250822.mbx

250822.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 22, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 168 Headlines 164 MULBERRY: Kycyku Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL 3M COMPANY: Maya Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Weber Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Willis Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Reese Class Suit in Delaware ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Sheet Metal Workers' Class Suit ACCESS INTELLIGENCE: Faces Hecht Suit Over Surveillance Practices ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Mediation Ongoing in Securities Class Suit AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS: Rohr Files Suit in D. South Carolina AHOLD DELHAIZE: Townsend Sues Over Exposure of Personal Info ALAMEDA HEALTH: Doe Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ALLBIRDS INC: Intends to File Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit ALLIANZ LIFE: Canick Sues Over Data Security Failures AMENTUM PARENT: Court Narrows Claims in Middleton Class Suit ATKORE INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK ATWELL LLC: Webster Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BAE SYSTEMS: $6.4MM Class Settlement in Cabrales Suit Has Final OK BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Mogollon Bid for Class Cert Tossed BARRETT BUSINESS: Aguilera Suit Removed to N.D. California BARRETT-JACKSON HOLDINGS: Swinnerton Files Suit in D. Arizona BROOKFIELD, WI: Lowe Sues Over False Arrest, Excessive Force Use BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit BYLT LLC: Jerde Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CABI LLC: Echols Sues Over Website's Violations of ADA CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued over Toxic Contamination CITIBANK NA: Giggetts Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach COLLECTIVE TX: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMPASS INC: Continues to Defend Gibson Class Suit in Missouri COMPASS INC: Fierro Suit Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement COMPASS INC: Friedman Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK COMPASS INC: Grace Class Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final Nod COMPASS INC: March Class Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK COMPASS INC: Whaley Suit Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement CONAGRA FOODS: Velasquez Suit Removed to E.D. California CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California CONSORTIUM ON FINANCING: D'Amico Sues Over Inflating of Prices CS DISCO: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge CVS PHARMACY: Mancilla Suit Removed to E.D. California DCI DONOR: $175K Settlement in Wells Suit Resolves Per Diem Claims DONNA WOOD: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages DONUTS ENTERPRISE: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE: Meneses Wage Suit Remanded to State Court DTIQ TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morton Says ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ERICA WILLIAMS: Denial of Arbitration in Westlake Suit Affirmed EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FOX HARLEM: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL FUJITEC AMERICA: Eller Suit Removed to C.D. California GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas GENERAL MOTORS: Dawidzik Sues Over Unlawful Use of Trackers GME ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Hughes Suit Over Surveillance Practices GRILLBOT LLC: Martinez Sues Over Website Inaccessibility GROOMIT FOR PETS: Demland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York H.M. NABAVIAN: Cole Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HAYLOFT PROPERTY: Carver Suit Removed to D. South Dakota HIGH POINT: Faces Sameiro Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach HIMS & HERS: Faces Sookdeo Securities Class Suit in California HIMS & HERS: Faces Yaghsizian Class Suit in California HNI CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lucien Alleges ICON TRADE: Cole Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INA LABS: Hampton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility INTEL CORP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over False Ads, Fraud INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Scholz Sue After Grievance Process Fails JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Noohi JP MORGAN: Kempner Sues Over Certificates of Deposit Renewals JUPITER LEGEND: Guo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination JZ STEAKHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Campbell Says KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Click Tampons Contain Lead, Foster Says KOMUELLO USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LA PLATA COUNTY, CO: Faces Suit Over Female Inmates' Strip Videos LATTER & BLUM: Peiffer Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK LAVAZZA NORTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Says LAW SCHOOL: Risner Balks at Application Platforms' Price Fixing LAY & AU: Echols Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LCT ENERGY: Underpays Roof Bolter Operators, Speigle Says LEXIS NEXIS RISK: Welch Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois LOEWS HOTEL: Continues to Defend Portillo Class Suit in Washington LOEWS HOTELS: Continues to Defend Segal Class Suit in Illinois LOTUS FOODS: Cole Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Programs Class Suit MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Moab's Bid to Lift Discovery Stay Denied MASS. ELECTRIC: Cortes Suit Removed to N.D. California MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Chapman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MERCURY FINANCIAL: Settlement in Bailey Suit Has Prelim. Approval MONOLITHIC POWER: Continues to Defend Waterford Twp. Class Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Interim Class Counsel Appointed in Sherlip Suit NATERA INC: California Court Junks Genetic Test Suit NATERA INC: California Patient Billing Suit Remains Stayed NATERA INC: Settlement in Panorama Marketing Suit Awaits Court OK NATERA INC: Texas Securities Suit Granted Class Certification OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Pa. OPENAI INC: Deposition Protocol Issued in Intercept Media Suit OPENAI INC: Deposition Protocol Issued in Millette Copyright Suit OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Upholds Settlement Exclusion in Micholle OPTUMRX INC: Vaccaro Balks at Unauthorized Fund Transfers ORACLE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Holcomb Says PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Walmart Unfair Price Advantages PERFECT MOVING: Faces Vorburger Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Caldera Suit Removed to C.D. California POWDER KEG: Davis Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid OT, Commission PROCTER & GAMBLE: Alzaidi Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: DuPont Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROGRESSIVE PALOVERDE: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Schroeder READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Exchange Act Suit READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Merger Suit READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Securities Suit READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend UDF IV Merger Suit READY CAPITAL: Shareholders' Suit Remains Pending in SDNY REALTY AUSTIN: QJ Team Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification SAKS OFF: Erdos-Major Sues Over Unconsented Call Recordings SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Twitty Suit Removed to D. South Carolina SHOP LC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SKYDIO INC: Hanna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOCAL CLIMATE CONTROL: Armenta Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Ballardo Suit Removed to C.D. California STARBUCKS: Malsack Sues Over Failure to Remove Physical Barriers SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: James Sues For Discriminatory Hiring Process SUNCOAST CREDIT: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Says T-MOBILE USA: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California TEA DATING: Stevens Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info TEAM INTERNATIONAL: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TESLA INC: Schwartz Suit Removed to C.D. California TRACKI INC: Doe Sues Over Releasing of Dangerous Products TRACKSMITH CORPORATION: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRIAGE LLC: Anderson Sues Over Failure to Secure Information TROPHY FISHING: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit US CRAFT: Evans Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance of ADA WEISS MEMORIAL: Underpays Patient Service Reps, Cano Suit Says WOOD RIVER: Gentile Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Datanyze Class Suit ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Personality Rights Suit ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Quebec Civil Code Suit ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Telemarketing Class Suit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Reports $1.02BB Superfund Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Has 14,820 Unresolved Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Has $0.3MM Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 32,860 Pending Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $99MM Liability as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $67MM Asbestos Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,337 Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 451 Exposure Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 110 Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 205 Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Product Liability Suits ********* 164 MULBERRY: Kycyku Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- MAZLLOM KYCYKU, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 164 MULBERRY ST. CORP. d/b/a DA NICO RESTAURANT, and NICHOLAS CRISCITELLI, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-06708 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' systemic and continuous violations of the overtime provisions and unlawful tip retention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff proper overtime compensation for each hour Plaintiff worked beyond forty each week, resulting in Plaintiff suffering unpaid overtime compensation in willful violation of the FLSA. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a server, food runner, bartender, and captain, to perform work within the Defendants' restaurant and place of business, from Dec. 2021, through the alleged wrongful termination of the Plaintiff's employment on or about March 29, 2025. The Defendants own and operate a popular upscale restaurant located in New York City's Little Italy neighborhood.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Robert Kansao, Esq. Avraham Y. Scher, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 3M COMPANY: Maya Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- Ricky Antonio Maya, 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.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-09857-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") 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 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. 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 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 Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' 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 or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Weber Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher Weber, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01021 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08665-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Willis Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charles Edward Willis, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01024 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08671-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Reese Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Reese class suit in the Delaware Chancery Court. In May 2024, a putative class action lawsuit, Reese v. AbbVie Inc., was filed in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the lawfulness of Section 2.13(D)(iv) in the Second Amended and Restated By-laws of AbbVie Inc. As noted in its Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2024, AbbVie believed this provision was lawful but no longer had any practical value. Accordingly, AbbVie did not believe defending this provision was the best use of Company resources. AbbVie therefore amended its by-laws to, among other things, delete section 2.13(D)(iv). As a result of this amendment, plaintiff agreed that his claims were moot. In September 2024, the court granted an Order Voluntarily Dismissing the Action as Moot and Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine Plaintiff's Counsel’s Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses. To avoid the time and expense of continued litigation and without any admissions, the parties agreed to resolve plaintiff's counsel fee application with a payment of $175 thousand to plaintiff's counsel. In July 2025, the court entered a stipulation and order providing that the case will be closed. In entering that order, the court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness. AbbVie Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in North Chicago, Illinois. ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Sheet Metal Workers' Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sheet Metal Workers' Health Plan class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In January 2025, a putative class action lawsuit, Sheet Metal Workers' Health Plan of Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada v. AbbVie Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of third-party payors of Humira, alleging that AbbVie's rebating practices are impairing biosimilar competition with Humira in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The plaintiff generally seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. AbbVie Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in North Chicago, Illinois. ACCESS INTELLIGENCE: Faces Hecht Suit Over Surveillance Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN HECHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07619 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2025) is a class suit against the Defendants over alleged surveillance practice in violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited www.satshow.com on June 10, 2025. When Plaintiff did so, their identifying information by way of electronic impulses was sent to LiveRamp, NextRoll (AdRoll), Outbrain, and Comscore. The purpose of this transfer of data from Defendant to the Data Brokers was for de-anonymization, profiling, and targeting. The transfer benefited both the Defendant and the Data Broker financially. The Data Brokers took Plaintiff's information and added it to their profiles of Plaintiff. In turn, the Defendant received other relevant data obtained by the Data Brokers regarding Plaintiff. The Data Brokers could then use data regarding Plaintiff's visit to further profile the Plaintiff, with the objective of monetizing this data by selling or licensing it to other entities, including law enforcement. In this regard, a recent report by the Brennan Center, a public policy nonprofit, has explained that "government agencies may purchase personal data to further their exercise of coercive powers, including the ability to deport, arrest, incarcerate, or even use lethal force." There is no way for Plaintiff to learn what the Data Brokers did with Plaintiff's data, including what inferences the Data Brokers have gleaned from it, or when, why and to whom the Data Brokers have sold or licensed Plaintiff's data, says the suit. As such, the Plaintiff has been injured by the Defendant's surveillance practices. Plaintiff was never informed of, and therefore could not have consented to, data collection by the Data Brokers for mercantile purposes. The Plaintiff has no way to know the scope of the injury suffered because the Data Brokers operate in secret and without public disclosure of their operations, the suit further says. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situation defined as follows: All persons within California whose identifying information was sent to a Data Broker as a result of visiting the Website within the limitations period. Access Intelligence is the proprietor of www.satshow.com, a website that offers information about SATShow Week, a space and satellite industry convention.[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 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Mediation Ongoing in Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25. 2025, that on October 24, 2023, the Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, a purported shareholder of the company, filed a purported class action complaint against the company and certain of its current and former officers, and certain underwriters for a Company follow-on offering conducted in January 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the company's stock between August 4, 2020 and February 27, 2023 and generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the company's organic growth in its diabetes segment. On January 23, 2024, the court entered an order appointing Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, and City of Tallahassee Pension Plan as Lead Plaintiffs. On May 14, 2024, Allegheny Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between August 4, 2020 and November 7, 2023 The Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material information regarding (i) the company's billing practices with respect to its diabetes product category, and (ii) the company's compliance programs and integration with respect to acquired companies. The Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On July 23, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint. The Allegheny Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on October 1, 2024, and defendants filed their reply brief on November 15, 2024. On May 28, 2025, the parties jointly filed a letter requesting that the Court hold the motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the outcome of a private mediation between the parties. AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical equipment, medical supplies and related services. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS: Rohr Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AGC Chemicals Americas Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sarah Rohr, and all others similarly situated v. AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US 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., formerly known as: DowDuPont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10351-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN AND SASSER 4400 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 58 Pensacola, FL 32503 Phone: (850) 916-7450 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Townsend Sues Over Exposure of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN TOWNSEND JR. and MICHAEL HOLT on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, FOOD LION, LLC AND GIANT FOOD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-704 (M.D.N.C., August 4, 2025) seeks relief on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during a data breach. On or about November 6, 2024, Defendant Ahold became aware of a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to some of its internal U.S. business systems. Despite learning about the Data Breach on November 6, the Defendants did not notify affected individuals until June 26, 2025, more than seven months later. As a result of the Data Breach, through which their Personally Identifiable Information and Personal Health Information was compromised, disclosed, and obtained by unauthorized third parties, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of years, if not decades, alleges the suit. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC provides support services to Ahold Delhaize USA grocery companies, including Food Lion, Giant Food, The GIANT Company, Hannaford, Stop & Shop, ADUSA Distribution, ADUSA Transportation and others.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan A. Valente, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: teamvalente@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Andrew Fuller, Esq. Ellen J. Wen, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com ewen@cpmlegal.com ALAMEDA HEALTH: Doe Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping -------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, Jane Roe, Janet Doe, and Janet Roe individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 3:25-cv-06709 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought arising from a fundamental betrayal of trust and to hold the Defendant accountable or its unlawful wiretapping and its deceptive practices that left patients exposed – without warning, without choice, and without recourse, in violation violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Through its cookie banner and privacy policies, Defendant represented that patients could opt out of cookies and data tracking. In a conspicuous cookie banner on its website, Defendant stated unequivocally: "you can give your consent to all or selected purposes, or you can decline them all." These representations were false. In truth, Defendant embedded on its website tracking tools to share patient information with third parties, including Google, LLC, The Trade Desk, Tapad, Adnxs, Media6Degrees, Nielson Online, Neustar Marketing, triplelift, Bombora, Merkle, Epsilon Marketing, GroupM, Semasio, LiveIntent, Rakuten, Narrative, MonsterInsights, and Full Circle Studies (collectively the "Third Parties" and their "Trackers") without patient consent, knowledge, or authorization (in short, the "Disclosure") The Trackers Defendant embedded allowed those Third Parties to intercept, store, and use detailed information about patients' interactions with the site, allowing Third Parties to harvest information including their browsing activities, the pages they viewed and the buttons they clicked, their status as medical patients, their searches for health conditions or concerns, and identifying information including IP addresses and identifying cookies. Worse still, the supposed "opt-out" offered via the cookie banner was functionally meaningless. Regardless of the patient's selection, tracking occurred. This was not just a breach of trust. Defendant's actions violated both California and Federal law. By knowingly deploying these tracking technologies in violation of its own express assurances and without meaningful user consent, Defendant violated the CIPA and fundamental expectations of privacy in healthcare, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is Defendant's patient and a victim of Defendant's unauthorized Disclosure of her communications. The Defendant is a major healthcare provider, assured patients and other website visitors that their private information would remain confidential.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, ID 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com ALLBIRDS INC: Intends to File Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Allbirds, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to file a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. "On April 13, 2023, and on May 16, 2023, we and certain of our executive officers and directors were named as defendants in two substantially similar securities class action lawsuits, captioned Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-01811-AMO and Delgado v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-02372-AMO, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. "These lawsuits allege that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and/or misleading statements about our business, operations and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the two cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving lead plaintiffs’ selection of lead counsel. On September 15, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against the same group of defendants and asserting the same claims. "We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court granted on May 10, 2024, but provided plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2024. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the court granted on June 21, 2025, but provided plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 14, 2025 and we expect to file a motion to dismiss on or before August 27, 2025 with full briefing expected to be completed by November 12, 2025. "We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit," the Company stated. ALLIANZ LIFE: Canick Sues Over Data Security Failures ----------------------------------------------------- ELIOT CANICK, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03141-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., August 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members' private information. On or about July 16, 2025, Defendant Allianz experienced a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to the majority of its 1.4 million U.S. customers, financial professionals, and select employees. On July 17, 2025, Allianz became aware of the data breach. On Saturday July 26, 2025, Allianz notified the Office of the Maine Attorney General as required by law. Allianz later informed the public that the breach occurred due to a threat actor gaining access to a third-party, cloud based CRM system. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of implied contracts, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff also alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Privacy Act. Based in Minneapolis, MN, Allianz Life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the German multinational financial services company, Allianz SE. The company provides financial and retirement solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Shashi K. Gowda, Esq. Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com AMENTUM PARENT: Court Narrows Claims in Middleton Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY MIDDLETON and GEORGE LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of the AMENTUM 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN and DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. AMENTUM PARENT HOLDINGS, LLC, DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric Melgren entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Counts I and II are dismissed in part; Counts III and IV are dismissed in part; Counts V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X are dismissed. The Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' failure to monitor claim to the extent it relates to the underlying breach of fiduciary duty of prudence investment claims against DI and Amentum. Finally, Defendants contend that Counts III and IV should be dismissed if they are asserted against Defendants other than Amentum, DI, the ABAC, and individual ABAC members. They argue that liability for failure to monitor attaches to the appointing fiduciary—not the appointee. Thus, Defendants assert that neither ARIC nor its members, nor the DI Committee nor its members can be liable for failure to monitor themselves. Plaintiffs do not address Defendants' argument. Accordingly, based on Plaintiffs' lack of a response, and the regulation stating that the appointing fiduciary should review the performance of the fiduciaries, the Court dismisses Count III and IV if Plaintiffs assert those claims against any other Defendants than DI, Amentum, ABAC, and the individual ABAC members. The Plaintiffs allege that the DI fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by failing to include less expensive, substantially identical institutional-share classes of investments rather than more expensive, retail-share classes. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Legacy Amentum Plan, the Post-Merger Amentum Plan, and their participants by failing to engage in a prudent process to select, monitor, retain, and remove investment options. Although class certification has not yet occurred, Plaintiffs propose that the class includes: "All participants and beneficiaries of the DI Plan from the date six years before the filing of the original Complaint (Oct. 10, 2023) through the Dec. 31, 2021, merger into the Amentum Plan, and all participants and beneficiaries of the Amentum Plan (Legacy Amentum Plan and Post-Merger Amentum Plan) from the date six years before the filing of the original Complaint to the present." Amentum is a leader in global engineering, project management, and solutions integration. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1fqC46 at no extra charge.[CC] ATKORE INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------- Atkore Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2025, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has preliminarily approved a settlement of "In re: PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation," (N.D. Ill. 24-cv-07639). In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024, the company was named a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits, consolidated under the said suit, seeking injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers of PVC water pipe and PVC conduit. The suits generally allege anticompetitive conduct related to the price of PVC pipes sold in the United States between approximately 2021 and the present. Specifically, the complaints allege that the defendant PVC pipe manufacturers improperly shared otherwise confidential information through their contribution of information to, and readership of, a weekly report called "PVC & Pipe Weekly" published by Oil Price Information Service, LLC (OPIS), as well as through direct communications with each other. The complaints claim that this conspiracy violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, as amended, and certain state laws. All cases are pending in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. During the quarter, a proposed settlement was announced between OPIS and plaintiffs obligating OPIS to pay certain monies and to cooperate with plaintiffs. Atkore Inc. is a manufacturer of electrical products primarily for the non-residential construction and renovation markets and safety and infrastructure solutions for the construction and industrial markets. ATWELL LLC: Webster Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Drew Webster, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ATWELL, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-12467-JEL-KGA (E.D. Mich., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees were incorrectly classified by the Defendant as independent contractors but were in fact, based on the economic reality factors, employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees who worked for the Defendant in the last three years regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff, and the putative collective action members, did not receive overtime premium payments for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during the workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff, and the putative collective action members, a flat rate for each day worked ("day rate"), without overtime premium compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Landman from July 10, 2023, until April 15, 2024. Atwell has been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R.J. Cronkhite, Esq. CRONKHITE COUNSEL PLLC 36800 Woodward Ave., Ste. 310 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Phone: (248) 309-8602 Fax: (248) 256-2555 Email: rj@cronkhitelaw.com - and - Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq. MCDONALD WORLEY, PC 1770 St. James St., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 523-5500 Fax: (713) 523-5501 Email: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com matt@mcdonaldworley.com - and - Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 425-6445 Fax: (888) 389-9317 Email: galvin@kennedyattorney.com BAE SYSTEMS: $6.4MM Class Settlement in Cabrales Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Federico Cabrales, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement and motion for attorneys' fees. The Court approved a comprehensive $6,364,467.87 settlement resolving wage-and-hour claims brought by current and former California-based non-exempt employees of BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. The settlement includes $4,500,000 in new funds plus credit for $1,502,955.87 previously paid through a Direct Settlement Campaign and $361,512.00 in retroactive payments issued in March 2023. The Court certified multiple subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including: (1) Minimum Wage Security Subclass; (2) Overtime Security Subclass; (3) Rounding Minimum Wage Subclass; (4) Rounding Overtime Subclass; (5) Overtime Regular Rate of Pay Subclass; (6) Meal Break Subclass; (7) Second Meal Break Subclass; and (8) Wage Statement Subclass. The Settlement Class encompasses 2,436 Settlement Class Members, with 1,162 Participating Settlement Class Members eligible for individual payments. Plaintiffs filed their putative class action complaint on October 26, 2021, alleging violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Private Attorneys' General Act, and other California state labor laws. The operative Second Amended Complaint brought claims for: (1) unpaid meal period premiums; (2) unpaid rest period premiums; (3) unpaid overtime; (4) unpaid minimum wages; (5) final wages not timely paid; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to reimburse expenses; (8) violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; and (9) failure to pay straight and overtime compensation. The Court noted that On November 17, 2023, Defendant mailed out a packet to putative class members containing a cover letter, a copy of the SAC, Plaintiffs' notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, a Release of Claims, Frequently Asked Questions, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and a settlement check." This Direct Settlement Campaign resulted in approximately 1,379 individuals cashing settlement checks for an estimated average payment of $1,089.89 per Settlement Class Member. After unsuccessful mediation attempts in December 2022, the parties attended private mediation with Hunter Hughes on February 16, 2024. The parties fully executed a Memorandum of Understanding on March 11, 2024, leading to the final Settlement Agreement executed on October 21, 2024. The Maximum Settlement Amount will be allocated as follows: Individual Settlement Payments distributed to Participating Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis according to workweeks worked; Individual FLSA Payments totaling $15,000 divided among FLSA Collective Members; LWDA Payment of $100,000 for PAGA claims resolution with $75,000 paid to the LWDA and $25,000 divided among PAGA Members; Class Representative Enhancement Payments of $20,000 each to Plaintiffs Cabrales and Stanislas; Class Counsel's fees of $2,121,489.29; and Settlement Administration Costs not exceeding $35,000. The Court applied the factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and traditional Ninth Circuit factors to assess fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy. The Court found that the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class and the proposal was negotiated at arm's length. The Court determined that the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal. Regarding class member reaction, the Court noted that the Settlement Administrator has not received any objections to the Settlement by Class Members, and only one Class Member requested exclusion. The Court explained that the absence of objections and such a low percentage of opt outs weigh in favor of settlement. The Court separately analyzed the FLSA collective action settlement, finding that the FLSA settlement amount of $15,000 represents approximately 14.7% of the potential recovery and concluding that the Court finds the FLSA Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. For the PAGA settlement, the Court determined that the $100,000.00 PAGA Penalty is fair, adequate, and reasonable considering it in relation to the Class recovery and to other approved PAGA settlements, and considering neither the LWDA nor any PAGA Members have objected. The Court granted Plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorneys' fees of $2,121,489.29, representing 33.33% of the Maximum Settlement Amount. The Court found this percentage reasonable, stating that an upward deviation from the 25% benchmark is warranted especially so in light of the fact that not a single class member objected to Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. According to the Settlement, litigation costs of $179,769.69, including expert costs of $116,495.95, mediation fees of $20,000, and court reporter services of $11,488.91 were approved. Judge Battaglia determined these costs were reasonably incurred in litigating this action for the benefit of the Class. The Court awarded $20,000 to each Class Representative, finding the awards fair and reasonable in light of the extraordinary risks they accepted and the time and effort they expended for the benefit of the Class. Plaintiff Cabrales spent over 100 hours on the case while Plaintiff Stanislas spent approximately 80 hours. The Court ordered effectuation of the Settlement Agreement according to its terms, directing specific payments to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, FLSA Collective Members, Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel, and Class Representatives. The Court further directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9goJzs from Pacermonitor.com. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Mogollon Bid for Class Cert Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO MOGOLLON, et al., v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No. 3:19-cv-03070-N-BV (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Designation of Class Representatives and Class Counsel: "All persons or entities who purchased or renewed certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank Limited between Dec. 27, 2005, and Feb. 16, 2009, and still held those certificates of deposit as of Feb. 16, 2009," excluding those connected to the defendant or Stanford Financial Group, investors who have resolved all claims, and residents of 25 jurisdictions that have been found not to give preclusive effect to a U.S. class action judgment. The Court said it finds that New York law and the New York statute of limitations applies to the class, and because the New York statute of limitations would require extensive individual legal and factual inquiry, the Court finds that questions of fact and law common to the class do not predominate over questions affecting individual members. The Plaintiffs Sergio Mogollon, Colleen Lowe, Ramon Malca, and Robert Powell are all investors who purchased CDs from SIBL between December 27, 2005, and February 16, 2009, the time period in which Bank of New York Mellon ("BNYM") engaged in a joint enterprise relationship with Stanford and Pershing LLC The case arises out of R. Allen Stanford's massive Ponzi scheme. BNYM is a New York state chartered bank. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CYI69v at no extra charge.[CC] BARRETT BUSINESS: Aguilera Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karina Aguilera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, NATERA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV126068 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. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-06796. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges ten class-wide causes of action against Defendants: Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Codes; Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Codes; Failure to Pay Wages all Wages in Violation of Labor Codes; Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Employees in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, Including Overtime Hours Worked, in Violation of Labor Codes; Violation of Business and Professions Code; and Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(f) for Violations of Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alden J. Parker, Esq. Elizabeth C. Lobaugh, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 Email: aparker@fisherphillips.com elobaugh@fisherphillips.com BARRETT-JACKSON HOLDINGS: Swinnerton Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barrett-Jackson Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Steven Swinnerton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barrett-Jackson Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02893-DWL (D. Ariz., Aug. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Declaratory Judgment. Barrett-Jackson -- https://www.barrett-jackson.com/ -- is an American collector car auction company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC 7508 N 59th Ave. Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (623) 826-5593 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.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 BROOKFIELD, WI: Lowe Sues Over False Arrest, Excessive Force Use ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEMETRIOUS LOWE and TRAYVOND BURTON v. CITY OF BROOKFIELD, CITY OF BROOKFIELD POLICE OFFICERS JOSHUA SCHABER, BRANDON SCHULZ, GABRIEL EESLEY, MAX FAULSTITCH, and DEREK HANDEL, Case No. 2:25-cv-01220 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 14, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated against Defendants due to an alleged false arrest and use of excessive force which occurred on Sept. 14, 2024, all in opposition to the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. On September 14, 2024, Defendants LOWE and BURTON were on a scheduled break from their employment with the Brookfield Convention Center in Brookfield, Wisconsin. While the Plaintiffs were outside on break, a Brookfield Police car was doing a scheduled patrol of the parking lot. While observing the lot, the Defendant SCHABER saw both Plaintiffs exit a parked vehicle and commence walking back toward their place of employment, the Brookfield Conference Center. Defendant SCHABER purported to smell marijuana emanating from the vehicle. He told the Plaintiffs to stop walking, but they continued to walk toward the Brookfield Conference Center as their break was over, and they had to resume their employment duties. Defendant SCHABER, in his report, never states that he saw either Plaintiff actively smoking marijuana, holding a joint or pipe, or anything else to indicate that the Plaintiffs were doing anything illegal while on their employment break. Defendant SCHABER also indicates that the Plaintiffs were not exhibiting any threatening behavior, the suit says The Plaintiffs were allegedly arrested by the Defendants, taken into custody, and booked at the Brookfield Police Department on charges of resisting arrest, obstructing. Despite the initial police report stating they sought a charge of marijuana possession, that charge was dropped since no marijuana was found anywhere at the scene, asserts the suit. Brookfield is a city in eastern Waukesha County, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walter W. Stern III, Esq. 920 85th St., Suite 123 Kenosha WI 53143 Telephone: (262) 880-0192 Facsimile: (262) 997-1101 E-mail: wwstern111@gmail.com BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints were filed in six federal district courts around the country by rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April 2008. On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads appealed the class certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine whether to certify a class. On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals held a hearing on the appeal of the denial of class certification. On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of class certification. In June 2025, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the railroads, dismissing all claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeals. The Company continues to believe that these allegations are without merit and continues to vigorously dispute such claims in all subsequent litigation filed by individual parties involving such allegations. The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is the parent company of the BNSF Railway (formerly the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway). The company is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, which is controlled by investor Warren Buffett. BYLT LLC: Jerde Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marc Jerde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BYLT LLC, a California Company, Case No. 25-2-19436-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01496. The Complaint in this action alleges that the Plaintiff "received emails" from BYLT. The Plaintiff further alleges that these emails contained "false or misleading subject lines," which contained information about a "time limited sale." The Plaintiff finally alleges that the "time limited sales" are misleading because BYLT sends additional emails that state "the sale has been 'extended'". Based upon these allegations, Jerde purports to assert a claim under the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), as well as a claim for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 92 Lenora Street #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter A. Talevich, Esq. Abraham M. Weill, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 Phone: (206) 623-7580 Email: peter.talevich@klgates.com abe.weill@klgates.com - and - Joseph Wylie, Esq. Nicole Mueller, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 70 W Madison St, # 3300 Chicago, IL, 60602 Phone: (312) 372-1121 Email: joseph.wylie@klgates.com nicole.mueller@klgates.com CABI LLC: Echols Sues Over Website's Violations of ADA ------------------------------------------------------ TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cabi, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09320 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 2025) arises from 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. Due to failure Cabi's and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and other blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Cabi as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through its website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cabi, LLC controls and operates the website, Cabionline.com, which offers women's apparel and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued over Toxic Contamination ----------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2025, that in February 2025, a putative class action was filed in federal court in Massachusetts, against the company. The complaint alleges it is responsible for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination from the Massachusetts Natural Fertilizer Company Site. The complaint alleges medical monitoring, negligence, and breach of warranty for failure to warn and seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as medical monitoring and other injunctive and declaratory relief. In April 2025, an amended complaint was filed adding allegations for property damages under a state statute. The Chemours Company is a global provider of performance chemicals based in Delaware. CITIBANK NA: Giggetts Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA GIGGETTS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06452 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant experienced a cybersecurity incident in which there was unauthorized activity on customers' accounts, involving their personal information including names, email addresses, account and telephone numbers, debit cards and PINs, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. 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 personal identifiable information (PII). Moreover, Defendant's failure to promptly and properly notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach exacerbated Plaintiff and Class Members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to take appropriate measures to protect their PII and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused by the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory judgment. Headquartered in New York, NY, Citibank operates as a global banking institution that offers financial services including safeguarding assets, lending money, making payments and accessing the capital markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCS. LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4900 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Mobile: (716) 861-1398 E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com COLLECTIVE TX: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Laurence Wills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE COLLECTIVE TX, PLLC, D/B/A SOL MENTAL HEALTH, Case No. 1:25-cv-04426 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.solmentalhealth.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.solmentalhealth.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com COMPASS INC: Continues to Defend Gibson Class Suit in Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gibson class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. A putative class action lawsuit, captioned Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 4:23-cv-00788-FJG (W.D. Mo.) ("Gibson"), filed on October 31, 2023, name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. Umpa, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., 4:23-cv-00945 (W.D. Mo.) ("Umpa"), filed on December 27, 2023, was consolidated into the Gibson matter on April 23, 2024. The plaintiffs in the Gibson and Umpa matters allege a nationwide scope. Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. COMPASS INC: Fierro Suit Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Fierro class suit is stayed pending final settlement approval. A putative class action lawsuit, captioned, Fierro, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00449 (C.D. Cal.) (“Fierro”) filed on January 17, 2024 and name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. The Fierro matter is limited in scope to Northern California and Southern California. The Fierro matter are stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the settlement agreement. Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. COMPASS INC: Friedman Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Friedman class suit is stayed pending final settlement approval. A putative class action lawsuit, Friedman v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09601 (S.D.N.Y.) ("Friedman"), filed on January 18, 2024, name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that the Real Estate Board of New York, and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. It alleges violations of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. 340. The Friedman matter is limited in scope to the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn, and Manhattan, respectively. The matter is stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the settlement agreement. Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. COMPASS INC: Grace Class Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Grace class suit is stayed pending final settlement approval. A putative class action lawsuit, captioned Grace v. National, name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. The Grace matters is limited in scope to Northern California and Southern California and stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the settlement agreement. Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. COMPASS INC: March Class Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the March class suit is stayed pending final settlement approval. A putative class action lawsuit, March v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al., No. 1:23-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y.) ("March"), filed on November 13, 2023 name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that the Real Estate Board of New York, and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. It alleges violations of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. 340, and matter further seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26. The March matter is limited in scope to the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn, and Manhattan, respectively. It is stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the settlement agreement. Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. COMPASS INC: Whaley Suit Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Whaley class suit is stayed pending final settlement approval. A putative class action lawsuit, Whaley v. Arizona Association of Realtors, Case No. 2:24-cv-00105 (D. Nev.) ("Whaley"), filed on January 15, 2024, name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. Boykin v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00340 (D. Nev.) ("Boykin"), filed on February 16, 2024, was terminated and consolidated into the Whaley matter on March 20, 2024. Whaley matter is limited in scope to Nevada. Whaley matter is stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the settlement agreement Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. CONAGRA FOODS: Velasquez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adrian Velasquez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. CV-25-004646 was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00668. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following nine causes of action: Minimum Wage Violations; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Reimburse for All Necessary Business Expenses; Unlawful Noncompete Agreement; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi, Esq. Maia Mdinaradze, Esq. Catherine Oh, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com Maia.Mdinaradze@jacksonlewis.com Catherine.Oh@jacksonlewis.com CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV15840 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07457. Thereafter, on July 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "First Amended Complaint" or "FAC"). The Amended Complaint asserts the following ten causes of action: failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and 558; failure to provide rest periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and 558; failure to provide all wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1194.2; failure to provide itemized employee wage statements in violation of California Labor Code sections 226(a), (e), and 1174(d); failure to timely pay waged due at termination in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203; failure to timely pay wages during employment in violation of Labor Code section 204(a)-(b); failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of California Labor Code section 2802; failure to provide pay for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of California Labor Code section 210, 218; unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.; and penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(f).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shahram Samie, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: ssamie@littler.com - and - Matthew Morris, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: mamorris@littler.com CONSORTIUM ON FINANCING: D'Amico Sues Over Inflating of Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- Alayna D'Amico, Max Miller, Bella Robinson, and Bram Silbert, representing themselves and all others similarly situated v. CONSORTIUM ON FINANCING HIGHER EDUCATION, THE COMMON APPLICATION INC., SCOIR INC., AMHERST COLLEGE, BARNARD COLLEGE, BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BROWN UNIVERSITY, BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, CARLETON COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, DUKE UNIVERSITY, EMORY UNIVERSITY, HAVERFORD COLLEGE, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, MACALESTER COLLEGE, MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE, MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, OBERLIN COLLEGE, POMONA COLLEGE, RICE UNIVERSITY, SMITH COLLEGE, SWARTHMORE COLLEGE, TRINITY COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, VASSAR COLLEGE, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS, WELLESLEY COLLEGE, WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, and WILLIAMS COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-12221 (D. Mass., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought as a result of these schools who have openly participated and are participating in practices that entrench patterns of inequality of access while inflating the price of attendance. Among these is the central practice challenged in this case: a horizontal agreement to reduce or eliminate competition through use of the early decision process ("Early Decision" or "ED"). The Defendants the Common Application Inc. (the "Common App") and Scoir Inc., through its "Coalition App" (together, the "Application Platforms" or "Defendant Application Platforms"), provide common application products that facilitate and enforce the anticompetitive restraints of the conspiracy. Each Defendant School either is or has been a member of Defendant the Consortium on Financing Higher Education ("COFHE"), whose stated purpose is to facilitate information sharing among these institutions, which in turn facilitates the horizontal restraints challenged in this case. Each Defendant School, in addition to a traditional admissions process through which it competes with other schools for students, employs Early Decision to accept a substantial portion of its incoming class each year. A student applying Early Decision indicates that they will accept an offer of admission and withdraw all applications made to any other schools if offered admission through the Early Decision process. They must also state that they agree to pay whatever tuition and fees the school demands of them, provided the family can afford the price of attendance after factoring in the school's offered financial aid package if one is provided. Notwithstanding the absence of a contractual obligation, through the anticompetitive behavior described in this complaint (the "Early Decision Conspiracy"), Defendant colleges and universities essentially force Early Decision admittees to be bound to the school that offered early admission by preventing students from receiving and comparing offers from other schools. The Defendants have engaged in a continuing conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. That conspiracy is likely to continue unless the relief sought herein is granted. The conspiracy challenged in this lawsuit consists of an agreement, understanding, and concerted action among Defendants, the substantial terms of which are to restrain competition for an agreed-upon group of students, in order to increase overall tuition levels and to decrease financial aid, thereby increasing the net price of attending these institutions, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are full-time undergraduate students. The Defendant Schools are national colleges and universities that use the Common App and/or Scoir/the Coalition App to coordinate anticompetitive conduct through the Early Decision college application process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Diver, Esq. Peter Leckman, Esq. Kevin Trainer, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER P.C. 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 320-5660 Email: ndiver@langergrogan.com pleckman@langergrogan.com ktrainer@langergrogan.com - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Phone: (617) 858-1990 Email: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Richard A. Koffman, Esq. Daniel McCuaig, Esq. Alex Bodaken, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Email: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com abodaken@cohenmilstein.com CS DISCO: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gambrill v. CS Disco, Inc., et al., Case No. Gambrill v. CS Disco, Inc. et al., (W.D. Tex., Filed Jan. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order referring motion to certify class to Mag. Judge Lane. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. CS provides software as a service solutions.[CC] CVS PHARMACY: Mancilla Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jesus Mancilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. VCU323298 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01000-BAM. The Plaintiff's First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Causes of Action all place additional amounts in controversy. Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Wages For All Hours Worked at the Legal Minimum Wage alleges that Defendant failed "to pay minimum wage for all the hours Plaintiff and the Minimum Wage Class worked," and therefore "Plaintiff and the Minimum Wage Class are entitled to recover unpaid minimum wage, interest thereon, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Anahi Cruz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com DCI DONOR: $175K Settlement in Wells Suit Resolves Per Diem Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Mariah Wells, Plaintiff v. DCI Donor Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00994-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court approved a $175,000 settlement resolving allegations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law violations. The Court certified a class defined as all individuals who are or were employed by Defendant as per diem piece rate non-exempt employees in California from April 30, 2017 through the earlier of March 1, 2023 or the date of preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court also certified a PAGA class covering all individuals who are or were employed by Defendant as per diem piece rate non-exempt employees in California during the PAGA Settlement Period. The Court appointed plaintiff Mariah Wells as class representative and substituted attorneys Jonathan Melmed and Hannah Becker of Melmed Law Group, P.C. as class counsel, replacing Megan E. Ross who was no longer with the firm. The $175,000 gross settlement provides the following allocations: (1) up to $52,500 for attorney's fees and $2,588.01 in litigation costs expenses; (2) $5,000 class representative service award for plaintiff; (3) $4,850 for the settlement administration costs; and (4) $12,500 in civil penalties under the PAGA, with $9,375.00 paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The net settlement amount of $97,561.99 will be distributed to class members on a pro rata basis based on the total number of pay periods worked during the class period. The Settlement Administrator mailed class notice to 38 class members, with all estimated to have received actual notice of the settlement. Four notice packets were returned but none included forwarding addresses. The Court found adequate notice was provided, satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1). According to the Court, no class member objected to the settlement agreement, the proposed service awards, or plaintiff's attorney fee request, and not one of the 38 class members chose to opt out. The Court conducted its fairness analysis using the Churchill factors. Regarding the strength of plaintiff's case, the Court noted that proceeding after reaching settlement would have resulted in potential poor results for all putative class members and it would have been difficult to establish common Labor Code violations. Defendant maintained that it has complied with California law in all respects, denies all liability of any kind associated with the claims and allegations, and further denies that Employees are entitled to any relief. Defendant argued its realistic exposure was effectively $0. The Court found the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation weighed in favor of approval. Plaintiff asserted that continued litigation would be costly, time consuming, and uncertain, while the settlement agreement would ensure timely relief and a substantial recovery of the amounts that Plaintiff contends are owed to the Class Members. The Court determined there was risk plaintiff would not be able to maintain a class action through trial, as defendant denied the allegations were appropriate for class treatment except for settlement purposes. Plaintiff calculated defendant's realistic exposure to be approximately $65,000 including appropriate discounts, while defendant's total possible exposure if all damages and full penalties were awarded was $2,089,437.00, composed of actual damages of $521,337.00 and derivative penalties of $1,568,100.00. The average amount class members are expected to recover is $2,567.42, with the largest payment to any class member estimated to be $6,182.98. The Court found the amount offered in settlement was reasonable given the disputed nature of the claims. The Court found that the parties engaged in extensive investigation and discovery, including months of negotiations and a settlement conference in June 2022. The parties engaged in a significant exchange of substantive information relating to the Class Members' claims. The Court concluded that consideration of this factor weighed in favor of granting final approval, finding the parties' negotiations constituted genuine and informed arm's length bargaining. The Court examined potential subtle signs of collusion under the Bluetooth factors. The Court did not find that class counsel was seeking a disproportionate distribution, noting the 30% attorney's fee award was common in the Ninth Circuit. There was no evidence of a clear sailing arrangement where defendant agreed not to contest attorney's fees. The parties did not arrange for unawarded fees to revert to defendant; instead, uncashed settlement checks will be transmitted to the California State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund. The Court approved attorney's fees of $52,500, representing 30% of the gross settlement fund. Using a lodestar cross-check, the Court reduced certain hourly rates but found the requested award reasonable with a lodestar multiplier of 3.33. The Court approved reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount of $2,588.01, finding all charges incurred to be reasonable. The Court awarded plaintiff a $5,000 incentive payment, noting she spent considerable time participating in the case and provided comprehensive information to class counsel. The Court approved $4,850.00 in settlement administration costs to ILYM Group, Inc. The Court ordered that plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted, and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The action was dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the parties' amended settlement agreement, with the Court retaining jurisdiction for enforcement purposes. A copy of the court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CVS5uc from Pacermonitor.com. DONNA WOOD: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eustacio Rojas, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, v. Donna Wood, d/b/a Paradise Grill By D Wood, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00688 (M.D. Fla., August 4, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with checks without paystubs providing accurate information about the wage, rate, number of days and hours worked, overtime hours, and employee taxes withheld. Additionally, the Defendant fired Plaintiff on February 21, 2025, due to discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff Rojas was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time cook restaurant from approximately December 1, 2010 to February 21, 2025, or more than 14 years. Donna Wood, d/b/a Paradise Grill By D Wood, is a grill-restaurant located in Marco Island, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DONUTS ENTERPRISE: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Lee Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DONUTS ENTERPRISE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06556 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.doughdoughnuts.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.doughdoughnuts.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE: Meneses Wage Suit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Delfina Meneses, Plaintiff v. Driftwood Healthcare & Wellness Center, LLC, Nursa, Inc., and J&L Health Solutions LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01722-ODW (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright II of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the putative wage and hour class action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, finding that Nursa failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold required under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court also denied as moot Nursa's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Plaintiff alleges she worked for the defendants in Santa Cruz County, California, as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from October 2024 to December 2024. Nursa provides a platform for healthcare professionals to perform services for third parties as independent contractors and tracks their work shifts and payments received for each shift. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on January 27, 2025, alleging that defendants failed to pay minimum, straight time and overtime wages, provide meal and rest breaks, timely pay final wages at termination, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse business expenses. The putative class asserts eight causes of action under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code for (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and (8) unfair business practices. On February 27, 2025, Nursa removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting federal jurisdiction based on more than 100 putative class members, minimal diversity, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff moved to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, challenging only the amount in controversy requirement while not disputing that the putative class comprises more than 100 members or that the parties are minimally diverse. The Court first determined that Plaintiff mounted a factual, rather than facial, challenge to jurisdiction. The Court explained that an attack is factual when a party sufficiently disputes the factual basis of the allegations. Here, Plaintiff questioned the rationality and factual basis of Nursa's calculations and offered evidence outside the pleadings to contest the allegations, including Nursa's Terms of Service Agreement. According to the Court, since Plaintiff brought a factual challenge, Nursa bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold. Nursa asserted that the amount in controversy totaled at least $9,799,375, broken down into the following categories: (1) waiting time penalties: $6,552,000; (2) meal period violations: $377,000; (3) rest break violations: $382,000; (4) failure to pay overtime wages: $304,500; (5) wage statement violations: $160,000; (6) failure to reimburse business expenses: $64,000; and (7) attorneys' fees: $1,959,875. The Court focused on Nursa's waiting time penalty calculations since, if credited, they would exceed the $5 million threshold alone. Nursa's theory was "that a worker is terminated if that worker did not use Nursa's platform for a certain number of days." Based on this theory, Nursa identified 1,820 employees who had not used its platform for at least sixty days and assumed 50 percent were terminated and eligible for maximum penalties of $7,200 each. The Court found Nursa's first assumption unreasonable, stating that there is a gap in reasoning that Nursa does not bridge with evidence or reasonable inferences. The Court explained that "when the defendant relies on factually unsupported and unreasonable assumptions, it exaggerates the amount in controversy, thus failing to carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence. Critically, the Court noted that Nursa fails to produce any nonspeculative justification for why it is reasonable to assume that when any hourly-paid worker ceases to work any shift for at least 57 days, they are considered terminated. The Court distinguished the case from Gonzalez v. Barnard Construction Company, where the defendant provided a declaration from its finance vice president explaining why non-payment for six weeks indicated termination. The Court further noted that Nursa's Terms of Service Agreement requires 15 days written notice for unilateral termination absent material breach, yet Nursa does not proffer evidence of mutual agreement, material breach, or written notice to support any of the claimed 1,600 terminated workers. The Court's Order Granting Motion to Remand is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JFbp2d from Pacermonitor.com DTIQ TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morton Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MORTON and KEVIN O'BRIEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DTIQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12271-ADB (D. Mass., Aug. 14, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent a Data Breach. Accordingly, between Dec. 31, 2024, and Jan. 12, 2025, DTiQ lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to current and former employees' PII, including but not limited to names, social security numbers, and financial account information. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant and Data Breach victims. Before the Data Breach, the private information of Plaintiffs and the Class was exactly that -- private but not anymore, asserts the suit. DTiQ is a technology company headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Energizer Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from an antitrust and consumer protection laws class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2023, three purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and Wal-Mart Inc. in the Northern District of California alleging that the defendants conspired to inflate the prices of certain Energizer battery and lighting products (the "Products") charged by the Company to other retailers and to prevent other retailers from charging consumers prices below Wal-Mart's pricing, in violation of antitrust and consumer protection laws. The matters were filed on behalf of putative classes of entities that purchased the Products directly from Energizer, persons who purchased the Products directly from a Wal-Mart brick-and-mortar store, and persons who indirectly purchased the Products (other than for resale). All three lawsuits have been consolidated. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages, costs and disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as injunctive relief. The Company has not recorded any accruals in its consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss from these cases is not probable nor estimable at this time. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses against the claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. Energizer Holdings is an American manufacturer and one of the world's largest manufacturers of batteries, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. ERICA WILLIAMS: Denial of Arbitration in Westlake Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Westlake Services LLC, d/b/a Westlake Financial Services, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Erica Williams, Defendant-Appellee, Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 22M6009428, the Appellate Court of Illinois First District affirmed the circuit court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration. The Court concluded that the circuit court did not err in denying Westlake's motion to compel arbitration. The court properly found that the class action waiver applied only within the context of the arbitration agreement and explicitly waived rights to arbitrate a class action. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. Defendant Erica Williams entered a retail installment contract with Economy Auto Mart for the purchase of a used 2013 Hyundai Sonata on November 19, 2016. She also signed an arbitration agreement that stated: "If a dispute is arbitrated, you will give up your right to participate as a class representative or class member on any class claim you may have against us." The installment contract stated, "you expressly waive any right you may have to arbitrate a class action." AFS Acceptance LLC was the loan servicer until April 18, 2017, when AFS assigned the installment contract to Westlake Services, LLC. In January 2018, Westlake repossessed the vehicle belonging to Williams due to her failure to make payments on the account. The vehicle was sold for $3,200, and the sale proceeds did not cover the debt. On November 16, 2022, Westlake sued Williams to collect the remaining debt of $10,651.08 and court costs. Williams filed her Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaim -- Class Action on July 7, 2023, which included affirmative defenses. She brought five counterclaims on behalf of herself and a putative class of consumers. Her affirmative defenses and counterclaims alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the Sales Finance Agency Act. Williams alleged that Westlake violated the UCC and other statutes by improperly allocating payments to "pay to pay" fees and failing to send notices of such allocation. Eleven months after the filing of its complaint and about two weeks before the parties were scheduled to appear in court, Westlake filed a motion to dismiss counterclaims in favor of arbitration. On June 7, 2024, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss counterclaims and found that Westlake had waived the right to arbitration by its litigation conduct and Williams was prejudiced. The Appellate court also found the arbitration agreement to be facially valid, the counterclaims were within the scope of the agreement, the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply, the agreement was not unconscionable, the class action waiver was limited to arbitration, and the counterclaims may proceed. On appeal, Westlake contended the circuit court erred in ruling that: (1) Westlake waived the right to arbitrate class action counterclaims because its actions were consistent with the arbitration agreement, Williams suffered no prejudice, and the "no-waiver" language preserved Westlake's right to compel arbitration; and (2) the class waiver provision of the arbitration agreement bars class counterclaims in either arbitration or litigation. The Appellate Court held that submitting a substantive and arbitrable issue to a court is inconsistent with preserving a right to arbitrate." The Court found that if a party files a complaint in court containing arbitrable issues, the party waives its right to arbitrate the issue. The party also waives its right to arbitrate counterclaims that are related to the complaint. The Appellate Court determined that the complaint and counterclaims are connected. Both parties claim violations of the same installment contract, and these claims directly concern facts about whether the consumer made payments, how Westlake allocated those payments, and what was or was not received. The Appellate Court found that Westlake's complaint and the counterclaims involve the same installment contract, facts, and issues; thus, they are related to the collections action. Accordingly, the circuit court properly found that Westlake acted inconsistently with its own arbitration agreement by filing its initial claim in the circuit court. Williams argued that Westlake's 11-month delay in disclosing the arbitration agreement and attempt to compel arbitration resulted in prejudice due to significant litigation costs. She maintained that the arbitration agreement was incorporated into and became part of the installment contract, but Westlake withheld its existence by not including it with either the original or amended complaint. The Court noted that Westlake filed its original complaint on November 16, 2022, and its first amended complaint on June 7, 2023. Westlake then filed the motion to compel arbitration on October 3, 2023, nearly three months after the answer and counterclaims were filed and nearly a year after the original complaint. The Court found that Williams spent time, effort, and expenses, and Westlake caused prejudice to Williams by failing to timely raise the arbitration agreement and file the motion to compel arbitration. Westlake contended that the circuit court should have dismissed the class counterclaims because the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement applies to both litigation and arbitration. Williams argued that the class action waiver is only applicable within the context of arbitration. The Appellate Court held that the waiver was in the arbitration agreement and was not an independent installment contract; thus, the class action waiver is limited to arbitration." The Court found the class action waiver solely applied within the context of arbitration where the terms were "inexorably intertwined" with the arbitration agreement. Attorneys for Appellant: Daniel R. Waltz, of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP, of Chicago, for appellant. Attorneys for Appellee: Daniel A. Edelman, Tara L. Goodwin, and Julie Clark, of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, of Chicago, for appellee. Honorable Alison Conlon, Judge, presiding. A copy of the decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uD9Atp from Pacermoniter.com. EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Cantwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04433 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.hudsongracesf.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now 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, 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 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 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com FOX HARLEM: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- HUMBERTO GARCIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. FOX HARLEM LLC., SERENA HARLEM LLC., SKDL CORP, and SUSANNAH KOTEEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-06709 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff bring claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt front-of-house and back-of-house persons (including servers, bussers, bartenders, food runners, delivery persons, cashiers, porters, cooks, line-cooks, food preparers, hostesses, stock persons, and dishwashers, among others) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and others similarly situated by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. The Defendants operate restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 FUJITEC AMERICA: Eller Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lauren Eller, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUJITEC AMERICA INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV19307 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07456. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following claims: Failure to Furnish Written Commission Statements Per Labor Code Section 2751; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination of Employment in Violation of Labor Code Sections 201 & 203; Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code Section 226.; Failure to Reimburse Work-Related Expenses in Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief compelling Defendants to comply with the Americans with Disability Act, statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and reasonable attorney fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Janine M. Braxton, Esq. Diming Xu, Esq. MARTENSON, HASBROUCK & SIMON LLP 5800 Armada Drive, Suite 101 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 683-8499 Fax: (442) 244-0821 Email: jbraxton@martensonlaw.com dxu@martensonlaw.com GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Krysta Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00975 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The General Automobile Insurance Services Inc. -- https://www.thegeneral.com/ -- is an insurance agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GENERAL MOTORS: Dawidzik Sues Over Unlawful Use of Trackers ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter Dawidzik, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; GENERAL MOTORS HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:25-cv-02069 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") due to the Defendant's installation and activation of Trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order. The Trackers are operated by distinct third parties: Google LLC (Google Ads / DoubleClick / Tag Manager Tracker); Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook Pixel Tracker); Microsoft Corporation (Bing / Microsoft Ads Tracker); LinkedIn Corporation (LinkedIn Tracker); Snap Inc. (Snapchat Tracker); Pinterest, Inc. (Pinterest Tracker); Adobe Inc. (Adobe / Demdex Tracker) (collectively the "Third Parties"). Defendant enables these trackers, which transmit user data to third-party servers to identify users and support advertising, profiling, and data monetization activities. Through the Trackers, the Third Parties collect detailed user information including IP addresses, browser and device type, screen resolution, operating system, pages visited, session duration, scroll depth, mouse movements, click behavior referring URLs, unique identifiers (such as cookies and ad IDs), and geolocation based on IP. This information is used for behavioral profiling, ad targeting, cross-device tracking, and participation in real-time advertising auctions (collectively, "User Information"). The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. By installing and using the Trackers without prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY is a leading global automotive manufacturing company that owns and operates the luxury vehicle division Cadillac through its subsidiary General Motors Holdings LLC. The company maintains Cadillac's dominant online presence in the United States and operates Cadillac's primary consumer platform at www.cadillac.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com GME ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Hughes Suit Over Surveillance Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GME ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,, Case No. 2:25-cv-07620 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2025) is a class suit against the Defendants over alleged surveillance practice in violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff visited www.gamestop.com on Feb. 11, 2025. When Plaintiff did so, their identifying information by way of electronic impulses was sent to LiveRamp. The purpose of this transfer of data from Defendant to the Data Brokers was for de-anonymization, profiling, and targeting. The transfer benefitted both the Defendant and the Data Broker financially. The transfer benefited both the Defendant and the Data Broker financially. The Data Brokers took Plaintiff's information and added it to their profiles of Plaintiff. In turn, the Defendant received other relevant data obtained by the Data Brokers regarding Plaintiff. The Data Brokers could then use data regarding Plaintiff's visit to further profile the Plaintiff, with the objective of monetizing this data by selling or licensing it to other entities, including law enforcement, says the suit. The Defendant has partnered with registered California Data Brokers in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors (the Data Brokers). The Defendant has done this by installing Data Broker Software Development Kits (DBSDKs) on its website. DBSDKs are designed to track and correlate visitors by capturing electronic impulses designed to identify them. As such, the Plaintiff has been injured by the Defendant's surveillance practices. The Plaintiff was never informed of, and therefore could not have consented to, data collection by the Data Brokers for mercantile purposes. The Plaintiff has no way to know the scope of the injury suffered because the Data Brokers operate in secret and without public disclosure of their operations. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situation defined as follows: All persons within California whose identifying information was sent to a Data Broker as a result of visiting the Website within the limitations period. GME is the proprietor of www.gamestop.com, an online video game retailer. [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 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com GRILLBOT LLC: Martinez Sues Over Website Inaccessibility -------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRILLBOT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06447 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to make its website, https://grillbots.com, accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. During Plaintiff's visits to Defendant's website, the last occurring on July 29, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Grillbot from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in New York, NY, Grillbot LLC owns and operates the commercial website which offers automatic grill cleaning robot for sale. [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 GROOMIT FOR PETS: Demland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Groomit For Pets, LLC. The case is styled as Naomi Demland, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Groomit For Pets, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-06602 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is ststaed as Consumer Credit for Unsolicited Telephone Sales. Groomit -- https://www.groomit.me/ -- offers in-home & mobile pet grooming in multiple locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com H.M. NABAVIAN: Cole Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. H.M. Nabavian & Sons, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09636 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Hmnabavian.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 (ADA). According to the complaint, Hmnabavian.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Hmnabavian.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by H.M. Nabavian & Sons.[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 HAYLOFT PROPERTY: Carver Suit Removed to D. South Dakota -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tyler Carver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAYLOFT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 41CIV25-001078 was removed from the Second Judicial Court for the State of South Dakota, Lincoln County, to the United States District Court for District of South Dakota on Aug. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04151-CCT. In the First Count, Plaintiff asserts a claim of negligence and seeks compensatory and consequential damages and injunctive relief. In the Second Count, Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of implied contract and seeks compensatory and consequential damages and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey O'Brien, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2208 Phone: 612.852.2700 Fax: 612.852.2701 Email: jeffrey.obrien@huschblackwell.com - and - Jason R. Fathallah, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 511 North Broadway, Suite 1100 Milwaukee, WI 53202-5502 Phone: 414.273.2100 Fax: 414.223.5000 Email: Jason.fathallah@huschblackwell.com - and - Melissa Z. Baris, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 St. Louis, Missouri 63105-1706 Phone: 314.480.1500 Fax: 314.480.1505 Email: melissa.baris@huschblackwell.com HIGH POINT: Faces Sameiro Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE SAMEIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC, AND SEMCOA, INC., D/B/A SOUTHEAST MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL ON ADVOCACY, Defendants, Case No. 2573CV00609A (Mass. Super., Bristol Cty., August 6, 2025), arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach on June 27, 2025 that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of its current and former employees and prospective employees. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed 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 specific type of information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. High Point Treatment Center Inc. operates as a substance abuse and mental health services provider in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 53 State Street. Ste. 500 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 913-0363 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomer, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com HIMS & HERS: Faces Sookdeo Securities Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Hims & Hers Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company faces the Sookdeo securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 25, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives, captioned Sookdeo v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-05315. The Securities Action alleges violations of securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, and in particular, with respect to the business relationship between the Company and Novo Nordisk. It seeks an unspecified amount of damages as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company does not currently consider a loss on this lawsuit to be probable. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a company that operates a telehealth platform, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] HIMS & HERS: Faces Yaghsizian Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------ Hims & Hers Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company faces the Yaghsizian securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 25, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives, captioned Yaghsizian v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-05321. The Securities Action alleges violations of securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, and in particular, with respect to the business relationship between the Company and Novo Nordisk. It seeks an unspecified amount of damages as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company does not currently consider a loss on this lawsuit to be probable. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a company that operates a telehealth platform, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] HNI CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lucien Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- CESAR LUCIEN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. HNI CORPORATION; HON COMPANY; DESIGN PUBLIC GROUP & ALLSTEEL INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06744 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Mr. Lucien uses screen reader technology and keyboard navigation. On each website, he encountered distinct, particularized barriers that prevented him from completing his purchases. Mr. Lucien made multiple attempts to access these websites, including returning to HON's site on July 18, 2025, after receiving a recommendation from his rehabilitation counselor. Each time, he was unable to complete his intended purchases due to the described barriers. These obstacles are not incidental -- they reflect a systemic failure across HNI's digital portfolio. The shared design frameworks, audit obstructions, and absence of accessibility infrastructure demonstrate centralized control and deliberate noncompliance, asserts the suit. HON Company maintains and operates the commercial website www.hon.com through which it markets and sells office furniture nationwide, including to consumers within this District. HON Company is responsible for the design, maintenance, and accessibility of its website, which serves as a primary channel for product information, customer engagement, and commercial transactions. Allsteel Inc. maintains and operates the commercial website www.allsteeloffice.com which offers architectural products and workplace furnishings to consumers and businesses nationwide. Design Public Group maintains and operates the commercial website www.designpublicgroup.com which offers residential and commercial furniture and accessories through a national e-commerce platform. [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 ICON TRADE: Cole Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Icon Trade Services, LLC d/b/a Thomas Pink, Case No. 1:25-cv-09655 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Thomaspink.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Thomaspink.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Thomaspink.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Icon Trade Services.[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 INA LABS: Hampton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Ina Labs LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09321 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 2025), arises from 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. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the company as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through its website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Huntington Beach, CA, Ina Labs LLC owns and operates the website, Inalabs.com, which offers skincare products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law INTEL CORP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over False Ads, Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Simons of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on Friday, August 15, dismissed multiple false advertising and fraud claims against Intel Corporation from a group of consumers who say the company knowingly sold them CPUs with security vulnerabilities that could only be fixed by making the hardware up to 50% slower. In his 16-page order, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. tossed the plaintiffs' claims under the California False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, ruling they couldn't prove that they relied on a fraudulent misrepresentation or omission by Intel when they decided to buy the products. The judge ultimately said that the consumers failed to claim anything more than a "tenuous, speculative connection" between their purchases and the sources and marketing materials they reviewed beforehand. "Since plaintiffs have not pled actual reliance on any misrepresentation, the court dismisses plaintiffs' UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims brought under a fraudulent misrepresentation theory," Gilliam wrote. The Barack Obama appointee also ruled that the consumers didn't adequately plead any defects the CPUs had were "central" to their function, which is a requirement for a fraudulent omission claim. Because the defect didn't render the hardware "incapable of use," he found the consumers fell short on their claims. "This distinction, while subtle, is fatal to plaintiffs' claims," Gilliam said. The decision was a significant blow to the consumers' lawsuit, since the nationwide classes' claims, which were based on California law, were all dismissed in their entirety without leave to amend. However, the judge left multiple claims alive in the lawsuit under Oregon, Kansas, Illinois and Minnesota law, calling Intel's efforts to get rid of them "insufficient." "The court denies Intel's motion to dismiss these claims on the ground that it did not adequately present its dismissal arguments," the judge said. Gilliam directed the plaintiffs to file a joint case management statement by September, where they will decide if they want to continue fighting the multiple state-level claims in the case or if they would like to proceed directly to judgment so they can pursue an appeal. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The group of consumers first filed their class action against Intel in late 2023 for product liability and unfair business practices. According to the plaintiffs, Intel knowingly sold a series of CPUs that have a serious security vulnerability known as "Downfall" that leaves the systems vulnerable to attacks. They further claim that this vulnerability, which Intel discovered in 2018, inhibited the CPUs' "memory protections and memory access mechanisms," which make up the "bedrock" of modern, multi-tasking CPUs. Although Intel eventually remedied the problem, the consumers claim the defect can only be fixed through a patch that slows CPU performance by up to 50% during everyday computing tasks. This solution, they claim, is "on par with the disease" when it comes to addressing the problem. Intel later moved to dismiss the class action, which the judge granted in August 2024, although he granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. The group of consumers filed their now-repaired class action the following month. As part of their new complaint, the plaintiffs also brought several claims under Oregon, Kansas, Illinois and Minnesota law that largely resembled the violations claimed on behalf of the nationwide classes under California law. Intel moved to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2024. This case was filed in the Northern District of California. [GN] INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Scholz Sue After Grievance Process Fails ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN R. SCHOLZ, III, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, a labor org.; TEAMSTERS LOCAL 986, a labor organization; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06543 (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for damages and equitable relief under the Railway Labor Act. The Plaintiff and Defendant United have been parties to a written collective bargaining agreement, establishing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of United's Technician and Other Related Employees represented by the Defendant Unions, a craft or class that includes Plaintiff and the Proposed Class. Letter of Agreement #29, incorporated into and part of the CBA, provides for objective, systematic wage increases for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class through an expressly stated formula to be implemented and reported, as is relevant here, on an annual basis. The Plaintiff, and members of the Proposed Class, requested the LOA #29 result from United on multiple occasions, including after December 5, 2024, the date specified in LOA #29 by which the Industry Reset must be conducted and reported; however, United never provided the result and refused to provide the result. The Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendant United never conducted the LOA #29 Industry Reset which is why United refused to report it. United had also refused to provide requested, relevant information related to the grievances in violation of the RLA, Article 19.E.3 of the CBA, misrepresented facts, refused to accept evidence and witnesses to support Plaintiffs' grievances, and refused to complete the grievance process with Plaintiffs, says the suit. To date, no Defendant has moved Plaintiff's grievance to the next steps in the grievance process nor reported, and thereafter applied, the LOA #29 Industry Reset wage raise as required by the CBA. Accordingly, because efforts to resolve this matter through the grievance process have failed, the Plaintiff seeks a judicial forum to remedy these injuries. International Brotherhood of Teamsters is an unincorporated labor organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane C. Mariani, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JANE C. MARIANI 584 Castro Street, #687 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 203-2453 E-mail: jcm@marianiadvocacy.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Noohi ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Narguess Noohi, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 23-55190 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order granting class certification. However, the Court noted that the Defendant must be given the opportunity to test the admissibility and reliability of econometrics expert Dr. Wade Roberts' model once it has been fully executed. The lawsuit is a consumer class action alleging violations of California deceptive marketing and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiff purchased Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer for Sensitive Skin because she wanted an oil-free moisturizer for her skin. The Plaintiff alleged that, despite the title "oil-free", the Product contains two ingredients -- ethylhexyl palmitate and soybean sterols -- that are oils or oil-based compounds. The plaintiff further alleged that she would not have purchased the Product had she known it contained oils. In her operative complaint, the Plaintiff asserted four claims against the Defendant: (1) violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, id. Section 17200 et seq.; (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.; and (4) common law fraud. In support of her motion for class certification, the Plaintiff submitted declarations and reports from two experts - Dr. Michael Hickner, a professor of materials science and engineering, and Dr. Wade Roberts, an econometrics expert. Dr. Hickner opined that, based on their chemical structures and physical properties, ethylhexyl palmitate and soybean sterols are oils with oil-like physical properties as the term "Oil" generally refers to a "naturally-derived, chemically synthesized, or petrochemically-refined slippery . . . substance" that is hydrophobic—meaning that it does not mix with water--and more viscous than water, but less dense. Dr. Roberts described his proposed process for measuring class members' damages by calculating the economic value to consumers of the "oil-free" statement through a two-step process involving qualitative market research and quantitative surveying and market analysis. The Defendant challenged the district court's class certification on two grounds. First, the Defendant challenged the district court's reliance on the proposed damages model of the Plaintiff's economic expert, maintaining that the district court held the Plaintiff to only a "prima facie" standard with regard to the damages model and unduly rejected its evidentiary challenges to the expert's testimony. Second, the Defendant argued that the district court incorrectly determined that the elements of materiality and reliance were susceptible to common proof. The Court rejected the Defendant's challenges to the damages model, relying on the recent holding in Lytle v. Nutramax Lab'ys, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2024) that class action plaintiffs may rely on a reliable though not-yet-executed damages model to demonstrate that damages are susceptible to common proof so long as the district court finds that the model is reliable and, if applied to the proposed class, will be able to calculate damages in a manner common to the class at trial. The Court found that Dr. Roberts' model was designed to measure a price premium associated with the misleading label at the heart of the Plaintiff's claims. Dr. Roberts proposed to measure that overpayment through a "Van Westendorp price elasticity test" where survey participants would be shown the Product and asked pricing questions before and after being informed that some ingredients contained extracts of soybean and palm oil. The Court of Appeals held that materiality, and therefore an inference of reliance, can be established by reference to an objective, reasonable consumer standard, and so in this case may be proven in a way common to the class. The Court stated that it is hard to imagine that consumers would purchase a product labeled 'Oil-Free Moisture' without regard to whether the product was free from oil. The Court of Appeals rejected the Defendant's argument that materiality is not subject to common proof because the understanding of the phrase "oil-free" may differ across the class. The Court found that the Defendant did not offer persuasive evidence that the meaning of "oil-free" actually varies across the class and that even if it did, this would not undermine the commonality of materiality based on a reasonable consumer standard or rebut the inference of reliance. The district court found both Dr. Hickner and Dr. Roberts qualified and their opinions sufficiently reliable to be considered for class certification purposes. The district court rejected the Defendant's evidentiary objections to the Plaintiff's experts' qualifications and their opinions. The district court further found that the Plaintiff satisfied the threshold class certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the specific requirements of both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The Court of Appeal concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the proposed damages model fit the Plaintiff's theory of harm and was sufficient for purposes of class certification. Although the inference of reliance is rebuttable, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Defendant failed to rebut that inference. Before: Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Susan R. Bolton,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Berzon. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. A copy of the Court of Appeal's Opinion is https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rxx8K7 JP MORGAN: Kempner Sues Over Certificates of Deposit Renewals ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN G. KEMPNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-06729 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated persons due to the Defendant's alleged dishonest, unfair, and fraudulent conduct regarding Certificates of Deposit (CDs) renewals. In accordance with the Defendant's representations and accepted commercial practice, the Plaintiff expected that, upon maturity, CDs were to be "rolled over" into CDs of the same term and at a then-prevailing competitive interest rate. However, upon maturity, the Plaintiff's Relationship Rate CDs were "rolled over" into "Standard Rate" CDs, some 400 times lower. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, prior to the "roll over", Defendant, without legal basis or warning, closed his checking account for inactivity, thus making him ineligible for Relationship Rates. The Plaintiff was not informed by Defendant of the checking account closure, his purported ineligibility for Relationship Rates, and of the fact that his Relationship Rate CDs would roll over into Standard Rate CDs bearing virtually no interest. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy the financial losses on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose CDs were sold by Defendant at Relationship Rates, but then "rolled over" at the Standard Rates. The Plaintiff further seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, nominal damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief. Chase is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., which is a leading financial institution. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Podolny, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com JYanchunis@forthepeople.com JUPITER LEGEND: Guo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Hui Guo, Yuting Liang, and Ruonan Zhang, v. Rich Geng Sun a/k/a Rich Sun, Dongjie Guo, Jupiter Legend Corporation, Venus Legend Corporation, Mercury Legend Corporation, Universal Vision Holdings Corporation, Trip.com Group Ltd., and John and Jane Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04391 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to provide them with weekly records of their regular and overtime compensation and hours worked, in violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act. In addition, the Plaintiffs assert that they have been subjected to Defendants' actions that constitute retaliation and discrimination, causing them emotional distress, professional harm, and financial damages. Based in Flushing, NY, Jupiter Legend Corporation operates as a tour operator and wholesale travel agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin S. Wang, Esq. WOOD WANG & ASSOCIATES 3370 Prince St, Ste 703 Flushing, NY, 11354 Telephone: (347) 851-7989 E-mail: kwang@operr.com JZ STEAKHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Campbell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREE CAMPBELL v. JZ Steakhouse LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61645 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2025) is a class action alleging the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, jzsteakhouse.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, beginning in June 2025, the Plaintiff attempted on several occasions to use the Website to browse information about the restaurant's physical location and available online services. She sought to familiarize herself with the restaurant's menu, the services offered, the ingredients of menu items, their pricing, and other relevant details, with the intention of making an online order through the Website. Therefore, she conducted a Google search for a local reputable steakhouse known for expertly prepared steaks along with other traditional dishes. As a result, she discovered the Defendant's website, which caught her attention by describing itself as a premier steakhouse offering the highest-quality kosher ingredients. She was interested in exploring the website because she had never tried kosher steaks and considered it to be a suitable occasion to serve something special. Upon visiting the website on or about June 19, 2025, using the JAWS screen reader, she encountered multiple accessibility issues that made navigation inefficient, says the suit. When she attempted to place an online order, the ordering platform opened in a new browser tab without any prior announcement, which caused confusion. While trying to proceed with the order, she discovered that she was unable to locate the cart button, as it only received focus after all menu items and other interactive elements on the ordering page. As a result, Plaintiff could not access the cart and was therefore unable to complete the order on the website, asserts the suit. The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://jzsteakhouse.com/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Telephone: (347) 268-9533 E-mail: ak@akesqpa.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Click Tampons Contain Lead, Foster Says ------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-09736 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2025) alleges that the Defendant markets and labels its U by KOTEX Click (TM) tampons to maximize brand sales which label Representations are likely to lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are free from potentially harmful elements and ingredients. According to the complaint, the label Representations are misleading based on the lead contained in the Products, which is not disclosed anywhere on the labels. On the Product labels, the Defendant prominently states that the Products are/contain: (i) "no harsh ingredients"; (ii) "elemental chlorine-free rayon"; (iii) "pesticide free"; (iv) "made without fragrance"; (v) "gynecologist tested"; and (vi) "BPA free." According to independent scientific testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel, every size and configuration of the Defendant's Products contains a substantial amount of lead. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, do not want to purchase tampons containing lead. Consumers have no reason to know that the Products contain lead. There are other menstrual options available to consumers, including organic tampons, that do not contain lead. In order to drive its own profits, however, the Defendant misleads consumers about the nature of the Products and deprives consumers of the opportunity to make an informed choice between its Products, which contain lead, and other available menstrual products, which do not, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered economic injury based on their purchase of the Products, which they would not have bought had they known the truth. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated and seeks to represent an Illinois Subclass, a Multi-State Consumer Protection Class, and a Nationwide Class (excluding California). The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest thereon, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from its unlawful, misleading and deceptive conduct. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendant's unlawful practices in the manufacture and/or labeling of the Products. The Plaintiff purchased the Products multiple times from stores located in Chicago, Illinois during the Class Period. The Defendant manufactures tampons in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Aschenbrener, Esq. Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 448 N. LaSalle Drive Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212(202-6364 E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com nspector@kamberlaw.com KOMUELLO USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JEANNIE N MINI, LLC d/b/a Komuello USA, Case No. 0:25-cv-03165 (D. Minn., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.komuellousa.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers baby footwear for sale, including but not limited to, infant flats, infant booties and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LA PLATA COUNTY, CO: Faces Suit Over Female Inmates' Strip Videos ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Durango Herald reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against a former La Plata County Jail commander who is accused of secretly viewing thousands of strip search videos of 117 female inmates over the course of nearly five years. The lawsuit also names the La Plata County Sheriff's Office and several employees, including Sheriff Sean Smith. Smith and the Sheriff's Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday, August 15. The lawsuit was filed by Kevin Mehr and Tyler Jolly of Mehr Jolly, PLLC, and Jason Kosloski of Kosloski Law, PLLC, civil rights attorneys from the Front Range. "When you're in jail, you have very little power over your own autonomy and body," Kosloski told The Durango Herald in July. "The jail staff who are in charge of you are entrusted with a massive amount of power -- and it sounds like (Aber) took absolute advantage of this." Former Cmdr. Ed Aber is charged with of 117 counts of invasion of privacy and one count of official misconduct -- all misdemeanors. The lawsuit, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Wednesday, August 13, relates to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act, also called the Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. The act allows individuals to pursue lawsuits against state and local officials who have violated individuals' constitutional rights or federal statutory rights while operating under color of state law. "It shocks the conscience," said Mehr in a combined news release by all three attorneys Thursday, August 14. "Imagine the most intimate, private and vulnerable moment you can," Jolly said in the release. "Now imagine (Ed Aber) is there in your bedroom, bathroom or doctor's office taking pictures and video to watch it later for his own 'entertainment.' That's what happened here and the people in charge let it happen." Kosloski called the allegations against Aber "as shocking as they are heartbreaking" in a July 30 news release. "When the person entrusted with security becomes the perpetrator of abuse, the legal system must respond decisively," Kosloski said in the release. "Victims of abuse at the hands of someone sworn to protect deserve a voice -- and a path to justice." He said monetary compensation is only one aspect of the reparation victims are seeking through the lawsuit. "I think the biggest thing that all the women that we've talked to, and are representing, want, is for there to be real change, so that this can't happen again," Kosloski said. "We are pursuing monetary compensation, but I think it's important for us to say that for these women, it's not about the money. There's really not an amount of money that can make them whole. The pain, the things they have gone through, and the things that they've expressed ... There's not a dollar value that can be put on that experience." Though only three victims are publicly listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a wealth of victims have reached out to share their experiences with the firm and seek reparation, Kosloski said. "We can't comment on other people that we may represent (going forward), other than the three that we've publicly named in the lawsuit, but there's been an outpouring of women coming forward about this, and we hope that more women continue to come forward," he said. "This is not just three women: This is a community." Kosloski encourages anyone who thinks they may be a victim in this case to reach out to the firm at (720) 605-6487. Protection, no contact and non-harassment orders were ordered last week for all 117 victims. La Plata County Judge Richard Schmittel cited Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18-1-1001 during the Aug. 7 hearing, which prohibits Aber from harassing, intimidating or retaliating against any victim or witness in the case. Aber's attorney, Barrie Newberger King, could not be reached for comment. A voicemail and email notification from Newberger King's office said Newberger King would be out of the country until Aug. 18, and that communication until then would be "sporadic." Aber is scheduled for a pretrial hearing 9 a.m. Oct. 13 at the La Plata County Courthouse. [GN] LATTER & BLUM: Peiffer Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Peiffer class suit filed against the Co.'s subsidiary, Latter & Blum Holding LLC, is stayed pending final settlement approval. A putative class action lawsuit, Peiffer v. Latter & Blum Holding, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00557 (E.D. La.) ("Peiffer"), filed on March 5, 2024, names Latter & Blum, a subsidiary of the Company, as a defendant and alleges, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. On April 3, 2024, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement to acquire Latter & Blum. The Peiffer matter is stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the settlement agreement. Latter & Blum Holding, LLC is a licensed real estate service provider in Texas.[BN] Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. LAVAZZA NORTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lavazza North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09323 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Lavazzausa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Moreover, 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 ADA. Lavazza North America, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, which offers Italian coffee products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LAW SCHOOL: Risner Balks at Application Platforms' Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Linvel James Risner, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04461 (E.D. Pa., August 4, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the complaint, the Member Law Schools that use LSAC's Law School Application Platform -- which are the vast majority of law schools in the J.D. Education Market -- have used LSAC as a cover to fix the price of two parts of the fee to apply to law school -- a $215 fee for the Credential Assembly Services subscription and a $45 fee per Credential Assembly Services report -- in violation of the law. These Member Law Schools control LSAC, and through that control they have been able to fix the price of these fees to be the same regardless of school. LSAC has conspired along with the Member Law Schools to fix the price of these fees for its Law School Application Platform. LSAC benefits from the supracompetitive profits it earns from the price-fixed fees, using that to build up more than $250 million in net assets, pay its executives lavishly for a nonprofit, and kickback money to the Member Law Schools, says the suit. The Plaintiff is suing, on behalf of Class Members, to recover for injuries that he and the Class Members personally suffered, most notably the supracompetitive Law School Application Platform fees that he and Class Members paid to LSAC, which would have been lower or nonexistent absent the Member Law Schools' unlawful conduct through LSAC. Law School Admission Council, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Newtown, Pennsylvania. It is a nonprofit organization whose members include more than 200 law schools throughout the United States, Canada and Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter McCall, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 301 Grant Street, Suite 270 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (314) 464-9964 E-mail: pmccall@hilgersgraben.com - and - William Burgess, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 1230 Peachtree Street N.E., 19th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 595-7747 E-mail: wburgess@hilgersgraben.com - and - Bennett Rawicki, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 7859 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 335 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (469) 640-6842 E-mail: brawicki@hilgersgraben.com LAY & AU: Echols Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Lay & Au, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09667 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, simpleanddainty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Simpleanddainty.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Simpleanddainty.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Lay & Au.[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 LCT ENERGY: Underpays Roof Bolter Operators, Speigle Says --------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY SPEIGLE, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LCT ENERGY LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01185 (W.D. Pa., August 4, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, LCT Energy's off the clock policy, rounding policy, and bonus pay scheme violate the state and federal laws by failing to compensate Plaintiff Speigle and the other Hourly Employees at rates of at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Additionally, its off the clock policy, rounding policy, and bonus pay scheme violate the state law by depriving Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages, including overtime wages, on their regular paydays and/or following the termination of their employment, says the suit. Plaintiff Speigle was employed by the Defendant in its Maple Springs Mine as a roof bolter operator from approximately July 2021 until May 2023 and in its Rustic Ridge #1 Mine, from approximately June 2023 until April 2025. LCT Energy operates two PA underground coal mines, Rustic Ridge in Donegal and Maple Springs in Jerome.[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 - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com LEXIS NEXIS RISK: Welch Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexis Nexis Risk Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Lauren Welch, for herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Lexis Nexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09508 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. LexisNexis Risk Solutions -- https://risk.lexisnexis.com/global/en -- is a global data and analytics company that provides data and technology services, analytics, predictive insights, and fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5999 Email: emdrake@bergermontague.com LOEWS HOTEL: Continues to Defend Portillo Class Suit in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------ Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Portillo class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On February 20, 2024, Jeanette Portillo filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit asserts antitrust claims against defendants under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Defendants jointly filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Portillo on May 17, 2024. The court has not issued a decision on the motion to dismiss in Portillo. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides space for meetings, weddings, events, and occasions, as well as fitness room, spa, dining, and gateway services.[BN] LOEWS HOTELS: Continues to Defend Segal Class Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Segal class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On March 1, 2024, Ryan Segal filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It asserts antitrust claims against defendants under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Defendants jointly filed motions to dismiss the complaint on June 24, 2024. On March 31, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in Segal, and granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint by no later than April 28, 2025. On April 28, 2025, Segal filed a third amended complaint alleging that Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants violated the Sherman Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in Segal on June 12, 2025. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides space for meetings, weddings, events, and occasions, as well as fitness room, spa, dining, and gateway services.[BN] LOTUS FOODS: Cole Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lotus Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09693 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Lotusfoods.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Lotusfoods.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Lotusfoods.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view organic rice products, 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 LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Programs Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LPL Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the cash sweep programs class suit. In July 2024, putative class action lawsuits were filed against LPL Financial in federal district court alleging certain violations of law in connection with its cash sweep programs. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuits. LPL Financial Holdings, Inc. offers technology, brokerage, and investment advisory services through business relationships with all types of financial advisors. The Company, through proprietary technology, custody, and clearing platforms, offers access to financial products and services that enable them to provide financial advice and brokerage services to retail investors. [BN] MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Moab's Bid to Lift Discovery Stay Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Moab Partners, L.P., Lead Plaintiff, City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3608 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Lead Plaintiff's motion for a partial lift of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's automatic discovery stay. The lawsuit is a securities class action that involves allegations that Defendants misstated or made half-truthful statements regarding the effect that a regulation limiting the use of No. 6 fuel oil would have on Defendants' business, which involved storing No. 6 fuel oil. The case has a complex procedural history with multiple appeals to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and even reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., 601 U.S. 257 (2024). On November 7, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its most recent mandate in this case. Subsequently, on November 19, 2024, the Plaintiff moved for a partial lift of the PLSRA's automatic discovery stay. On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, confirming the class action status of this litigation. The court examined the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act provision stating that all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party. The automatic stay applies to non-parties and includes preservation subpoenas. Judge Broderick explained that particularized means the request is directed at specific persons and identifies specific types of evidence that fall within its scope, while undue prejudice means improper or unfair treatment amounting to something less than irreparable harm. The Plaintiff submitted proposed requests for production to three categories: "(1) Defendants, (2) Defendants' related entities, and (3) certain third parties." The proposed discovery request to Defendants sought documents related to eight specific categories including No. 6 fuel oil, IMO 2020 or any other regulation that related to commodities stored by IMTT, and compliance of Macquarie's public SEC filings. (4) "the certifications in Macquarie's publicly-filed financial statements"; (5) "any due diligence . . . regarding [a November 2016] Offering"; (6) "the Epic Acquisition"; (7) Defendants' communications with financial analysts regarding these subject matters or any other subject matter at issue in the complaint; and (8) Defendant Hooke's resignation as CEO of Macquarie. The court finds that these requests are sufficiently particularized because "they each direct a particular party to produce discrete categories of documents as relevant to Plaintiff's various claims." Judge Broderick rejected Defendants' assertion that Plaintiff seeks "an open-ended, boundless universe of discovery," explaining that "Plaintiff's identification of specific topics relevant to its claims bounds the galaxy of documents from which a responding party may draw." Regarding undue prejudice, the court found that Plaintiff's argument lacks merit, because delay from the operation of the automatic-stay provision is not itself undue prejudice that warrants lifting the stay." The court explained that undue prejudice does not arise from a delay in the gathering of evidence or the development of settlement or litigation postures because this delay is an inherent part of every stay of discovery required by the PSLRA. On the necessity to preserve evidence, the court noted that "Defendants affirm that, consistent with the obligation on any defendant in federal court, MIC has preserved all potentially relevant documents in its and IMTT's possession." The court found that Plaintiff's speculation about inadequate preservation efforts constituted an "unsubstantiated averment" that "does not justify lifting the stay." However, regarding third parties, the court recognized that the third parties from whom Plaintiff seeks discovery are not under an obligation to preserve relevant documents." Judge Broderick noted that an entity's status as a non-party significantly increases the risk that evidence may be lost absent an express preservation notice. The court find that, with respect to non-parties Alembic Global Advisors LLC; Blue Water Energy LLP; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; KPMG LLP; Oppenheimer & Co.; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.; Wells Fargo Securities, LLC; and White Deer Energy, Plaintiff has identified a need to preserve evidence." Therefore, the court granted Plaintiff's alternative request to issue document preservation subpoenas to these parties. The Court orders as follows. The Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's request to lift the discovery stay to serve requests for production is denied. Plaintiff's request to partially lift the discovery stay to serve document preservation subpoenas on third-parties Alembic Global Advisors LLC; Blue Water Energy LLP; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; KPMG LLP; Oppenheimer & Co.; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.; Wells Fargo Securities, LLC; and White Deer Energy is granted. The court's opinion and order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GtWEEF from Pacermonitor.com MASS. ELECTRIC: Cortes Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Craig Cortes, an individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. MASS. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTON CO., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C25-01867 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06714-KAW. The Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth the following claims for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198; meal period liability under Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a); rest-break liability under Labor Code Section 226.7; violation of Labor Code Sections 226(a) and 1174; and Violation of Labor Code Sections 201 and 203.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison Scott, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.337.6550 Facsimile: 213.337.0651 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com - and - Kathy Huynh, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.768.0650 Facsimile: 510.768.0651 Email: Kathy.Huynh@huschblackwell.com MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Chapman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McGee Air Services, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Chapman, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McGee Air Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV23613 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." McGee Air Services Inc. -- https://www.mcgeeairservices.com/ -- is an airline service provider created to deliver exceptional service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180 El Segundo, CA 90245-2656 Phone: 424-292-2350 Fax: 424-292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com MERCURY FINANCIAL: Settlement in Bailey Suit Has Prelim. Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Angelita Bailey, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercury Financial, LLC, Defendant, Case No. DKC 23-0827 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants the joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement. The court found that the terms of the proposed agreement were fair, reasonable, and adequate and granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement between the Representative Plaintiff and Mercury Financial, LLC. The Parties had filed their joint motion for preliminary approval on June 25, 2025, but the court initially deferred approval pending amendment of the proposed notices, which required minor additions and corrections before the motion could be granted. On July 21, 2025, the Parties submitted revised notices consistent with the court's instructions. The court certified the following settlement class: All Maryland residents with credit card accounts for credit cards issued by First Bank & Trust, Brookings SD and serviced by Mercury on or after August 2018, and the borrower made one or more payments on the loan. The class excludes all employees or representatives of Mercury, and all Court personnel. The court found that the Rule 23 Class meets the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The approximate number of Class Members ranges from 57,000 to 60,000 making joinder impracticable. The central legal issue involves whether Mercury's alleged actions in making consumer loans to Class members of less than $25,000, when the borrowers were residents of Maryland, constitutes a violation of the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Commercial Law Section 12-314 because Mercury did not have a license under the MCLL. The Parties amended the notices to include several key provisions. The notices now instruct Class Members not to contact the court and provide a deadline for Class Members to opt out or exclude themselves from settlement. The postcard notice and email notice were amended to reflect the estimated range of recovery for each Member. The long-form notice was also amended to provide missing questions and reflect the estimated range of recovery. The court appointed Angelita Bailey to serve as the representative of the class. Richard S. Gordan and Benjamin H. Carney of the law firm Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd., were appointed to serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Strategic Claims Services of Media, Pennsylvania was appointed to serve as Settlement Administrator. The court ordered that a Final Fairness Hearing addressing final approval of the Settlement Agreement shall be held on November 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse, Maryland. At least 14 days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel must file papers supporting final approval of the settlement agreement, final certification of the Rule 23 Class, attorneys' fees and expenses, and the incentive fee requested on behalf of the Named Plaintiff. The court ordered that all proceedings in this action are hereby stayed pending the Final Fairness Hearing and directed the Parties to follow the agreed upon protocols strictly. The Settlement Administrator and Parties were ordered to carry out the Notice plan described in the Agreement. A copy of the Court's judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CaSo9k MONOLITHIC POWER: Continues to Defend Waterford Twp. Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Monolithic Power Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from Waterford Twp. Class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On February 4, 2025, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of our executives. The lawsuit is captioned Waterford Twp. Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-220 (W.D. Wash.) (the "Securities Action") and alleges that it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or omissions relating to its business, including with respect to our business relationship with Nvidia. The Company believes the lawsuit is meritless and intends to defend against it vigorously. Based in San Jose, Calif., Monolithic Power Systems Inc. designs, develops, and markets proprietary, advanced analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for large and high growth markets. MORGAN STANLEY: Interim Class Counsel Appointed in Sherlip Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Estate of Bernard J. Sherlip, the Barrett Living Trust, and Safron Capital Corp., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Defendants, Caase No. 24-CV-4571 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Sherlip-Barrett Group's motion for appointment as interim class counsel and denies Robbins Geller's competing motion. The Sherlip-Barrett Group consists of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Berger Montague PC, and Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, and represents Plaintiffs Estate of Bernard J. Sherlip and the Barrett Living Trust. This putative class action challenges Defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC's cash sweep program practices. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, allege that Defendants paid unreasonably low rates of interest on clients' so-called cash sweep accounts. The case involves the Bank Deposit Program, a cash sweep program pursuant to which clients' uninvested cash balances are automatically transferred into interest-bearing accounts at banks that are affiliated with Morgan Stanley. The action was originally filed by the Estate of Bernard J. Sherlip on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Several months later, an Amended Complaint was filed, which named both the Estate and a new party, the Barrett Living Trust, as Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that Morgan Stanley has breached its contracts, fiduciary duties, and implied covenants with clients by paying unreasonably low interest rates on funds held in bank cash sweep accounts. Two law firm groups sought appointment as interim class counsel. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP represented Plaintiff Safron Capital Corp. and moved for appointment as interim class counsel. The Sherlip-Barrett Group, consisting of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Berger Montague PC, and Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, represented Plaintiffs Estate of Bernard J. Sherlip and the Barrett Living Trust, and cross-moved for the same appointment. The Court noted that attorneys from the Sherlip-Barrett Group have been appointed interim class counsel in five other putative class actions challenging other brokerages' cash sweep practices: Mehlman v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc.; Goldsmith v. UBS Financial Services, Inc.; In re LPL Financial Cash Sweep Litig.; In re Charles Schwab Corp. Cash Sweep Litig.; and Schmidlin v. Raymond James Financial, Inc. Similarly, Robbins Geller has initiated several other actions challenging different financial institutions' cash sweep programs. The competing applications arose after consolidation of related cases. The day after Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint in this action, Safron Capital Corp. filed a separate action, which named the same Defendants and made substantially similar allegations. After Safron was filed, Morgan Stanley, the Sherlip plaintiff and the Safron plaintiff moved jointly to consolidate the two cases. The Court granted the motion to consolidate Sherlip and Safron but declined to consolidate a third related action, McKinney v. Morgan Stanley et al. The Court evaluated the competing applications under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), which requires consideration of: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. The Court found that the Sherlip-Barrett Group performed superior work in identifying and investigating potential claims. The Court noted: Both movants report that they have done substantial work in connection with the claims in this case, but the Sherlip-Barrett Group's efforts have been more comprehensive. Specifically, the Sherlip-Barrett Group's attorneys interviewed nine former employees of Morgan Stanley about its cash sweep program and consulted with former SEC officials about the relevant issues in this action. The Court contrasted this with Robbins Geller's more general representations that it examined the structure and characteristics of Morgan Stanley's sweep program and researched the industry practices, relationships, and agreements at issue. The Court observed that the materials the two groups filed in this litigation suggested that the Sherlip-Barrett Group's work was more rigorous. For example, the Safron complaint filed by Robbins Geller supported the claim that Morgan Stanley's interest rates are uncommonly low by citing the higher interest rates of three of its competitors. By contrast, the Amended Complaint filed by the Sherlip-Barrett Group references an index of 300 competitors' interest rates and analyzes specific data to underscore its argument that Morgan Stanley's rates are unreasonably low. The Court criticized Robbins Geller's central piece of evidence showing diligence. Robbins Geller cited that it invested considerable time and resources into centralizing this action and other related cash sweep cases pending across the country into one forum under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. However, since Robbins Geller moved for appointment as interim class counsel, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Robbins Geller's motion to transfer the various cash sweep actions filed across the country into an MDL. The Court noted that the JPML found the different actions that Robbins Geller sought to centralize shared only a superficial commonality, as they involved different cash sweep programs, subject to different contractual terms, different interest rates and fees, different types of financial instruments, different types of customers, and different disclosures to those customers. The JPML's decision was unsurprising, given that every defendant and plaintiffs in 21 of the 27 purportedly related actions opposed the motion to centralize. The Court concluded: "Far from maximizing efficiency, Robbins Geller's efforts before the JPML led only to further delay." Regarding the remaining Rule 23(g) factors concerning counsel's readiness to litigate, the Court found no meaningful difference between the competing groups. The Court stated: "On these factors, the Court is not persuaded that Robbins Geller and the Sherlip-Barrett Group are meaningfully different." Both Robbins Geller and the Sherlip-Barrett Group are well-funded, have over 200 attorneys on staff, and have committed to devoting significant resources toward this action. The Court rejected arguments by both sides attempting to distinguish themselves. The Sherlip-Barrett Group emphasized that it had been appointed interim class counsel in five cash sweep cases, but the Court noted that four of those motions for appointment were unopposed, and one was opposed solely on the ground that the Group consists of multiple law firms instead of just one. Therefore, According to the Court, those decisions provided little insight into how the Sherlip-Barrett Group's qualifications compare to those of other major plaintiff-side litigators. Similarly, the Court rejected Robbins Geller's claim that the Sherlip-Barrett Group demonstrated inferior knowledge of applicable law by failing to bring certain additional claims. The Court noted: "The mere fact that Robbins Geller has chosen to pursue more claims than the Sherlip-Barrett Group is not, in itself, evidence of superior aptitude, particularly because the Sherlip-Barrett Group has provided sensible explanations for why they believe those claims are unlikely to succeed." The Court considered additional factors under Rule 23(g)(1)(B) and found they either were neutral or counseled in favor of appointing the Sherlip-Barrett Group. First, the Court rejected Robbins Geller's argument that the Sherlip-Barrett Group's structure of three law firms would cause duplicative, inefficient, and costly efforts. The Court found this argument entirely conclusory, noting that co-counsel relationships between multiple law firms are common and that Robbins Geller presented no evidence that such arrangements are inherently more problematic than any professional relationship between lawyers. Second, the Court was skeptical of Robbins Geller's argument about its client's superiority. Robbins Geller argued that because its client, Safron Capital Corp., is an institutional investor with more resources and larger losses than average investors, it can commit to a long--term litigation strategy,thereby prioritizing a favorable outcome for the Class instead of a short-term resolution that may yield a lower recovery. However, the Court found this argument entirely speculative, as Robbins Geller had not produced any actual evidence about the various plaintiffs' comparative losses. More concerning to the Court, it appears that Safron is owned by a single shareholder, Rina Rollhaus, whose history includes settling a 1994 dispute with the SEC alleging involvement in a free-riding scheme pursuant to which she allegedly placed purchase orders for securities with the intention of paying for them using the proceeds from their sale. Finally, the Court rejected Robbins Geller's efficiency argument based on its representation of plaintiffs in multiple related cases. The Court noted that Robbins Geller's actual conduct did not suggest that efficiency was its priority, observing that Safron and McKinney were filed only after other law firms filed cases raising similar allegations against the same defendants. The Court stated: Instead, as the Sherlip-Barrett Group argued in the motion to consolidate, Robbins Geller appears to be trying to jump on bandwagons that are already under way by filing duplicative cash sweep litigations where other, earlier-filed cash sweep cases are already pending and much further advanced. The Court granted the Sherlip-Barrett Group's motion for appointment as interim class counsel and denied Robbins Geller's motion. The Court concluded: "Accordingly, the Court concludes that the efforts the Barrett-Sherlip Group has made to pursue the claims appear more extensive, more relevant, and more beneficial to class members than those of Robbins Geller." The Court established deadlines for further proceedings. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint incorporating the allegations of Plaintiff Safron Capital Corp. was August 15, 2025. The deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint is September 12, 2025. If Defendants move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the Court will not schedule an Initial Pretrial Conference or enter a Case Management Plan until such motion is resolved. A copy of the opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IlLTUK NATERA INC: California Court Junks Genetic Test Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed without prejudice the purported class action lawsuit relating to the Company's preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidies. In October 2024, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by patients alleging various causes of action relating to the Company's preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidies. They request, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted on August 4, 2025, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. NATERA INC: California Patient Billing Suit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the purported class action lawsuit filed in a California court by a patient alleging causes of action related to patient billing remains stayed. In November 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by a patient alleging various causes of action relating to the Company's patient billing and seeks, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and costs. In May 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. In July 2023, the plaintiff filed analogous claims in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, and subsequently filed an amended claim with an additional plaintiff. Based on the additional plaintiff, the case was transferred back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The parties subsequently agreed that claims brought by the original plaintiff be remanded back to the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, and that the action be stayed pending the outcome of the action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. NATERA INC: Settlement in Panorama Marketing Suit Awaits Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in the purported class action lawsuit alleging various causes of action related to the marketing of Panorama awaits court approval, Natera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In February 2022, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Each suit was filed by an individual patient alleging various causes of action related to the marketing of Panorama and seeking, among other relief, class certification, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. These matters have been consolidated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit, which resulted in the plaintiffs filing an amended complaint in April 2023. The Company and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement of all claims. The proposed settlement has been submitted to the District Court for approval. NATERA INC: Texas Securities Suit Granted Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has certified a class of shareholders. A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its management in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint, filed in April 2022 and amended in October 2022, alleges, among other things, that the management defendants made materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about certain of the Company's products and operations. The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which was granted in part and denied in part. The Court has certified the class. OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ Ocugen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In April 2024, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its agents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Court") (Case No. 2:24-cv-01500) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the Company's previously-issued audited consolidated financial statements for each fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020 and its previously-issued unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for each of the first three quarters in such years and the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures during each such period. The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. In October 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and in December 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. In February 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the Company filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss in March 2025. In July 2025, the Company's motion to dismiss, with prejudice, was granted. The plaintiffs will have 30 days to appeal the dismissal of the lead plaintiff's amended complaint. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against it if an appeal is filed. OCUGEN INC. operates as a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company offers products for improving the body's ability to regenerate healthy cartilage, joint function, and prevention of degenerative diseases. [BN] OPENAI INC: Deposition Protocol Issued in Intercept Media Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Deposition Protocol Order governing the conduct of depositions of fact witnesses in the lawsuit captioned as The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01515-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Ona says counsel and all parties currently in or added to the multi-district litigation (the "MDL") will comply with this Order, and to the extent consistent with this Order, with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unless specifically modified here, nothing in this Order will be construed to abrogate the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. The Class Plaintiffs are entitled to 105 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025, and exclusive of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Books1 and Books2 addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have 100 hours of deposition time with Microsoft ("MSFT") witnesses, exclusive of the time spent on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding particular datasets addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "Class Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03223), Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03416), Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−04625), Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-08292), Alter v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-10211), which have been consolidated in the superseding operative complaint titled Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (No. 25-md-3143). The News Plaintiffs are entitled to 130 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025. The News Plaintiffs will have 112 hours of deposition time with Microsoft witnesses. They will have a maximum of 64 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "News Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1: 23-cv-11195); Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1:24-cv-3285); The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv 01515); The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-04872); Ziff Davis, Inc., v. OpenAI Inc. (25-cv-0501) (D. Del.). The Defendants are entitled to 110 hours of deposition time with named Class Plaintiffs. The Defendants are entitled to the following deposition time with each News Plaintiff: 1) 112 hours with New York Times ("NYT") witnesses; 2) 100 hours with New York Daily News ("NYDN") witnesses; 3) 70 hours with each of CIR witnesses, Intercept witness, and Ziff Davis witnesses; and 4) presumptively, 70 hours with any additional News Plaintiff group that joins the MDL. The Defendants will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the Class cases and 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the News cases. The Order also provides, among other things, that all Parties agree to negotiate a deposition scheduling protocol to ensure compliance with the Federal Rules and so all parties receive proper notice of any upcoming deposition. All Parties reserve the right to move the Court for additional deposition time beyond these limits for good cause shown. All objections are reserved, including objections that depositions may be unnecessary, irrelevant, or duplicative. Standard rules and procedures for apex witnesses will govern and be individually addressed, including whether the witness qualifies as an apex witness. A full-text copy of the Court's Deposition Protocol Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yj86wtpw from PacerMonitor.com. OPENAI INC: Deposition Protocol Issued in Millette Copyright Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Deposition Protocol Order governing the conduct of depositions of fact witnesses in the lawsuit captioned Millette v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03297-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.). The same orders were entered in the following cases: -- Authors Guild et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-08292 -- The New York Times Company v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-11195 -- Raw Story Media, Inc. et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-01514 -- Chabon et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-03291 -- Tremblay et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03482 -- Silverman et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03483 -- Ziff Davis, Inc. et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04315 -- DENIAL et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-06286 All cases are consolidated under In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Case No. 1:25-md-03143, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of New York. The Hon. Sidney H Stein, U.S.D.J., and Judge Ona T. Wang, U.S.M.J., preside over the cases. Judge Ona says counsel and all parties currently in or added to the multi-district litigation (the "MDL") will comply with this Order, and to the extent consistent with this Order, with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unless specifically modified here, nothing in this Order will be construed to abrogate the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. The Class Plaintiffs are entitled to 105 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025, and exclusive of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Books1 and Books2 addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have 100 hours of deposition time with Microsoft ("MSFT") witnesses, exclusive of the time spent on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding particular datasets addressed at ECF No. 270 at 2. The Class Plaintiffs will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "Class Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03223), Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−03416), Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 3:23−04625), Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-08292), Alter v. OpenAI Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-10211), which have been consolidated in the superseding operative complaint titled Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (No. 25-md-3143). The News Plaintiffs are entitled to 130 hours of deposition time with OpenAI witnesses, exclusive of any deposition time that occurred prior to MDL centralization on April 1, 2025. The News Plaintiffs will have 112 hours of deposition time with Microsoft witnesses. They will have a maximum of 64 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former-employee) witnesses. The "News Plaintiffs" refers to the plaintiffs in the following actions coordinated in the MDL: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1: 23-cv-11195); Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (No. 1:24-cv-3285); The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv 01515); The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-04872); Ziff Davis, Inc., v. OpenAI Inc. (25-cv-0501) (D. Del.). The Defendants are entitled to 110 hours of deposition time with named Class Plaintiffs. The Defendants are entitled to the following deposition time with each News Plaintiff: 1) 112 hours with New York Times ("NYT") witnesses; 2) 100 hours with New York Daily News ("NYDN") witnesses; 3) 70 hours with each of CIR witnesses, Intercept witness, and Ziff Davis witnesses; and 4) presumptively, 70 hours with any additional News Plaintiff group that joins the MDL. The Defendants will have a maximum of 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the Class cases and 50 hours of deposition time with non-party (and non-former employee) witnesses in the News cases. The Order also provides, among other things, that all Parties agree to negotiate a deposition scheduling protocol to ensure compliance with the Federal Rules and so all parties receive proper notice of any upcoming deposition. All Parties reserve the right to move the Court for additional deposition time beyond these limits for good cause shown. All objections are reserved, including objections that depositions may be unnecessary, irrelevant, or duplicative. Standard rules and procedures for apex witnesses will govern and be individually addressed, including whether the witness qualifies as an apex witness. A full-text copy of the Court's Deposition Protocol Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pruhp69 from PacerMonitor.com. OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Upholds Settlement Exclusion in Micholle --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Frank Micholle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-210 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overrules an objection to an administrative determination rejecting a settlement claim. The Court found Investor Mr. Sergio Albonico's objection was without merit, and therefore, overruled the objection. The Court addressed the objection of Albonico to an administrative determination that rejected his claim for a share of settlement proceeds because he was not a member of the settlement class. The objection was overruled in its entirety. On March 13, 2018, the Court granted the motion of Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada to serve as Lead Plaintiff and for its attorneys, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, to serve as Lead Counsel. In so doing, the Court denied Albonico's motion to serve as lead plaintiff. On March 17, 2022, the Court entered preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement, preliminarily certified the settlement class, and preliminarily approved the proposed notice to class members. On September 16, 2022, the Court entered final approval of the Settlement Agreement and entered judgment in the case. The judgment defines the class as all Persons who purchased or acquired Ophthotech common stock during the period between March 2, 2015 through December 12, 2016, inclusive (the 'Class Period'). The Settlement Agreement provides that with respect to Ophthotech common stock purchased or sold through the exercise of an option, the purchase/sale of Ophthotech common stock is the exercise date of the option. Within the Class Period, on November 22 and 23, 2016, Albonico sold or assigned "put" option contracts giving the buyer the right to have Albonico purchase Ophthotech common stock at $30 per share. Outside the Class Period, on December 19 and 27, 2016 and on January 23, 2017, the put buyers exercised the options, and Albonico became the owner of Ophthotech common stock. Following the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement and Albonico's receipt of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Class Action Settlement, Albonico submitted a Proof of Claim to a portion of the Settlement proceeds in connection with the shares he acquired through the exercise of the options. On January 24, 2023, the settlement administrator notified Albonico that it rejected his claim because he acquired Ophthotech common stock outside the Class Period, and the "put options" he acquired within the Class Period are not included in this Settlement. The Court determined that its authority to review the motion derives from the inherent power of a district court to enforce summarily, on motion, a settlement agreement reached in a case that was pending before it. The judgment provides that the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of this Settlement and any award or distribution of the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b) disposition of the Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining applications for attorneys' fees, expenses, and interest in the Litigation; and (d) all parties herein for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the Stipulation. The Court found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement doom Albonico's objection. There is no dispute that the exercise dates of the options through which Albonico received Ophthotech common stock all fell outside the Class Period. Thus, under the plain language of the Plan of Allocation, Albonico's Ophthotech common-stock purchases fell outside the Class Period. The settlement administrator therefore was correct to conclude that Albonico was not a class member. The Court found Albonico's arguments to the contrary were not persuasive. Citing three out-of-circuit cases, he argued that the courts have found that where an investor sells a put option that is then assigned, it constitutes a single investment decision made at the time of the put sale, and the subsequent purchase of stock pursuant to the assignment is part of one overall transaction that occurs at the time of the put sale. The Court determined these cases were inapposite because none involves the interpretation of the terms of a class settlement agreement. Albonico also argued that the provision in the Plan of Allocation setting the common stock purchase/sale date as the exercise date of an option covers only the situation where investor consciously makes a second investment decision to exercise the option, but that the provision says nothing about an assignment where the investor has no choice but to purchase the stock at a loss. The Court ruled this fact was not relevant because the plain meaning of the Plan of Allocation controls, and it set the purchase date of stock acquired through an option as the date of the exercise of the option. The Court concluded that Albonico could have objected to this provision of the Settlement Agreement, but chose not to object. The time to object to this provision before the final fairness hearing has passed. Finally, Albonico argued that the Pension Fund's arbitrary decision to exclude him from the Settlement is contrary to the Pension Fund's duties as a class representative to ensure all Class members are treated equitably and encompass the broadest Class possible. The Court determined this obligation does not mean that the express terms of the Settlement Agreement can be ignored, and therefore was not arbitrary. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tXtims OPTUMRX INC: Vaccaro Balks at Unauthorized Fund Transfers --------------------------------------------------------- DAVE VACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTUMRX, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07184 (C.D. Cal., August 4, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and common law principles of tort for conversion. The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating the law. In addition to violating federal law, Defendants' conduct constitutes unlawful conversion of Plaintiff's and Class members' funds. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants accountable for wrongfully exercising dominion and control over money to which Defendants had no lawful entitlement. OPTUMRX, INC is a company engaged in the business of providing prescription medication and healthcare services to consumers, including through mail-order delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 619-3774 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com ORACLE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Holcomb Says ---------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI HOLCOMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORACLE HEALTH, INC., and GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:25-cv-00642-JAM (W.D. Mo., Aug. 14, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information and/or protected health information (PII) including, but not limited to, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, medication information, insurance information and treatment and/or diagnostic information. According to the complaint, the private information was acquired by cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members provided their personal information to Defendants as a condition of receiving medical treatment. The Defendants stored Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal information on their network. Unfortunately, Defendants failed to take adequate measures to protect their patients' personal information, including failing to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards or policies, and failing to supervise its information technology or data security agents and employees, or vendors, asserts the suit. On Feb. 20, 2025, Oracle detected unusual activity that disrupted access to its network and determined that an unauthorized third party gained access to HER's containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information -- which was entrusted to Defendant GFH on the mutual understanding that Defendant GFH would protect it against unauthorized disclosure and ensure any subsequent transfers of that information would be protected by the transferee -- was accessed and exfiltrated in a data breach. The Plaintiff was a patient of Glens Falls Hospital and received a Notice of Data Security Incident from the Defendants. Oracle is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record (EHR) and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations. Glens Falls retained Oracle as its electronic health record vendor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Walmart Unfair Price Advantages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that PepsiCo, Inc. and bottling subsidiary Pepsico Beverage Sales have given Walmart, Pepsi's largest customer, unfair price advantages and other allowances not available to competing retailers. The 20-page lawsuit claims that to "keep Walmart happy," PepsiCo has exclusively provided the retail giant with certain promotional payments, allowances and services intended to give the superstore chain an advantage over competitors in the Pepsi soft drink resale space. This includes selling its products to Walmart at a discounted price in comparison to surrounding stores and other retailers, the filing asserts. In exchange, Walmart promotes Pepsi products through multimedia advertising, flashy in-store displays and advantageous placement compared to other brands and items, the suit contends. These promotional services demonstrably drive Pepsi product sales at Walmart stores, which account for approximately 11 percent of PepsiCo's total net revenue, the case claims. According to the complaint, as of July 1, 2025, the price of a two-liter Pepsi soda at a Massachusetts Walmart location was up to 39 percent less than what a consumer would pay for the same soft drink at a nearby Walgreens, and around 40 percent cheaper than the listed price at CVS and 7-Eleven. The suit alleges that PepsiCo's price discrimination and unfair dealings have given Walmart a leg up on other retailers, which must, in turn, either charge consumers an artificially inflated price or choose not to purchase Pepsi products. This has put Walmart's competitors at a significant disadvantage and cost them business, the case argues. The filing claims that PepsiCo's exclusive practices violate the federal Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits price discrimination and other deceptive tactics by which businesses can gain an unfair advantage. As the complaint tells it, the Federal Trade Commission took action against PepsiCo in January of this year over similar allegations of anticompetitive conduct in connection with a major retailer. "While redacted from the publicly-filed complaint, the retailer in question is widely understood to have been Walmart," the suit says. The PepsiCo lawsuit looks to represent all retailers other than Walmart that purchased Pepsi soft drinks directly from the defendants. [GN] PERFECT MOVING: Faces Vorburger Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX VORBURGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERFECT MOVING AND STORAGE LLC, SUMMER MOVING CORP, ROCK KATNIC, and JOHANNA ULLOA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06387 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to state and federal laws, that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to time shaving and unlawful withholding of earned tips, (2) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime, (3) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to unlawful deductions, (4) liquidated damages, and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges, pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of NYLL that Defendants retaliated against him for making lawful and protected complaints regarding his, and his fellow employees' compensation. Additionally, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff, putative collective members, and putative class members for their earned spread of hours pay for days beginning and ending working hours exceeding 10 hours, asserts the suit. In or around May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff was hired to work, and has worked, as a driver and mover for Defendants. He continued to work for Defendants until April 16, 2025 when, due to Defendants' retaliation against Plaintiff for bringing the complaints alleged herein, Plaintiff's employment was terminated. Perfect Moving and Storage LLC owns and operates delivery and moving companies engaging in contracts and deliveries throughout the tristate area and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Kansao, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave., Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: robert@employeejustice.com PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Caldera Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Salvador Caldera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; DPI, INC.; DIGITAL PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV18066 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07462. The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that Defendants misrepresented the storage capacity of their Memorex USB flash drives. Plaintiff alleges claims for Violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); Violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17500, et seq. ("FAL"); Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code section 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"); Breach of Contract; Breach of lmplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Breach of Express or Implied Warranty; Deceit; and Unjust Enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Neil A.F. Popovic, Esq. Anna S. McLean, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415-434-9100 Facsimile: 415-434-3947 Email: npopovic@sheppardmullin.com amclean@sheppardmullin.com - and - Taryn Q. McPherson, Esq. 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3406 Phone: 213-620-1780 Facsimile: 213-620-1398 Email: tmcpherson@sheppardmullin.com POWDER KEG: Davis Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Powder Keg, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09641 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Kemosabe.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Kemosabe.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Kemosabe.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Powder Keg.[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 PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid OT, Commission ------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY RODRIGUEZ, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a PRESTIGE TRUCKING INSURANCE, INC., and CHRISTINA L. DOWNS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61572 (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff, as well as all others similarly situated, for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Prestige violated the FLSA's maximum hours (overtime compensation) provisions in that Plaintiff, as well as other current and former Prestige sales agents, performed hours of service for Prestige, resulting in more than 40 hours worked during one or more workweeks, for which Prestige failed to pay any overtime premiums. The Plaintiff also brings this action on his behalf to recover unpaid commissions owed to him. Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a sales agent from October 1, 2021 to May 1, 2025 or approximately one hundred and 130 weeks within the applicable limitations period. Prestige International Insurance Group, Inc. is an independent insurance agency, focusing in commercial truck insurance, doing business in Florida and other states in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. Robin I. Frank, Esq. PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 544-8900 E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com RIF@PBL-Law.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Alzaidi Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adam Alzaidi, Dwight Chornomud, Melissa Cuevas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-04519 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00900-DRC-KAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben M. Harrington, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 Email: benh@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David R Singh, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8159 Fax: (212) 310-8007 Email: david.singh@weil.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: DuPont Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Catherine DuPont, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 0:25-cv-02260 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00902-DRC-KAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Anne Peterson, Esq. Krista Freier, Esq. Rebecca A Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD 1650 W 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Phone: (612) 778-9560 Fax: (888) 421-4173 Email: CPeterson@4-justice.com kfreier@4-justice.com rpeterson@4-justice.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Erik Money, Esq. Todd A. Wind, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 60 South 6th Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (218) 205-5273 Email: emoney@fredlaw.com twind@fredlaw.com PROGRESSIVE PALOVERDE: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Schroeder ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Heather Schroeder and Misty Tanner, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company and Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 24-1559 (7th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reverses the district court's class certification order and remands for further proceedings. Heather Schroeder sought to represent a class of Indiana car owners insured by Progressive whose cars were deemed total losses after collisions. Under Progressive's standard-form Indiana auto insurance policy, the company agreed to pay car owners the actual cash value of their vehicles, less a deductible. The policy specified that actual cash value is determined by the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs. To estimate a car's actual cash value from list prices of comparable cars, Progressive adjusted list prices to account for typical negotiation between car buyers and sellers by applying Projected Sold Adjustments to list prices. Schroeder argued that by applying these adjustments, Progressive breached its contractual duty to pay the class members the actual cash value of their totaled cars, as well as a disputed duty to calculate actual cash value payments using a particular method or formula. The district court recognized that whether Progressive paid each class member the actual cash value of her car was not susceptible to classwide proof, but concluded that each class member could use common evidence to establish that Progressive employed an unacceptable method for calculating actual cash value payments by applying Projected Sold Adjustments. The court certified a class on this basis. The district court certified a class of: All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company to an Indiana resident who, from the earliest allowable time through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on a vehicle valuation report prepared by Mitchell and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value. Circuit Judge St. Eve concluded that Progressive's policy did not preclude the company from applying Projected Sold Adjustments in calculating actual cash value payments, so long as it ultimately paid its insureds the actual cash value of their totaled cars as defined under the policy and Indiana law. The Court of Appeals found that a jury would need to consider a host of individual questions to resolve whether Progressive failed to pay each class member this amount, and those individual questions overwhelmed any common ones. The court stated: "Because the district court's class certification decision rested on an erroneous interpretation of Progressive's Indiana auto insurance policy, we reverse and remand." Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, class certification requires satisfaction of four universal requirements: numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation. For certification under Rule 23(b)(3), questions of law or fact common to class members must predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The court explained that class certification is only proper if the district court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied." The court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and concluded that the district court abused its discretion because it rested its analysis on an erroneous legal conclusion about the duties contained in Progressive's insurance policy. Progressive asserted that its sole contractual duty was to pay insureds the actual cash value of their cars after a total loss. Schroeder argued for a second duty: a duty to determine actual cash value based on market value. The court applied Indiana law to interpret the insurance policy, noting that the meaning of an insurance policy is primarily a question of law. Progressive's policy specified that actual cash value is determined by the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs. The court applied the definition of fair market value recognized by Indiana law: "the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and seller, neither being under any compulsion to consummate the sale." The court concluded that even if a jury found that cars always sell for their list prices, this finding would not establish that Progressive underpaid each class member. It would remain possible that comparable cars in a given valuation report were more valuable than the totaled car in ways that Progressive's other adjustments did not capture, offsetting any negative effect from applying Projected Sold Adjustments. The court noted: "To evaluate such an argument, which Progressive has asserted that it intends to make as part of its defense in this case, the jury would need to consider individualized evidence about each putative class member's car and each comparable car included in her car's valuation report." The court followed the reasoning of the Third and Eighth Circuits in similar cases, noting that in Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co., the Third Circuit concluded that whether Progressive had breached its duty would turn on individualized evidence. The court distinguished the Ninth Circuit's approach, finding the Third and Eighth Circuit decisions more persuasive. The court concluded that Progressive's use of Projected Sold Adjustments in calculating actual cash value payments does not by itself establish liability for breach." Since the district court premised its analysis of commonality and predominance on an erroneous legal conclusion that the class members could succeed under this theory of breach, the court reversed the class certification order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uNbs0E from the Pacermonitor.com. READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Exchange Act Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in a putative stockholder class action lawsuit filed by former Broadmark stockholder in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On May 28, 2025, the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by a purported former Broadmark stockholder in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Broadmark Exchange Act Litigation"). Broadmark and certain of its former directors and officers were also named as defendants. The Broadmark Exchange Act Litigation is captioned Grant v. Ready Capital Corp., et al., No. 2:25-cv-1013 (W.D. Wash.). The Broadmark Exchange Act Litigation alleges that that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions in connection with the Broadmark Merger and seeks compensatory and rescissory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the purported shareholder class action arising from its merger with Broadmark Realty Capital Inc. On June 6, 2024, a purported former stockholder of Broadmark filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Eibling v. Pyatt, et al., No. C-24-CV-24-000818 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City), (the "Broadmark Merger Action"). The Broadmark Merger Action names as defendants Broadmark's former board of directors and alleges they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Broadmark Merger by failing to properly consider acquisition proposals that were purportedly superior to the Broadmark Merger, by relying on purportedly false and misleading valuation analyses, and by authorizing the issuance of a purportedly false and misleading proxy statement. The Broadmark Merger Action also asserts claims against Broadmark's financial advisor for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Broadmark Merger Action seeks damages in the form of compensatory damages, quasi-appraisal damages, rescissory damages, and disgorgement of any merger-related benefits. The Broadmark Merger Action also seeks reimbursement for litigation expenses and attorneys' and experts' fees. On September 13, 2024, the Broadmark Merger Action was assigned to the Business and Technology Case Management Program of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Thereafter, on December 10, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint. In response, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 10, 2025, which the defendants subsequently moved to dismiss on April 14, 2025. Briefing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint was completed on July 22, 2025. Although the Company is not a defendant in the Broadmark Merger Action, it is subject to contractual indemnification obligations (conditioned on the satisfaction of various contractual requirements) in connection therewith, including with respect to the defendants' service as Broadmark directors and provision of services to Broadmark, as applicable. The defendants and the Company intend to vigorously defend against the Broadmark Merger Action. READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ready Capital Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in a putative stockholder class action lawsuit filed by purported former Broadmark stockholders in the Superior Court for King County, Washington. On May 8 and May 14, 2025, the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in two separate but largely identical putative class action lawsuits filed by purported former Broadmark stockholders in the Superior Court for King County, Washington (the "Broadmark Securities Act Class Actions"). Certain former directors and officers of Broadmark and certain affiliates of the Company and its directors, including Waterfall, were also named as defendants. The Broadmark Securities Act Class Actions were filed under the captions van Wyk et al. v. Ready Capital Corp., et al., No. 25-2-14038-5 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cnty.) and Whittlesey v. Ready Capital Corp., et al., No. 25-2-14567-1 SEA (Wash. Super Ct. King Cnty.). The Broadmark Securities Act Class Actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions in connection with the Broadmark Merger regarding the performance of the Company's commercial real estate loan portfolio and related matters and seek disgorgement, compensatory damages, and the costs and expenses of litigation. On June 20, 2025, the court consolidated the Broadmark Securities Act Class Actions under the caption In re Ready Capital Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 25-2-14038-5 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cnty.) (the "Broadmark Securities Act Litigation") and directed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by August 19, 2025. READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend UDF IV Merger Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the purported shareholder class action arising from its merger with United Development Funding IV. On March 18, 2025, a purported former stockholder of UDF IV filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned The Lawrence C. Headley Living Trust v. Jones, et al., No. C-24-CV-25-002222 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City) (the "UDF IV Merger Action"). The UDF IV Merger Action names as defendants UDF IV's former board of trustees and alleges they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the UDF IV Merger by failing to properly consider an acquisition proposal that was purportedly superior to the UDF IV Merger, by relying on purportedly false and misleading valuation analyses, by authorizing the issuance of a purportedly false and misleading proxy statement, and by obtaining improper personal benefits that were not shared with all UDF IV stockholders. The complaint also asserts claims against UDF IV's advisor, UMTH General Services, L.P., for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescissory damages, and unwinding of the UDF IV Merger, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2025, the UDF IV Merger Action was assigned to the Business and Technology Case Management Program of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Thereafter, on May 16, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint. In response, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2025. Briefing on the defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss the amended complaint is expected to be completed by December 2025. Although the Company is not a defendant in the UDF IV Merger Action, it is subject to contractual indemnification obligations (conditioned on the satisfaction of various contractual requirements) in connection therewith, including with respect to the defendants' service as UDF IV trustees and the provision of services to UDF IV, as applicable. The defendants and the Company intend to vigorously defend against the UDF IV Merger Action. READY CAPITAL: Shareholders' Suit Remains Pending in SDNY --------------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a putative stockholder class action lawsuit remains pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 6, 2025 and April 23, 2025, the Company and two of its executive officers were named as defendants in two separate but largely identical putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Exchange Act Class Actions"). The Exchange Act Class Actions were filed under the captions Quinn v. Ready Capital Corp., et al., No. 1:25-cv-01883 (S.D.N.Y.) and Goebel v. Ready Capital Corp., et al., No. 1:25-cv-3373 (S.D.N.Y.). The Exchange Act Class Actions allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the performance of the Company's commercial real estate loan portfolio and related matters, and that the executive officers named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of the Company. The Exchange Act Class Actions seek compensatory damages, costs, and expenses on behalf of the purported classes. On July 8, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the Exchange Act Class Actions under the caption In re Ready Capital Securities Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-01883 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Exchange Act Litigation") and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff is expected file an amended complaint by September 2025, and briefing on the defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss is expected to be completed by March 2026. REALTY AUSTIN: QJ Team Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the QJ Team class suit filed against the Co.'s subsidiary, Realty Austin LLC, is stayed pending final settlement approval. One putative class action lawsuit, QJ Team, LLC, et al. v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-01013 (E.D. Tx.) ("QJ Team"), filed on November 13, 2023, names Realty Austin, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, as a defendant and alleges, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the Texas Association of Realtors, and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. Martin, et al. v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al., No. 423-cv-01104 (E.D. Tx.) ("Martin"), filed on December 14, 2023, was consolidated into the QJ Team matter on March 21, 2024. The QJ Team matter is stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the settlement agreement. Realty Austin, LLC is a licensed real estate provider in Texas. Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERSIDE ALL OF US OR NONE, an unincorporated association; MELINDA FOBES, BRYAN YOST, MARILU PAEZ, SHAWN YOST, all as individuals and on behalf of similarly situated class representatives, v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, and LARRY V. GONZALEZ, in his official capacity as Chief of the Riverside Police Department, Case No. 5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs allege that the City has unlawfully seized unhoused individuals' personal property. The Plaintiffs move to certify both an injunction class and a damages class. Plaintiffs propose the following class definitions: (1) The Injunction Class: all persons who are or will be unhoused in the City of Riverside and keep their possessions on public property in the City, thereby making their possessions subject to seizure and summary destruction by City employees or agents and not stored as required by California Civil Code §2080; and (2) The Damages Class: all persons who were homeless and staying on public property in the City of Riverside between January 1, 2022, and continuing to the present, and whose personal property was seized by City of Riverside employees or agents and summarily destroyed. Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGrfkV at no extra charge.[CC] SAKS OFF: Erdos-Major Sues Over Unconsented Call Recordings ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS ERDOS-MAJOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAKS OFF 5TH LLC AND SAKS GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LLC, and DOES through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU041311C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., August 6, 2025) arises out of Defendants' policy and practice to record and/or monitor, without the consent of all parties, inbound telephone calls made to Saks OFF 5TH's customer service telephone number in violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act. During the relevant time period, the Defendants intentionally and surreptitiously recorded and/or monitored telephone calls made to the customer service telephone number. The Defendants did so without warning or disclosing to inbound callers that their calls might be recorded or monitored, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Saks OFF 5TH LLC is a fashion company selling clothing and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com ahacon@toddflaw.com - and - Zev B. Zysman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN A Professional Corporation 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 783-8836 E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Twitty Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sondra Bristow Twitty, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc., Case No. 2025CP1300499 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Chesterfield County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Aug. 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-10394-JD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc. -- https://sandhillsmedical.org/ -- offers healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com The Defendant is represented by: Cheryl D. Shoun, Esq. Max John Mazurek, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN 205 King Street, Suite 400 Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 720-1762 Email: cshoun@maynardnexsen.com mmazurek@maynardnexsen.com SHOP LC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shop LC Global, Inc. d/b/a Shop LC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03143 (D. Minn., August 6, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. Moreover, the Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its website fail to ensure its website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Shop LC Global, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.shoplc.com, which offers jewelry and household items for sale. [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 SKYDIO INC: Hanna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skydio, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jordan James Hanna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Skydio, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 25CV134004 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Skydio -- https://www.skydio.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of drones headquartered in San Mateo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com nidah@olfla.com SOCAL CLIMATE CONTROL: Armenta Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoCal Climate Control. The case is styled as Jessica Armenta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SoCal Climate Control, Case No. 2:25-cv-07427 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. SoCal Climate Control -- https://socalclimatecontrol.com/ -- offers expert HVAC maintenance, repairs, and installations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Ballardo Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cesar Ballardo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SONESTA INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION; SONESTA REDONDO BEACH LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV18227 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. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07409. On June 24, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendants which sets forth the following seven causes of action: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked and/or failure to pay overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; failure to indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; and unfair business practices (the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com STARBUCKS: Malsack Sues Over Failure to Remove Physical Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darrin Malsack, on behalf of others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-01196-SCD (E. Wis., Aug. 11, 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 three times before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Starbucks, 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. STARBUCKS CORPORATION is a foreign business corporation that transacts business in the State of Wisconsin 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 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: James Sues For Discriminatory Hiring Process ---------------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE JAMES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04387 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2025) seeks monetary relief, a declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, disbursements, costs and fees for violations of the Plaintiff's rights brought pursuant to 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 and New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have used racially discriminatory, racially bias, illegal and improper practices to actively deny Plaintiff the ability to become a Suffolk County Police Officer. Since 2016, Plaintiff has been applying to become a Suffolk County Police Officer, to which he has been denied time and time again due to the racially discriminatory testing and evaluation processes. Moreover, the Defendants failed to train and/or supervise their agents and representatives to impartially conduct and evaluate the stages of the hiring process; and Defendants failed to address discriminatory practices in their hiring process, despite being on notice of the data reflecting disproportionate hiring and disqualification on the basis of race through the consent decree and other public sources, says the suit. County of Suffolk is a duly constituted municipal corporation of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick K. Brewington, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON 556 Peninsula Boulevard Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 489-6959 SUNCOAST CREDIT: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM SCHAMP, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02064-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla., August 4, 2025) is a class action seeking to address Defendant's alleged illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing -- without consent -- the nonpublic personal information and personally identifiable financial information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third parties. To provide services, Suncoast operates and encourages its customers to use its website, www.suncoast.com, on which customers, including Plaintiff, can access their account information, access Suncoast's financial services, and apply for financial products like credit cards. Despite its position as a trusted credit union, Suncoast used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose consumers' and customers' personal and financial information to third parties uninvolved in the provision of financial services -- entirely without their knowledge or authorization. Suncoast did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and implementing code based tracking devices into its Website. Through these trackers, Suncoast disclosed and continues to disclose personal and financial information that customers input into and accessed on Suncoast's website, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of action of (i) negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion); (iv) invasion of privacy; (v) breach of express contract; (vi) breach of implied contract; (vii) unjust enrichment; (vii) violation of the Florida Deceptive Consumer Sales Act; (ix) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (x) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Unauthorized Divulgence by Electronic Communications Service); (xi) Violation of Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (xii) violation of the Florida Wiretap Act; and (xiii) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Suncoast is a full-service financial institution which provides banking solutions including checking accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, auto loans, home equity loans, and HELOCs to customers across the United States, including in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Phillips, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 Facsimile: (407) 612-2206 E-mail: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (655) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, FL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com T-MOBILE USA: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Aaron Castillo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC. dba T-MOBILE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-5489 was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02208-SCR. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code Section 510; recovery of reporting time pay; meal-period liability under Labor Code Section 226.7; rest-break liability under Labor Code Section 226.7; failure to pay vacation wages; failure to comply with Labor Code Section 225 et seq. and 246; violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); reimbursement of necessary expenditures under Labor Code Labor Code Section 2802; failure to keep required payroll records under Labor Code Section 1174 and 1174.5; violation of Labor Code Section 204; penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad Greeson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. Treat Towers, Suite 600 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: (925) 932-2468 Email: cgreeson@littler.com TEA DATING: Stevens Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTI STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06538 (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2025) is a class action complaint 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' driver's license numbers and other government issued IDs. The class action arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant's app, Tea, a new app that's meant to make women feel safe while using online dating services. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. 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, the Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Tea Dating is the operator of the "Tea" mobile app, a dating platform targeting women who research potential dates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelbserglaw.com - and - Edwin E. Elliot, Esq. Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com TEAM INTERNATIONAL: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Team International Group of America, Inc., d/b/a Kalorik, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09297 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.kalorik.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Moreover, despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including. Based in Novi, MI, Team International Group of America, Inc. owns and operates the website, which offers appliances for sale such as air fryers, toaster ovens, sandwich makers, blenders, waffle makers, toasters, and kettles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law TESLA INC: Schwartz Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Schwartz, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV20026 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07389. The Plaintiff alleges he purchased a Cybertruck from Tesla with a $20,000 "Foundation Series" upgrade, which did not include a promised "off road light bar." The Plaintiff asserts various California contract and consumer fraud type claims on behalf of a proposed California class. Defendant denies all material allegations in the Complaint and denies it has harmed Plaintiff or any member of the putative class or that they are entitled to any relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone 323-306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Aengus H. Carr, Esq. TESLA, INC. 3000 Hanover St. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone (650)-681-5000 Email: aecarr@tesla.com TRACKI INC: Doe Sues Over Releasing of Dangerous Products --------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRACKI, INC.; TRACKIMO, INC.; and TRACKIMO LLC; Case No. 1:25-cv-06577 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought against Defendants, correcting Defendants' practice of releasing unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce, misrepresenting the harms associated therewith, and facilitating the unwanted and unconsented to location tracking of Plaintiff and Class Members. Tracki has failed to implement reasonable and necessary safeguards to prevent the foreseeable misuse of its tracking devices for unlawful surveillance or stalking. Specifically, Tracki does not require consent, authentication, or verification from the individual or object being tracked. Nor does it provide any form of notice, alert, or audible signal to notify a person that a Tracki device is present or actively tracking them. This lack of protective features renders the product unreasonably dangerous and defective and constitutes a failure to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, and distribution of the device. Despite their compatible1 design with a variety of operating systems, including both Android and iOS, Tracki tracking devices do not trigger "unknown tracker alerts" on either platform. These alerts are typically intended to detect Bluetooth-based trackers—such as Apple AirTags, Tile, or Samsung SmartTags—that rely on proximity networks like Apple's Find My Network. In contrast, Tracki devices primarily use GPS, cellular, and WiFi technologies for location tracking, not Bluetooth. As a result, they are not discoverable through Apple's Find My app or Android's Unknown Tracker Alerts feature. As a result of Tracki's negligence and reckless disregard for the privacy and safety of consumers, Tracki's devices have been used by stalkers to track, harass, intimidate, and harm their victims. Numerous reports and stories have emerged of people finding Tracki devices hidden in their belongings, cars, or clothes, and discovering that they have been followed or monitored by their ex-partners, estranged spouses, abusive relatives, or unknown assailants. These victims have suffered severe emotional distress, fear, anxiety, and physical harm as a result of being stalked by Tracki devices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Jane Doe is one such victim. Tracki, Inc. is an American consumer electronics company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Paige Noah, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Pl. Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: (412) 314-0515 Email: ek@waykayslay.com pnoah@waykayslay.com - and - David Slade, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 N. Little Rock, AR 72114 Email: slade@waykayslay.com TRACKSMITH CORPORATION: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laurence Wills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRACKSMITH CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-04427 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.tracksmith.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now 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, 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 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 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TRIAGE LLC: Anderson Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------ Lori Anderson, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. TRIAGE LLC d/b/a TRIAGE STAFFING, Case No. 8:25-cv-00498 (W.D. Neb., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought arising out of Triage's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff' and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in May 2025 to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information ("PII" or "the Private Information") of Plaintiffs and other individuals ("the Class"). This class action arises out of a 2025 data breach ("Data Breach") of documents and information stored on the computer network of Triage, a staffing company for medical professionals. The Defendant launched an investigation into the Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its system on May 1, 2025, and may have copied and exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff' and Class Members' Private Information. Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about May 13, 2025, and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach (the "Notice of Data Breach Letter") until July 7, 2025. As a result of Triage's Data Breach, Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with a customer of Triage. Triage is a staffing contractor for medical facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com TROPHY FISHING: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Devin Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TROPHY FISHING TACKLE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04437 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.tunafishtackle.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now 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, 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's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twist Bioscience Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Peters securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) ("Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California ("Court") against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the "Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws. The Securities Class Action's claims are based in large part on allegations made in a report issued on November 15, 2022 by Scorpion Capital ("Scorpion Report") concerning, among other things, the Company's DNA chip technology and accounting practices. The initial complaint filed in the Securities Class Action alleges that various statements that the defendants made between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 were materially false and misleading in light of the allegations in the Scorpion Report. The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 and sought damages as well as certain other costs. On July 28, 2023, the Court appointed a new plaintiff, not the original plaintiff who filed the case, as lead plaintiff in the case and appointed a new law firm as lead counsel. On October 11, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between December 20, 2018 and November 15, 2022. The amended complaint alleges that certain statements regarding, among other things, the Company's DNA products and accounting practices were false and misleading. This case remains in the preliminary stage. Given the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the legal standards that must be met, including class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot express an opinion on the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or on the amount or range of any potential loss. The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims asserted against them and filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 6, 2023. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on November 13, 2024 and the Company is now awaiting the judge's decision. Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform. US CRAFT: Evans Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance of ADA --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US Craft Brands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09314 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website. These access barriers prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. As a result, the Plaintiff and blind customers cannot make purchases or inquiries as to Defendant's merchandise, nor can they enter their personal identification and financial information with confidence and security. Headquartered in Arvada, CO, US Craft Brands, LLC owns and operates the website, https://pinsandaces.com, which offers golf clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law WEISS MEMORIAL: Underpays Patient Service Reps, Cano Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA CANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESILIENCE HEALTHCARE - WEISS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, LLC; RESILIENCE HEALTHCARE - LAKEFRONT MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLC; and RESILIENCE HEALTHCARE - WEISS MEDICAL SPECIALISTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09326 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 2025), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Patient Service Representative from approximately April 2021 to the present. Throughout her employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and was not paid for all hours worked in such weeks because her department manager manually edited her recorded clock-out times to reduce her total reported hours to 40 or less, in violation of the FLSA and applicable state law. Resilience Healthcare - Weiss Memorial Hospital, LLC provides healthcare services in Chicago, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com WOOD RIVER: Gentile Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS GENTILE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOOD RIVER HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00376 (D.R.I., August 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personal health information and personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former patients of Defendant. Between August 8, 2024, and September 6, 2024, the hackers obtained PII and PHI belonging to Defendant's patients, including full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, patient account numbers, medical record numbers, electronic/digital signatures, employee identification numbers, health insurance information. However, the Defendant failed to timely and adequately notify Class Members about the data breach's occurrence and scope of the data breach. Moreover, the Defendant breached its duties, pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, and other applicable standards, and thus was negligent, by failing to use reasonable measures to protect Class Members' PII and PHI. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Hope Valley, RI, Wood River Health Services, Inc. is a full-service medical, dental, and behavioral health care facility. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kensley R. Barrett, Esq. MARIN BARRETT & MURPHY 1000 Chapel View Boulevard, Suite 260 Cranston, RI 02920 Telephone: (401) 228-8271 E-mail: kb@marinbarrettmurphy.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Datanyze Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Datanyze LLC Prevention of Telemarkting Fraud Act class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. on June 26, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Datanyze LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that Datanyze LLC violated the State of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act, on substantially the same grounds as the action filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC referred to above. The suit seeks statutory damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Datanyze LLC intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo is an American software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Personality Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Washington Personality Rights Act class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On September 5, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging ZoomInfo Technologies LLC's use of individuals' names in public-facing web pages violates the Washington Personality Rights Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo is an American software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Quebec Civil Code Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Quebec Civil Code class suit in the Superior Court of Quebec. On March 17, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., ZoomInfo Technologies LLC, and ZoomInfo Canada Corp. in the Superior Court of Quebec, alleging that the Company's collection and publication of personal information violated the Quebec Civil Code, Quebec's statute regarding the protection of personal information in the private sector (LPRPSP), and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The plaintiffs seek statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and legal fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo is an American software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Telemarketing Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act class suit in the Superior Court of the State of Washington. On April 16, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (Clark County), alleging that ZoomInfo Technologies LLC violated the State of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act by listing cell phone numbers of Colorado residents in the Company’s online directory for commercial purposes without obtaining their consent. The suit seeks statutory damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo is an American software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Reports $1.02BB Superfund Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., at June 30, 2025, accrued liabilities of US$937,000,000 for manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites and US$90,000,000 for Other Superfund sites for a total of US$1,027,000,000 in environmental liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Hazardous substances, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and coal tar, have been used or generated in the course of operations of the Utilities and their predecessors and are present at sites and in facilities and equipment they currently or previously owned, including sites at which gas was manufactured or stored. "The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and similar state statutes (Superfund) impose joint and several liability, regardless of fault, upon generators of hazardous substances for investigation and remediation costs (which include costs of demolition, removal, disposal, storage, replacement, containment and monitoring) and natural resource damages. Liability under these laws can be material and may be imposed for contamination from past acts, even though such past acts may have been lawful at the time they occurred. The sites at which the Utilities have been asserted to have liability under these laws, including their manufactured gas plant sites and any neighboring areas to which contamination may have migrated, are referred to herein as "Superfund Sites." "For Superfund Sites where there are other potentially responsible parties and the Utilities are not managing the site investigation and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of the amount the Utilities will need to pay to investigate and, where determinable, discharge their related obligations. For Superfund Sites (including the manufactured gas plant sites) for which one of the Utilities is managing the investigation and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of the company's share of the undiscounted cost to investigate the sites and, for sites that have been investigated in whole or in part, the cost to remediate the sites, if remediation is necessary and if a reasonable estimate of such cost can be made. Remediation costs are estimated in light of the information available, applicable remediation standards and experience with similar sites." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xEdyVI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EKqhQB ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Has 14,820 Unresolved Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ESAB Corporation has reported 14,820 and 14,718 unresolved claims for six months ended July 4, 2025 and June 28, 2024, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ESAB Corp. states, "Certain entities are the legal obligor, or owner, for certain asbestos obligations including long-term asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos obligations of the Company's legacy industrial businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. "These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries, nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries’ customers, including the U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant has fluctuated during the past several years while the number of cases has remained substantially even versus prior year. The Company expects such settlement value fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment to plaintiffs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kYXB7l ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Has $0.3MM Loss Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ Fundamental Global Inc., as of June 30, 2025, has a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million, which represent its estimate of the potential losses related to the settlement of various open proceedings and claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Fundamental Global states, "One of the Company's subsidiaries is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition us. In our experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. On July 16, 2024, one of the Company's subsidiaries received notice that it was named as a defendant, along with over 500 other companies, in a civil action filed for cost recovery and contributions related to the release and/or threatened release of hazardous substances from a facility known as the BKK Class 1 Landfill in Los Angeles County California from periods prior to 1987. The action alleges that FG Group LLC is a successor to Pichel Industries, Inc. ("Pichel Industries") and that Pichel Industries contributed waste to the landfill. Management is in the early stages of evaluating the claim and determining the Company's response. "One of the Company's subsidiaries is named as a guarantor of the obligations of an entity that was previously sold. The Company has been notified that the primary obligor did not meet the obligations for which it is liable, and the third party has requested that the obligations be satisfied on behalf of the buyer under the guaranty. Management is evaluating any potential obligation and determining the Company's response. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=33ljPU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 32,860 Pending Claims at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by them or present in certain of their facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At June 30, 2025, there were approximately 32,860 asbestos claims pending against us. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief. "To date, we have disposed of approximately 164,100 claims by defending, obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately $597 million through June 30, 2025 and $589 million through December 31, 2024." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sapkvQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $99MM Liability as of June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies it previously acquired, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. International Paper states, "The Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $99 million and $100 million net of insurance recoveries as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QVI4qz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $67MM Asbestos Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc, as of June 30, 2025, has net asbestos-related liabilities of $67 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TcIvPp ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,337 Personal Injury Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc., for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, has received approximately 1,337 and 1,556 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JbUBPT ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 451 Exposure Lawsuits at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ MRC Global Inc., as of June 30, 2025, was named a defendant in approximately 451 lawsuits involving approximately 1,016 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc. subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements is remote." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r2nCiQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 110 Product Liability Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in 110 cases asserting claims on behalf of 152 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that generally relates to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3dZb5q ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 205 Product Liability Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the presence of asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Perrigo Co. states, "As of June 28, 2025, the Company has been named in approximately 205 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has several defenses and continues to vigorously defend these lawsuits as well as explore various means of expeditiously resolving these claims. Trials for these cases are currently scheduled throughout 2025 and 2026. There are currently over 70 trials set for these cases in the remainder of 2025. We expect that a substantial majority of these trial dates will be postponed. Two cases are currently set for trial in Alameda County, California in September 2025. It is expected that trials for these two cases begin in September or October 2025." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q09jXy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Product Liability Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rockwell Automation, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of its products many years ago, including products from divested businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We defend those cases vigorously. However, certain of our agreements relating to divested businesses do not provide us the ability to directly control management of those asbestos claims, and our ongoing reimbursement of outside counsel and other expenses relating to defense of such claims represent the vast majority of our annual asbestos net litigation spend. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of asbestos claims with no payment to claimants. "Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims for many years into the future. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLaqO3 ********* 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 ***