert witnesses is extended to November 18, 2025. -- The deadline to move for class certification is April 3, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud. NatureStar develops and manufactures a diverse portfolio of compostable products and packaging materials. [CC] NBT BANCORP: Filing for Conditional Status Extended to Sept. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richey, et al., v. NBT Bancorp., Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Glenn T. Suddaby entered an order as follows: -- The deadline for filing of the Conditional Certification Motion is extended to Sept. 15, 2025. -- The parties are directed to file next status reports by Sept. 18, 2025. -- All other deadlines remain in effect, in that: (1) All Discovery, including merits, class, and all depositions, shall be completed by Jan. 5, 2026. (2) Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is Oct. 6, 2025.. (3) The Defendant Expert Disclosure Deadline is Nov. 21, 2025. (4) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is Dec. 5, 2025.. (5) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by Feb. 9, 2026. (6) Class Certification Motion shall be filed by Dec. 1, 2025. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). NBT is a financial holding company.[CC] NELNET INC: Walsh FCRA Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adriana Walsh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nelnet, Inc., Nelnet Servicing LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04325 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13906 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Nelnet, Inc. -- https://nelnet.com/ -- is a United States–based conglomerate that primary focused on financial services including student and consumer loan origination and servicing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq. MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC 238 Merritt Drive Oradell, NJ 07649 Phone: (646) 713-1008 NESTLE WATERS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patane, et al., v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381 (D. Conn., Filed Aug. 15, 2017), the Hon. Judge Vernon D. Oliver entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response and motion to file additional pages. The Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of class certification shall be filed on or before Aug. 20, 2025, and may be up to 20 pages in length. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Nestle produces and distributes bottled water.[CC] NEXSTAR MEDIA: Trial in Local TV Ad MDL Set for April 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Court set a trial date in April 2026 in the case captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation"), Nexstar Media Group Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1, 2014. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785. On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel. The MDL Litigation is ongoing. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019; Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint added additional defendants and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019. The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020. On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint added two additional plaintiffs and an additional defendant but does not make material changes to the allegations. The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation. The Court set a trial date in April 2026. Nexstar and Tribune deny all allegations against them and will defend their advertising practices. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas. NORTH-EAST DECK: Lipinski Must File Class Cert Bid by June 8, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN E. LIPINSKI and JOHN W. TIBOLLA, v. NORTH-EAST DECK & STEEL SUPPLY, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01467-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. entered an order as follows 1. The motion for conditional certification (a) Motion for conditional certification shall be filed not later than Aug. 22, 2025 (b) Any opposition to motion for conditional certification shall be filed not later than Sept. 8, 2025. (c) Any reply in support of motion for conditional certification shall be filed not later than Sept. 15, 2025. 2. All fact and class discovery, including, but not limited to, depositions, shall be completed on or before May 1, 2026. 3. Class Certification Motion (a) Class certification motion shall be filed not later than June 8, 2026, (b) Any opposition to class certification motion shall be filed not later than June 29, 2026. (c) Any reply in support of class certification motion shall be filed not later than July 6, 2026. 4. All dispositive motions shall be filed not later than Sept. 21, 2026. North-East provides steel fabrication, metal fabrication, composite floor decking products, roof metal decking, and steel safety supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLOglV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN, LLP 411 S State St Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (844) 696-7492 The Defendant is represented by: Ryan A. Mergl, Esq. MERGL LAW 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 532-6374 NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Still Defends MOVEit Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Norwood Financial Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in the MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On February 20, 2024, the Company was notified of a Complaint (the "Complaint") entitled Ian Werkmeister vs. Wayne Bank, filed on February 12, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking class action status. The Plaintiff is seeking monetary recovery and other relief on behalf of themselves and one or more putative classes of other individuals similarly situated. The Complaint arises out of a widely reported data security incident involving MOVEit, a file sharing software used globally by government agencies, enterprise corporations, and financial institutions. In October of 2023, Wayne Bank was notified by its third-party information service provider of a cyber-incident that involved unauthorized access to Wayne Bank customer information in one of the vendor's file transfer applications. The incident involved vulnerabilities discovered in MOVEit Transfer, a file transfer software used by the Bank's vendor to support services provided by the vendor to Wayne Bank and its related institutions. MOVEit is a commonly used secure Managed File Transfer software, which supports file transfer activities used by thousands of organizations around the world, including government agencies and major financial firms. The vulnerability discovered in MOVEit did not involve any of Wayne Bank's internal systems and did not impact the Bank’s ability to service its customers. The MOVEit cases have since been transferred and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") and are now entitled MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On July 23, 2024, on behalf of all of the Defendants (including the Company) in this case, an omnibus Motion to Dismiss the cases for lack of Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was filed with the Court. A hearing on this motion was held on October 9, 2024. On December 12, 2024, Judge Burroughs denied the defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion in large part. The Court has ordered that a bellwether process be used to test claims and defenses. Because Wayne Bank is not a bellwether defendant, its obligations will be much lessened but will include, among other things, modest discovery. "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself against such Complaint. While we continue to measure the impact of this cyber-incident, including certain remediation expenses and other potential liabilities, we do not currently believe this incident will have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, or financial results," the Company stated. Norwood Financial Corp is the holding company for Wayne Bank that offers wide variety of personal, business credit services, and trust and investment products to consumer, commercial, and nonprofit organizations and municipalities. OLYMPUS AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sorensen Says --------------------------------------------------------- TERRI SORENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLYMPUS AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 229021186 (Fla. Cir., Orange Cty., Aug. 8, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Sorensen was employed by the Defendant as a sales representative. Olympus America is a medical technology company specializing in innovative technologies that aid physicians in diagnosis and treatment across various medical specialties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Tamra C. Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 OPENAI INC: Denial Sues Over Unlawfully Acquired Copyrighted Works ------------------------------------------------------------------ Catherine Denial an individual, Ian McDowell, an individual, and Steven Schwartz, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OPENAI, INC. OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI OPCO, L.L.C., OPENAI GP, L.L.C.; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC., and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-06286-SHS (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2025), is brought against Defendants, representing a class of copyright owners whose works have been unlawfully acquired and exploited, seek not only to hold OpenAI and Microsoft accountable for their actions, but also to deter similar conduct in the future by other GenAI companies and bad actors who seek to exploit their works. OpenAI's disregard of creators' rights was no oversight. OpenAI sought out and torrented, for its commercial use, tens of millions of pirated copyrighted works. OpenAI copied those works without consent, credit, or compensation, and as part of this effort, pirated authors' content through shadow libraries like Library Genesis (aka "libgen" or "LibGen"). OpenAI's disregard for copyright, data piracy laws, and ethical standards was not merely a case of corporate negligence. It was part of a strategy to amass a competitive advantage as fast as possible while knowingly flouting existing laws and rights that protect this country's authors and creators. The ramifications of OpenAI's conduct extend far beyond the immediate harm to individual copyright holders. By building its GenAI models on a foundation of stolen IP, taken without compensation, OpenAI has sought to normalize copyright infringement as the leading business strategy of the GenAI industry for obtaining text data to train their models. Microsoft's support and integration of these unlawfully trained models into its own products magnify that impact, further foreclosing actual competition and future competition, ensuring financial benefits and preventing the entry and development of competitive market forces in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and Class members are authors of text materials, including articles, essays, and other written works, which OpenAI copied and used to train its LLMs. OpenAI creates, markets and sells artificial intelligence ("AI") software products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 Califomia Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South IASa11e Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: bclobes@caffeltyclobes.com - and - David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: (914) 749-8200 Email: dboies@bsffp.com OVERTIME SPORTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Prieto Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- GUILLERMO PRIETO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVERTIME SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07167-AS (C.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. Overtime Sports, Inc. develops application software for sport video highlights. The Company offers a platform that allows users to film highlights and add slow-motion to capture the sporting event of schools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com PELOKITOS LLC: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- James Watson, and other similarly situated individuals v. PELOKITOS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23436-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") for blind-inaccessible website. The Plaintiff uses the internet to help him navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet and websites provide him with a window into the world that he would not otherwise have. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for offering and maintaining a website that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left him feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave him a sense of isolation and segregation, as he is unable to participate in the same browsing, shopping experience, and access to the same information, sales, and services, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public. The Defendant has violated the provisions of the ADA by failing to interface its website with software used by visually impaired individuals. Thus, Defendant has violated the following provisions either directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements. Defendant's violations have resulted in Defendant denying Plaintiff effective communication on the basis of her disability in accordance with the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles. The Defendant constructed, or caused to be constructed, and/or became a beneficiary of the website https://pelokitos.us (hereinafter "website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com PERFECT PINSTRIPES: Groove Seeks OT Pay for Technicians Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ RASHAAN GROVE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PERFECT PINSTRIPES, INC; SOUTHERN BEST AUTOMOTIVE RECONDITIONING, INC.; DEANNA L. VALDES; and GUSTAVO R. VALDES, Case No. 1:25-cv-04442-MHC (N.D. Ga., Aug. 7, 2025) seeks for unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In this collective action, the Plaintiff Grove alleges the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by failing pay to him and other similarly situated car detailing and repair technicians overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 per week. The proposed class of "Technicians" that the Plaintiff seeks to represent in this collective action consists of all individuals similarly situated to Grove, defined as: "All individuals who performed car detailing and repair work for the Defendants in the state of Georgia at any time within three years prior to the filing of this Complaint and were not paid overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 per week, including but not limited to individuals employed by Defendants in the positions of "Automotive Cosmetic Repair Technician" or "Reconditioning Technician." Perfect Pinstripes and Southern Best are privately held corporations that contract with auto dealerships to provide mobile vehicle repair and reconditioning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan P. Drew, Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: edrew@pcwlawfirm.com jmays@pcwlawfirm.com PERIZIA OF CONEY: Flores Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO FLORES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERIZIA OF CONEY ISLAND AVE. INC. (d/b/a PERIZIA KOSHER PIZZA) and ISSAC BIJOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04286 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Title 12. Plaintiff Flores was employed by Defendants from approximately June 2015 until on or about June 23, 2025. Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Flores appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says the suit. Perizia of Coney Island Ave. Inc. operates a Kosher pizza parlor located in the Midwood section of Brooklyn, New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PHILIP MORRIS: Kelly Class Action in Florida Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2025, that a putative class action, "Kelly v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al.," was filed on March 19, 2024, before United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of "ZYN" nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants. Plaintiff purports to represent classes comprised of (i) all persons who purchased ZYN products in the United States, (ii) all residents of Florida who purchased ZYN products, and (iii) all residents of Florida who, at the time of their use of ZYN products, were under the age of 21, and who procured and used ZYN products. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants defectively designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as negligence and fraud claims and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, interest, and medical monitoring. On May 6, 2024, PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC filed motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On August 20, 2024, the court denied PMI's motion to dismiss without prejudice, and granted plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery. On December 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC and added three additional entities as named defendants: Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. On December 18, 2024, PMI, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc., filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, and Swedish Match North America LLC filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claim. On March 19, 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s fraud claim with prejudice but denied the motion to dismiss Swedish Match USA Inc. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the three PMI defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants filed their answers to plaintiff's amended complaint on April 2, 2025, and the case has moved to the discovery phase and will be consolidated with the other Florida cases for purposes of pre-trial discovery. The court has set a deadline of June 26, 2026 for the completion of all fact and expert discovery and December 7, 2026 for the start of trial. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company and a leading international tobacco company. Its current product portfolio primarily consists of cigarettes and smoke-free products, which include heat-not-burn, vapor, and oral nicotine products. PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Harrell Suit Over Deceptive Premium Motor Fuel ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM HARRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC d/b/a PILOT FLYING J, Case No. 2:25-cv-02796-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 7, 2025) seeks redress for customers who purchased premium gas in Tennessee and paid Pilot to fill their cars with premium motor fuel (Premium Customers) immediately after a Pilot's customer purchased lower-grade motor fuel from the same single-nozzle fuel dispensing system. According to the complaint, at Pilot's gas station located at 7720 Highway 222, Stanton, Tennessee the price differential between regular and premium motor fuel was 50 cents on Dec. 5, 2024. Premium Customers like Plaintiff agreed to pay Pilot the higher price per gallon for premium motor fuel with the understanding that they were receiving premium motor fuel from Pilot in return. But that is not what happened. Instead, when Premium Customers selected the premium option at Pilot gas stations, the first gallon of fuel that was pumped into their cars regularly contained a significant amount of regular or mid-grade motor fuel. Premium Customers, therefore, paid the premium motor fuel price for a gallon that contained a significant amount of lower-grade motor fuel, asserts the suit. Pilot owns and operates more than 750 gas stations. Pilot's gas stations are equipped with single-nozzle fuel dispensing systems that allow customers to select between three grades of motor fuel: premium, mid-grade, and regular.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon Ball, Esq. GORDON BALL, PLLC 6104 Hickory Valley Road Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (865) 809-4370 E-mail: gball@gordonball.com - and - Thomas Bienert, Jr., Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 369-3700 E-mail: tbienert@bklwlaw.com PRIMO WATER: Spring Water Products Contain Carcinogens, Nadel Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY NADEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIMO WATER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; PRIMO WATER NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and MOUNTAIN VALLEY SPRING COMPANY, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, Case No. 9:25-cv-80993-DSL (S.D. Fla., Aug. 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices in connection with the marketing, distribution, and sale of Mountain Valley Spring Water products. According to the complaint, the case exposes a fundamental consumer fraud: the Defendants market Mountain Valley Spring Water as "America's Premium Spring Water" and "the very best bottled water you can drink," charging consumers 4-8 times the price of standard bottled water based on explicit promises of exceptional purity -- yet independent testing reveals their water contains multiple carcinogens that the EPA says should not be present at any level. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida who resides in Palm Beach County, Florida. During the Class Period, Mr. Nadel regularly purchased Mountain Valley Spring Water 1-liter glass bottles, 16.9 fl oz glass bottles, and 25.36 fl oz aluminum bottles from retail locations including Whole Foods Market, The Fresh Market, and Sprouts Farmers Market in Palm Beach County, Florida from at least 2024 through 2025. Primo Water is a Delaware corporation, publicly traded on the NYSE under ticker symbol PRMW, with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. Primo acquired Mountain Valley Spring Company in 2018 for approximately $78.5 million and is responsible for the distribution, marketing, quality control, and consumer communications for Mountain Valley Spring Water products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Robert-Ritter, Esq. ALBRECHT LAW, LLC 2990 Ponce De Leon Blvd, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 431-8781 E-mail: travis@albrecht.law PURFOODS LLC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $4.25MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that PurFoods agreed to a $4.25 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that a 2023 data breach compromised sensitive employee and customer information. The PurFoods data breach class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notice from PurFoods informing them that their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach between Jan. 16 and Feb. 22, 2023. PurFoods is a meal delivery service that provides meals to seniors, those recovering from surgery and other individuals who may need assistance with meal preparation. The company also provides meals to schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions. According to a class action lawsuit, a 2023 data breach compromised sensitive employee and customer information. Plaintiffs in the case say that the PurFoods data breach was the result of PurFoods' failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures. PurFoods has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4.25 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the PurFoods settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses related to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed fraud or identity theft losses, professional fees, credit costs and unreimbursed bank fees. Class members who did not experience documented losses related to the PurFoods data breach can receive a cash award. These payments will be pro rata based on the amount remaining in the settlement fund after documented loss payments and other expenses are paid. According to the settlement website, these payments are estimated to be around $75 per claimant. All class members, regardless of whether they experienced documented losses, can receive three years of free three-bureau credit monitoring and insurance services. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the PurFoods settlement is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 30, 2025. Who's Eligible All U.S. residents who were sent a notice that their personal information may have been compromised in a PurFoods data breach between Jan. 16 and Feb. 22, 2023. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented expenses or a pro-rata cash award estimated at $75. Proof of Purchase Claim form must be accompanied by an attestation regarding any actual and unreimbursed documented loss and reasonable documentation that demonstrates the documented loss to be reimbursed pursuant to the terms of the settlement. "Self-prepared" documents like handwritten receipts are, by themselves, insufficient to receive reimbursement but can be considered to add clarity or support to other submitted documentation. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/30/2025 Case Name Douglas, et al. v. PurFoods LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00332-RGE-SBJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa Final Hearing 11/20/2025 Settlement Website PurFoodsDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator PurFoods LLC Data Incident c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 890-4931 Class Counsel Nickolas J. Hagman CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP Defense Counsel Kathryn E. Cahoy COVINGTON & BURLING LLP [GN] QUIP NYC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUIP NYC INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06388 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.getquip.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Quip NYC Inc. designs and manufactures oral healthcare products. The Company offers electric toothbrushes, toothpastes, and other supplies for oral health care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RANGE HOOD: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RANGE HOOD STORE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09184 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://therangehoodstore.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Range Hood Store, LLC is an online retailer of kitchen appliances, plumbing fixtures, lighting and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8706 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com REDEFINE MEALS: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDEFINE MEALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04429 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.redefinemeals.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Redefine Meals, LLC is a local establishment in Patchogue, NY that specializes in providing a variety of freshly prepared meals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com RIZZOLI BOOKSTORES: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIZZOLI BOOKSTORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04431 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.rizzolibookstore.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Rizzoli Bookstore Inc. is a general interest bookstore, located in the St. James Building at 1133 Broadway in New York City, that primarily specializes in illustrated books and foreign language titles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SARRIA ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SARRIA ENTERPRISES, INC., SUNSHINE RETAIL INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A FRESCO Y MAS #0237, and LAS TERRAZAS CAFETERIA AND RESTAURANT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-23442-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Defendants' commercial property, grocery store, and restaurant businesses to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject property and Defendants' businesses and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the commercial property and the restaurant and restaurant businesses therein. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA, at the commercial property, grocery store, and restaurant businesses. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza property, grocery store, and restaurant businesses have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and listed grocery store and restaurant businesses therein and likewise endangered his safety. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff desires to visit the commercial property and businesses therein not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the commercial plaza property, but to also assure himself that this commercial plaza property and businesses therein is in compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the commercial property without fear of discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. SARRIA ENTERPRISES INC., owned and operated a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com SEA EL: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. SEA EL CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-06489 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://seael.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants 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. The 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. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://seael.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SECURICO LIFE INSURANCE: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securico Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jonathan Bahr, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Securico Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-02721-DWL (D. Ariz., July 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Securico Life -- https://www.securicolife.com/ -- offers secure, affordable final expense insurance with comprehensive coverage and living benefits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Pahlkotter Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT PAHLKOTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECTQUOTE, INC., TIM DANKER, RYAN CLEMENT, and RAFFAELE SADUN, Case No. 1:25-cv-06620 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SelectQuote securities between September 9, 2020, and May 1, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 1, 2025, at approximately noon eastern standard time, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a False Claims Act complaint against SelectQuote, alleging, "from 2016 through at least 2021" SelectQuote received "tens of millions of dollars" in "illegal kickbacks" from health insurance companies in exchange for steering Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in the insurers’ plans. Further, SelectQuote, in exchange for kickbacks, engaged in a conspiracy with major insurers to illegally discriminate against beneficiaries deemed to be less profitable, including those with disabilities. The DOJ concluded that SelectQuote made materially false claims by stating it offers "unbiased coverage comparisons" when in fact it "repeatedly directed Medicare beneficiaries to the plans offered by insurers that paid them the most money, regardless of the quality or suitability of the insurers' plans." Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that the Company was directing Medicare beneficiaries to the plans offered by insurers that best compensated SelectQuote, regardless of the quality or suitability of the insurers' plans. On this news, SelectQuote's stock price fell $0.61, or 19.2%, to close at $2.56 per share on May 1, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. SelectQuote is an insurance broker which sells Medicare Advantage and other health insurance plans online and by telephone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 SHADE STORE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulated motion to extend the deadlines for the Parties' class certification briefing by 4 weeks. The Parties request that these deadlines be extended as follows Case Event Amended Deadline The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Sept. 19, 2025 for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: The Defendant's Reply in support of Oct. 24, 2025 motions to exclude: On March 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On April 30, 2025, the Defendant filed its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and its Motions to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Experts. Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YOwM1I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com - and - Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL, PLLC 20 Sixth Ave. NE Issaquah WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com The Defendant is represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. James M. Shore, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com jim.shore@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com - and - Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHADE STORE: Parties Seek Sept. 12 Class Cert. Reply Date --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and opposition to motion to exclude shall be filed by Sept. 12, 2025. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by Oct. 17, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, hearing on the Defendant's motion to exclude, and case management conference shall be continued to Nov. 5, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification. The Court set the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification for June 11, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZxH2Zk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com martin@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHARK WHOLESALE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHARK WHOLESALE FURNITURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04423 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.furniturekingny.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Shark Wholesale Furniture Inc is a furniture destination located in Brooklyn, NY, offering a wide variety of stylish and affordable pieces of elegant sofas to functional dining sets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SIRIUS XM: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Balmores Due Oct. 30, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY BALMORES, et al., v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered a class action case scheduling order Event Date Disclosure of expert testimony under July 1, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due All motions related to discovery filed by: Aug. 3, 2026 Discovery must be completed by: Sept. 30, 2026 Deadline for class certification motion: Oct. 30, 2026 Sirius is a satellite radio broadcasting company providing satellite radio and online radio services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YHyzPx at no extra charge.[CC] SKECHERS USA: Faces Garcia Suit Over Delinquent Wage Payments ------------------------------------------------------------- RONALDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SKECHERS USA RETAIL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04406 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2025) seeks to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualified as manual workers and who were employed at any time by the Defendant between Jan. 29, 2016, and Oct. 1, pursuant to New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a stockroom associate from April 2021 until June 2021 at one of Defendant's Queens County locations. This action is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and a class consisting of similarly situated employees who performed work for Defendant in positions that required they perform physical tasks for more than 25% of their respective workdays. Skechers is an American multinational footwear and apparel company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 SOUTHERN TIRE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Okelola Says ---------------------------------------------------------- TAOFEEK OKELOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN TIRE MART, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00108-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., Aug. 7, 2025) is alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and direct deposit or bank account information. Accordingly, current and former employees are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of employment, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. 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. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant is a commercial tire dealer and retread manufacturer company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald J. Diaz, Jr., Esq. Christopher P. Williams, Esq. James R. Segars, III, Esq. DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 208 Waterford Square, Suite 300 Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 607-3456 Facsimile: (601) 607-3393 E-mail: joey@diazlawfirm.com chris@diazlawfirm.com tripp@diazlawfirm.com SP PLUS CORP: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SP Plus Corp, et al. The case is styled as Andrea Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SP Plus Corp., Does 1 through 20, Case No. 25STCV22330 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2025). SP Plus Corporation -- https://www.spplus.com/ -- is an American provider of parking facility management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com SPICE HOUSE: Echols Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spice House, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09351 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 7, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, and operate its website, Thespicehouse.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. Accordingly, Thespicehouse.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. Thespicehouse.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view spices and other condiments, make purchases, and perform a variety of other function.[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 SPROUTS FARMERS: Washington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brandon Washington, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., SFM LLC d/b/a Sprouts Farmers Market, Case No. 25STCV22534 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. -- https://www.sprouts.com/ -- is a supermarket chain headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.[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 SSP AMERICA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Hill Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TARA HILL, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SSP AMERICA, INC. and SSP AMERICA CID, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01319 (E.D. Va., Aug. 7, 2025) alleges that SSP America violates the Fair Labor Standards Act's tip credit requirements and subsequent failure to pay their employees at the federally mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked. Accordingly, the Defendants pay their servers and bartenders below the federal minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provision of the FLSA. Under the tip-credit provision, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay its employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the minimum wage requirement based upon the amount of tips the employees received from customers. SSP America is the American division of SSP Group, a global company that operates food and beverage concessions in airports, railway stations, and other travel locations. In the United States, SSP America partners with local and national restaurant brands to run eateries inside airports. SSP America handles staffing, operations, and management of these venues. BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com - and - Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com STAPLES CONTRACT: Hudson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Staples Contract & Commercial, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Hudson, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Staples Contract & Commercial, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0010479 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Staples Contract & Commercial, LLC doing business as Staples Business Advantage -- https://www.staplesadvantage.com/ -- wholesales office products. The Company offers janitorial, safety, furniture, office, technology, print, and breakroom supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY APLC 249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802-4899 Phone: 949-208-3400 Fax: 562-590-8400 Email: jose@garaylaw.com STRENGTH CO: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE STRENGTH CO. MFG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06548 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.thestrength.co, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Strength Co. Mfg, LLC specializes in American-made Olympic barbell plates, barbells, and gym equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SUSANA HO: Arroyo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Del Valle Arroyo, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUSANA HO a/k/a HAU MEI HO; FREDDY CHEN a/k/a SHIGUANG CHEN; CONYUGAL PARTNERSHIP COMPRISED OF SUSANA HO a/k/a HAU ME HO and FREDDY CHEN a/k/a SHIGUANG CHEN; SAKE JAPANESE CUISINE & SUSHI BAR; SAKE CUPEY, LLC; ABC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01406 (D.P.R., July 30, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants' willful misclassification its employees as independent contractors, instead of employees, in a bid to flaunt the obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter, the "FLSA"), and seeking to recover violations of the minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest period, and recordkeeping sections of FLSA, the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute, the Puerto Rico Vacation and Sick Leave Act, and under the Puerto Rico Christmas Bonus for the Employees of the Private Enterprise Act under the Act 148 of June 30, 1969, as amended. From at least, March of 2020 to January of 2024, and possibly to the present (the "relevant time period"), Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime premium to employees who worked more than 40 hours per workweek at Sake Sushi Bar. Defendants typically paid their employees the same hourly rate for all the hours worked during the workweek. Moreover, Defendants failed to pay daily overtime for daily work shifts in excess of 8 hours a day; allow its employees to enjoy the legal meal and rest periods; accrued vacation hours and enjoy vacation time; pay mandatory annual bonus, among others under applicable state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. The Defendants operate a Japanese restaurant in San Juan, Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez, Esq. Enrique J. Mendoza Sanchez, Esq. Gilberto J. Oliveras Maldonado, Esq. MENDOZA LAW OFFICES PO Box 9282 San Juan, PR 00908-0282 Phone: (787)722-5522 / 5530 Fax: (787) 723-7057 Email: mendozalo@yahoo.com SWIFT BEEF: All Proceedings in Garza Stayed until Nov. 25 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN GARZA, GABRIEL GARCIA, and FRANCISCO J. MEZA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT BEEF COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-06223-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue stay of proceedings pending alternative dispute resolution: 1. All proceedings in this action are stayed until Nov. 25, 2025, or twenty-two days after the conclusion of the Parties' mediation, whichever comes first. 2. The Parties are ordered to conduct mediation by Nov. 3, 2025. 3. Within twenty-one days of the end of the Parties' mediation, the Parties shall file a joint notice of settlement, if mediation is successful, or a status report, should the matter not be resolved. The status report should include joint proposed dates for this case, including the deadline for class certification motions, the close of discovery, pretrial conference, deadline to file motions in limine, hearing on motions in limine, and trial. Swift processes, prepares, packages and delivers meat products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=897B5a at no extra charge.[CC] TEA DATNG: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Violation ------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATNG ADVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06722 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Tea breached their implied contracts with the Plaintiff and Class members—and with their school district customers—by failing to safeguard and protect their Private Information and by failing to provide timely and accurate notice to them that their Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach. As a result of Defendant's acquistition, use, subsequent Data Breach, and violations of the DPPA, the Plaintiff and putative Class Members are entitled to statutory damages to maximum allowable, actual damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit. Tea Dating Advice, Inc. is the company behind the women-focused dating app called "Tea." Tea aims to help women date safely by providing tools for background checks, image searches, and accessing public records related to potential dates. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, Suite 600 Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Shauna Itri, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 Email: sitri@seegerweiss.com THOREK MEMORIAL: Cottrell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Cottrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOREK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, an Illinois nonprofit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-08923 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $45.00. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its payment structure, including but not limited to shift differential pay and bonus pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay, bonus pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she earned shift differential pay, bonus pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from May 15, 2024 through December 28, 2024. The Defendant is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and employs hundreds of hourly employees in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: kmilz@sommerspc.com TRANSDEV NORTH: Fails to Pay Military Leave, Corrales Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL CORRALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09146 (N.D. Ill., August 1, 2025) alleges violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action under the USERRA on behalf of all current and former full-time employees of Transdev North America, Inc. who took short-term military leave from Transdev since 2005 and did not receive compensation and/or paid leave from Transdev during such short-term military leave. Moreover, the Plaintiff seeks: (a) a declaration that Transdev violated USERRA by failing to provide Class Members with pay during their short-term military leave despite providing pay for comparable forms of leave; (b) an order requiring Transdev to pay servicemembers on short-term military leave as it does to comparable forms of leave; and (c) an order requiring Transdev to recalculate and pay compensation to Plaintiff and other members of the Class consistent with USERRA. Headquartered in Lombard, IL, Transdev is a private operator of public transportation in the United States, offering services such as bus, paratransit, rail, NEMT, microtransit, shuttle, and autonomous vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 875 North Michigan Avenue, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 300-6820 E-mail: dbrandt@clarksonlawfirm.com bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Maksim Gorbunov, Esq. Michael A. Boelter, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com mgorbunov@clarksonlawfirm.com mboelter@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 E-mail: jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com ULTA SALON: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website --------------------------------------------------- Arantza Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation D/B/A ULTA, Case No. 1:25-cv-23430-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.ulta.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations, Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and was visually impaired and has Leber Congenital Amaurosis since birth that substantially impairs Plaintiff's vision whereby her vision fluctuates from 20/250 to 20/800. ULTA is a company that sells makeup, skin care, hair care, fragrances, body care, wellness products, tools and brushes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com UNION PACIFIC: Wins Summary Judgment on Disparate Impact Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS DeFRIES, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00205-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for reconsideration: -- The Court grants summary judgment against DeFries's disparate impact claim. -- The Court denies the remaining aspects of the Defendant's motion. On April 7, 2025, the Court denied Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's motions for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff worked as a locomotive conductor for Union Pacific from July 2004 through March 2018. DeFries has a color vision deficiency, which he contends is minor, does not limit any major life activity, and does not prevent him from performing his essential job functions, including discerning colors in railroad wayside signals. Union is a publicly traded railroad holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdik2E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony S. Petru, Esq. Gavin Barney, Esq. HILDEBRAND MCLEOD & NELSON LLP 5335 College Avenue, Suite 5A Oakland, CA 94618 - and - James H. Kaster, Esq. Lucas J. Kaster, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 The Defendant is represented by: Donna Maddux, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 4800 Meadows Road, Suite 300 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 - and - Michael N. Westheimer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 UNITED HEALTH: Mitchell Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL MITCHELL, v. UNITED HEALTH CENTERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order as follows: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 26, 2025, are adopted in full. 2. The Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the State Court Action is granted. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. Crystal Mitchell is a former hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley (UHSJ) who worked as a staff accountant at the Defendant's facility. On March 26, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending Plaintiff's request for judicial notice and motion for class certification both be granted. The Defendant filed objections on April 24, 2025. Plaintiff replied to the objections on May 2, 2025. United is a health care provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TTRw6r at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert. Bid in Rietheimer Due March 19, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON RIETHEIMER and those similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00477-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the joint motion to amend scheduling order and continue status conference. -- Affirmative Expert Disclosure: Nov. 7, 2025 -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: Dec. 5, 2025 -- Discovery Cut-off: Feb. 13, 2026 -- Dispositive Motion Deadline: March 19, 2026 -- Deadline for Class Certification: March 19, 2026 United is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N6WXaw at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Barco Over Unlawful Confinement Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO ALBERTO BARCO MERCADO, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06568-LAK (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025) challenges unlawful conditions of confinement and ban on attorney access. On May 21, 2025, Defendant Kristi Noem and other Trump administration officials ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents nationwide to arrest a quota of 3,000 people per day. Following this order, ICE agents aggressively escalated their arrest and detention of immigrants throughout the New York City area. For weeks now, ICE agents have been systematically arresting individuals who appear at immigration court hearings in New York City and at regularly scheduled check-in appointments at the ICE office at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan. They have also ramped up enforcement activities and raids at homes, workplaces, and community spaces. These arrests have caused widespread fear and chaos. ICE has been detaining these immigrants it has arrested by the thousands at courthouses, check-in appointments, and raids inside a transitional holding station at 26 Fed. This holding station consists of concrete cells, segregated by gender, designed to hold people only temporarily for a matter of hours as they are processed before release or transport to a longer-term detention facility. It has no beds, showers, or adequate medical support. However, as ICE has increased its arrests of immigrants, it has packed people into the holding units at 26 Fed. At 26 Fed, people are detained for extended periods of time, often for a week or more, sleeping on the concrete floor next to the toilet, in cells that are either freezing or oppressively hot, without medication, an opportunity to bathe, brush their teeth, or change their clothes. The detained individuals receive at most only two small meals a day. Many have fallen ill under these egregious conditions. Detained individuals are denied prescribed medications and medical treatment, the suit says. The Plaintiff and the putative Class members in this case are immigrants being detained in crowded rooms at a federal building in the heart of Manhattan without beds, sufficient food, hygiene products, access to showers, or the ability to communicate confidentially with attorneys. The Defendants include DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARCOS CHARLES, Acting Executive Associate Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, in his official capacity; and LADEON FRANCIS, Acting Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eunice Cho, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6616 E-mail: echo@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org - and - Amy Belsher, Esq. Robert Hodgson, Esq. Claire Molholm, Esq. Molly K. Biklen, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 E-mail: abelsher@nyclu.org rhodgson@nyclu.org cmolholm@nyclu.org mbiklen@nyclu.or - and - Heather Gregorio, Esq. Mariann Meier Wang, Esq. Alice Reiter, Esq. Daniel Mullkoff, Esq. Lily Sawyer Kaplan, Esq. WANG HECKER LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1406 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 620-2600 E-mail: hgregorio@wanghecker.com mwang@wanghecker.com areiter@wanghecker.com dmullkoff@wanghecker.com lsawyerkaplan@wanghecker.com - and - Harold A. Solis, Esq. Paige Austin, Esq. MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK 301 Grove Street Brooklyn, NY 11237 Telephone: (718) 418-7690 Facsimile: (866) 420-9169 E-mail: harold.solis@maketheroadny.org paige.austin@maketheroadny.org VALLEY VIEW: Faces F.F. Suit Over Alleged Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- F.F., a minor, by and through her next friend and father, JAMES ELLARD FISHER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VALLEY VIEW COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 365U, DR. KEITH WOOD, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Valley View Community Unit School District 365U, and DR. JASON PASCAVAGE, in his official capacity as Principal of Bolingbrook High School, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09112 (N.D. Ill., August 1, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The class-action complaint, brought on behalf of F.F. and all other situated female students at Bolingbrook High School, by and through F.F.'s father, James Ellard Fisher, for declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages, seeks to compel the School District to adopt a policy that ensures safe facilities for the exclusive use of its female students while providing single-use gender-neutral options for males with non-conforming gender preferences. Valley View Community Unit School District is a school community serving students in Bolingbrook, Romeoville and surrounding areas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ajay Gupta, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AJAY GUPTA 2849 Bond Circle Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 854-7194 E-mail: ajguptaemail@gmail.com VALU AUTO: Filing for Conditional Class Certification Due Oct. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gleason v. Valu Auto, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00444 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order as follows: The Defense Counsel is to supply to discovery sampling requested by Plaintiff on or before August 29th, 2025, and it shall be limited to two weeks per location over three years. If the case does not settle through mediation, 30(b)(6) depositions are to be completed by September 30, 2025. Any conditional class certification motion is to be filed on or before October 17, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Valu is a transportation company with a focus on both car sales and towing services.[CC] VELOCITY RAIL SOLUTIONS: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Velocity Rail Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Pablo Sanchez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Velocity Rail Solutions, Inc., A. Stucki Company, Jason Apodaca, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0010687 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Velocity Rail Solutions -- https://velocityrail.com/ -- is the largest direct-to-locomotive fueling and locomotive servicing company in the United States, serving Class 1 railroads.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: Jason@tomorrowlaw.com VESTA MINE: Graw Wins Bid for Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GRAY, v. VESTA MINE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01069-KT (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kezia O. L. Taylor entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and Court-authorized notice. Mr. Gray seeks to conditionally certify a collective of: "All hourly Vesta miners and similar job titles who worked at any time during the past 3 years until final resolution of this Action." The Court also directed the parties to (1) meet and confer to discuss the proposed notice, consent form, and methods of distribution to potential opt-in members, and (2) submit a joint proposal to the Court within thirty days. Vesta is a family-owned business specializing in mining supplies and services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lf6zED at no extra charge.[CC] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over ID.4 Steering Model Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that two customers filed a class action lawsuit against Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Why: The plaintiffs say Volkswagen failed to disclose a steering defect in certain of its ID.4 model vehicles. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Volkswagen failed to disclose a defect in certain of its ID.4 model vehicles that allegedly causes the steering wheel to automatically engage Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). Plaintiffs Janice Beecher and Omar Hakkaoui claim the alleged defect causes the Volkswagen ID.4 vehicles to suddenly and unintentionally accelerate. Beecher and Hakkaoui argue the alleged defect is the result of overly touch-sensitive capacitive steering wheels, which can automatically engage the ACC with a "mere light brush of the hand" over the steering wheel’s haptic controls. "Plaintiffs have been involved in fatal crashes because of the Defect, leaving them terrified and hesitant to drive their Class Vehicles," the Volkswagen ID.4 class action lawsuit states. Volkswagen failed to disclose or repair ID.4 defect, class action claims Beecher and Hakkaoui argue Volkswagen failed to disclose the alleged defect, which they claim the automaker knew about from customer complaints, information sent from dealers and its own internal records. "Despite knowledge of the Defect from customer complaints, information sent from dealers, and its own internal records, Defendant has not offered its customers suitable repairs or replacements free of charge or offered to reimburse its customers," the Volkswagen class action says. Beecher and Hakkaoui claim Volkswagen is guilty of common law fraud by omission, breach of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment, among other things, and of violating consumer protection laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, general, special, incidental, consequential, punitive and exemplary damages for themselves and all class members. Volkswagen agreed to a class action settlement earlier this year to end claims that certain of its Atlas vehicles were equipped with a defective second row seat latch. Also this year, Volkswagen agreed to a settlement to resolve claims Audi and Volkswagen concealed a turbocharger defect in some of their vehicles.[GN] VOLUME SERVICES: Adler Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Casey Adler and Cody Urquhart, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SODEXO, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 25CU033941N 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 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01939-BEN-DDL. The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages at Termination; Failure to Pay Reimbursement Expenses; Failure to Provide Gratuities; and Failure to Permit Inspection of Employee Records.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com WALGREEN CO: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23453-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 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 has failed to reasonably accommodate blind and visually disabled customers who want the ease of access and use of the POS devices to make their purchases in the retail stores. This failure to provide reasonable accommodation includes the failure to include in the POS devices a blind interface system, an audio interface system, working assistive listening devices, a tactile keyboard, and/or screen reader technology or other auxiliary aids for the blind and visually disabled. All of these auxiliary aids were and are readily accessible to Defendant and should have been made available to its blind and visually disabled customers, such as Plaintiff, but were not. The Defendant thus has failed to provide its blind and visually disabled customers the ability to use the POS devices like other, non-visually disabled customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with pathologic myopia with central chorioretinal atrophy secondary to her myopia. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of over 8,700 retail drug stores.[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 WANDERU INC: Charges Hidden Fees to Resell Tickets, Zambrano Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA ZAMBRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WANDERU, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-23565-BB (S.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2025) is a class action on behalf of all persons that purchased tickets from Wanderu's website for transportation to, from, or within the State of Florida. According to the complaint, for years, the Defendant has overcharging customers on its website in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Under Florida law, "[a] person or entity that offers for resale or resells any ticket may charge only $1 above the admission price charged therefor by the original ticket seller of the ticket for the following transactions: (a) Passage or accommodations on any common carrier in this state. However, this paragraph does not apply to travel agencies that have an established place of business in this state and are required to pay state, county, and city occupational license taxes." Wanderu is subject to this law and yet it charges more than $1 in hidden fees anyway. Wanderu resells tickets on buses and trains that ride through the state of Florida. Buses and trains are "common carriers," asserts the suit. Wanderu is not a "travel agency that has an established place of business in this state." Whenever a consumer visits https://www.wanderu.com to buy a bus or train ticket that passes through the state of Florida, Wanderu charges fees to resell tickets from other which ranging from $3 to $5. Wanderu is thus violating Section 817.36, the suit adds. The Plaintiff purchased a roundtrip ticket from Miami, Florida to Orlando, Florida on or about Nov. 16, 2023, through Defendant's website, https://www. wanderu.com/. The Defendant owns and operates the website, https://wanderu.com/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleanor R. Grasso, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com egrasso@bursor.com WARNER BROS: Lindauer Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACK LINDAUER, a California resident, individually and behalf of the Proposed Classes; Plaintiff, v. WARNER BROS. STUDIO OPERATIONS, A DIVISION OF WB STUDIO ENTERPRISES INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive; Defendant, Case No. 25STCV15597 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 1, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07149 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged: (1) Failure to Pay Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime; (5) Wage Statement Violations; (6) Violations of the Unfair Competition Law; (7) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (8) Failure to Pay Final Wages; and (9) Penalties Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2699. Based in Burbank, CA, Warner Bros. Studio Operations offers sound stages and production services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen A. Rossi, Esq. Matthew J. Mardesich, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120 Telephone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 E-mail: sar@msk.com mjm@msk.com WASHINGTON TIMES: Discloses Viewing Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE WASHINGTON TIMES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02619 (D.D.C., Aug. 11, 2025) is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint brought on behalf of all persons who have signed up for a Washington Times account and interacted with videos on The Washington Times website www.washingtontimes.com. According to the complaint, many of the Defendant's articles include pre-recorded videos. The Washington Times is owned and operated by Defendant The Washington Times LLC. The federal Video Privacy Protection Act protects consumer privacy by providing for a federal cause of action against "[a] video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider", without express consent. Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its Subscribers' personally identifying video viewing information to Piano, a third-party data analytics platform. This unauthorized disclosure occurs through Defendant's deliberate installation and configuration of a specialized code snippet known as the "Piano Tracker" on its Website, asserts the suit. The information Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose) to Piano via the Piano Tracker includes the Subscribers' email address, the title of the specific prerecorded video material, and the URL of the video that each of its Subscribers accessed on its Website. In the simplest terms, the Piano Tracker installed by Defendant captures and discloses to Piano information that reveals the specific videos that a particular person accessed on Defendant's Website (Private Viewing Information), the suit adds. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose its Subscribers' Private Viewing Information to Piano without obtaining their consent to these practices. The Washington Times is an American conservative daily newspaper based in Washington, DC that covers an array of topics, primarily focusing on American politics, commentary, sports coverage, and local DC news.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan M. Doerrer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STAN M. DOERRER PLLC 950 N. Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 348-4646 Facsimile: (703) 348-0048 E-mail: stan@doerrerlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq.⃰ CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com WIN WASTE: White Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER WHITE and MARK BASSETT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WIN WASTE INNOVATIONS OF NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12229 (D. Mass., Aug. 8, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law, and the Massachusetts Wage Act. Although the Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs and class are all current and former hourly Drivers and Helpers, who worked for the Defendant-- anywhere in the United States, at any time during the relevant statutes of limitations, through the final disposition of this matter. The Defendant is an active carrier in Londonderry, New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP 585 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536-1800 Facsimile: (617) 536-1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com ZONI LANGUAGE: Ortega Suit Seeks to Certify Representative Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRINCESA ORTEGA and NATHALIA GARCIA, on behalf of themselves, and those similarly situated, v. ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS, INC. (d/b/a ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS), ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS-FLUSHING, LLC, (d/b/a ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS) JULIO NIETO, Case No. 1:24-cv-08223-DEH-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, to conditionally certify a representative class and permit Court-supervised notification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for: 1. Conditional certification of the Fair Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all non-managerial, hourly employees employed by defendants within the last three years ("Covered Employees"); 2. Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA; 3. Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 4. Production of names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, and dates of employment of all Covered Employees; and 5. Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in a conspicuous location in Defendant's campuses. Zoni is a series of language schools based in the USA that provide English language courses for international students. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4fJb7x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ria Julien, Esq. Jeanne Mirer, Esq. Heather L. Ramirez, Esq. JULIEN MIRER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 231-2235 E-mail: rjulien@julienmirer.com jmirer@julienmirer.com hramirez@julienmirer.com ZR CONSULTING: Mott Seeks More Time to File Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZR CONSULTING LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00081-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for extension of time to file his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the current deadline be extended until 30 days after the Defendant files an answer in this case. The Plaintiff does not have the benefit of the Defendant's responsive pleading and will not have it before he must file his certification motion. Such an extension of time will allow the Plaintiff to understand what allegations and class certification issues are contested. It will also allow Plaintiff the opportunity to serve discovery when it opens 30 days from the answer date and supplement his motion and/or supply evidence for the Court’s consideration in a reply brief. The Plaintiff contacted Defendant's counsel, David Milian, Esq., to seek Defendant's concurrence in this motion on July 31, 2025. Plaintiff was unable to reach Mr. Milian and has not received a response from Defendant regarding wither it consents to or opposes this Motion. ZR is a company that offers a variety of consulting and training services, with a particular focus on the renewable energy sector. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qVjfKt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com [^] Top Securities Class Action Law Firms Announced --------------------------------------------------- Class Action Updates released the special report: "Top Securities Class Action Law Firms - Plaintiffs," featuring 15 of the most active class action firms that represent plaintiffs. These are: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Pomerantz LLP Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Saxena White P.A. The Schall Law Firm Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Securities class action lawsuits typically allege violations of U.S. federal securities laws, focusing on material misrepresentations or omissions that harm investors. According to Cornerstone Research, around 225 securities class action cases were filed in federal and state courts in 2024. A copy of the CAU report is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uS0IHU (subscription required). ********* 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 ***