250825.mbx

250825.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 25, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 169 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Church Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Dozier Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Drayton Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Edwards Files Suit in D. South Carolina 82 LABS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Evans Alleges AETNA LIFE: Agrees to Settle Proton Beam Therapy Suit for $3.42MM AIR CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Strike-Related Cancelled Flights ALEMBIKA USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Claims AMERICAN WOODMARK: M&A Investigates Sale to MasterBrand Inc APEX LUGGAGE: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ARCHERY TRADE: Swails Sues Over Archery Product Price Fixing BAILLIE LUMBER: King Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info BAPTIST HEALTH: Kostantinidis Alleges Inadequate Data Security BOWTECH INC: Langley Balks at Price Fixing of Archery Products CARSON CITY, NV: Court Tosses Pearson Suit Over Medical Research CENTRAL GARDEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Oct 14 COMMONWEALTH BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach CPAP MEDICAL: Abington Cole Investigates Alleged Data Breach DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Woods Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation DCI DONOR: $175K Class Settlement in Wells Suit Has Final Approval DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Limits Barnes' Class Counsel to One DRY CREEK: Baldwin Sues Over Failure to Remove Physical Barriers DYSON DIRECT: Deprives Consumers of Express Warranties, Suit Says EXICURE INC: Settlement in Colwell Securities Suit Gets Final Nod EYM CHICKEN: English Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Bid FANATICS INC: Faces Suit Over Pro Sports Trading Cards' Monopoly FCA US: Kendrick Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Unlawfully Delays Fund Transfer, Vaccaro Says FLOWERS BAKERIES: Faces Class Suit Over Artificial Preservatives FRESHREALM INC: Thompson Balks at Contaminated Food Products FRITO-LAY NORTH: Eavesdrops Users' Private Web Info, Brown Says G5 KUYKENDAHL: Segovia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers GIORGIO ARMANI: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Reset to Sept. 15 GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks Prelim OK of $12.5MM Settlement Deal GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Taylor Suit GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Allows Opt-In Plaintiffs to Remain GRAND ISLE: Bid to Certify Class Action Denied w/o Prejudice HBH CALIFORNIA: Filing for Class Cert. in Garcia Due Nov. 1, 2026 HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend DeSimone Labor Class Suit HOLISTIC CHOICE: Wiedinmyer Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Acts HUMANA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Use of AI Denying Post-Acute Care HUNTER WARFIELD: Blizzard Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes I3 VERTICALS: Continues to Defend PaySchool Suit ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response IN-SHAPE FAMILY FITNESS: Yost Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INSPIRA MEDICAL: Oatman Seeks Notice Issuance to FLSA Collective IPREH LLC: Burton Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal JJF MANAGEMENT: Faces Escobar Over ESOP Inflated Purchase Prices JPMORGAN CHASE: N.D. Iowa Dismisses Behrens Suit Over PFG Fraud KAMA RESTAURANTS: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE: Fine Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri KENDALLGATE CENTER: Pardo Balks at Disabled-Inaccessible Property KINDERCARE LEARNING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 14 KITCHEN KAPERS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Claims L.O.D.C. INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LANDHOMESTX PLLC: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LIDESLAMBOUS INC: Has Until Sept. 9 to File Class Cert Response LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed LINDA SOUTHERN: Wennerstein's IFP Status Revoked; Suit Dismissed LIVUNLTD LLC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Rivera MANSFIELD HOTEL: Tanner Sues to Recover Compensation MAO-MSO RECOVERY: Court Upholds Medicare Assignment Agreements MARTIN ZAKARIAN: Arnold Bid for Leave to Seal Document Tossed MICHAELS STORES: Bid for Evidentiary Class Cert. Hearing Tossed MORGAN STANLEY: McKinney Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stillwell Says NATERA INC: Settlement Deal in Davis Suit Gets Initial Nod NAVIENT CORP: Class Cert Fact Discovery in Ballard Due Sept. 15 NEOGEN CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 16 NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS: Settlement in Jackson Get Final Nod NEW YORK: Burns Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NEWMARK GROUP: Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Delaware NEXT SOLUTIONS: Initial Briefing in Lee Class Suit Due Sept. 30 NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Buchanan Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois NOUVEAU ESSENTIALS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 14, 2026 ORTLIEB USA: Lopez Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OTTER.AI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unconsented Recordings OXY USA: Rider Appeals Tossed Class Certification Bid to 10th Cir. PACCAR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in 10th Gear Due July 13, 2026 PAPA JOHN'S: Settlement Deal in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod PEARCE-WENTZVILLE LLC: McCauley Sues Over Physical Barriers PERFECT MOVING: Vorburger Class Suit Assigned to Magistrate Judge PIONEER BANCORP: "O'Malley's" Suit Remains Stayed PMI WW BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PREMIUM MERCHANT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2026 QUAKER OATS: Class Settlement in Kessler Suit Gets Final Nod RECOVER-CARE: Vasquez Seeks Final Collective Action Certification REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Class Settlement in Berry Gets Initial Nod ROBERT LUNA: Bid for Renewed Certification Denied w/o Prejudice ROCKFISH SEAFOOD: Manzanares Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages RUGSUSA LLC: Parties in Hong Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadline RXO LAST: Seeks to Vacate Jan. 26, 2023 Class Cert Order RXSIGHT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 22 SELECTQUOTE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 10 SHOE SHOW: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Harris Suit SIKA CORPORATION: Technical Service Reps in Cook Get Class Status SMTC MANUFACTURING: Nguyen Suit Remanded to Alameda Super. Ct. SOUTHERN TIRE MART: Stephenson Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Due March 6, 2026 SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sep 24 ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Miller Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert Tossed STATE FARM: Court Reopens Muhammad Class Action SWN PRODUCTION: Appeals Court Order in Starcher Suit to 4th Circuit SYRACUSE HAULERS: Sims Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation TEA DATING: Fails to Properly Secure Private Info, Tucker Says TEA DATING: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info THERMO FISHER: Appeals Arbitration Order in Rickes Suit to 9th Cir. TITAN SECURITY: Rogers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TTE TECHNOLOGY: TVs Do Not Contain QLED Technology, Mitchell Says UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Elkhodari Suit Over Stock Price Drop UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Window Seats' False Ads UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Injunction vs. Citizenship Order UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Evangelista Prisoner Suit UNITED STATES: Marks Challenges Constitutionality of E.O. 14321 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Settlement Deal in MAC Suit Gets Court OK UROTUNING LLC: Faces Enriquez Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages USA DEBUSK: Class Cert Filing in Alexander Due July 2, 2026 VECTOR SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fabian Suit Says VECTOR SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Handza Says VISTRA CORP: 7th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Pricing Suit VULCAN MATERIALS: Tejeda Labor Suit Seeks Class Certification W. L. GORE: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Waterproofing Membrane WHOOP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Mortgage Fair Lending Suit WISTIA INC: Discloses Viewing Info to Third Parties, Suit Alleges WYNN RESORTS: Hotel Price-Fixing Class Action Suit Dismissed XOOM ENERGY: Mirkin Class Suit Trial Still Not Set XPONENTIAL FITNESS: "McGill" Settlement Remains Pending XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Nov. 14 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ********* 3M COMPANY: Church Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Victor Alan Church, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; 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-10403-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: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1634 Fax: (512) 727-3432 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Dozier Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Nicole Allynn Dozier, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; 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-10331-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: Michael Hochman, Esq. THE HOCHMAN LAW FIRM PLLC 5313 McPherson Road Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Email: mike@theclaimbridge.com 3M COMPANY: Drayton Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Dexter Covan Drayton, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; 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-10324-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: Michael Hochman, Esq. THE HOCHMAN LAW FIRM PLLC 5313 McPherson Road Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Email: mike@theclaimbridge.com 3M COMPANY: Edwards Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Donna Marie Edwards, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; 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-10413-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: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1634 Fax: (512) 727-3432 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 82 LABS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Evans Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 82 Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09829 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.morelabs.com, the suit contends. Accordingly, morelabs.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, the Defendant excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Morelabs.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by 82 Labs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law AETNA LIFE: Agrees to Settle Proton Beam Therapy Suit for $3.42MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Aetna agreed to a $3.42 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it wrongfully denied proton beam therapy (PBT) claims for prostate cancer treatment. The Aetna proton beam therapy class action settlement benefits members, participants and beneficiaries of employee welfare benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and administered or insured by Aetna. Eligible individuals must have been diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, submitted a precertification request for proton beam therapy prior to the date of service and received a precertification denial between Jan. 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024, citing "experimental," "investigational," "unproven," "superior," "superiority" and/or "more effective" as the basis for the denial. The Aetna settlement also benefits Aetna plan members who had an initially approved precertification request for PBT, received PBT for the same diagnosis code with no allowed post-service PBT benefit claims and received a denial for a post-service claim between Jan. 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024, that cites "experimental," "investigational," "unproven," "superior," "superiority" and/or "more effective" as the basis for the denial. According to the proton beam therapy lawsuit, Aetna denied precertification requests and post-service benefit claims for proton beam therapy to treat localized prostate cancer. The plaintiff in the case argued that Aetna's denials violated the ERISA. Aetna is a health insurance company that offers a variety of plans to individuals, families and employers. Aetna has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.42 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Aetna settlement, class members can receive a flat payment of $12,000. Class members who submit proof of payment and/or proof of indebtedness for proton beam therapy treatment can receive up to $48,000. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 3, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Aetna settlement is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 3, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and who were members, participants and beneficiaries of ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plans administered or insured by Aetna between Jan. 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024, who: -- Submitted a precertification request for proton beam therapy prior to the date of service and received a precertification denial for the administration of PBT between Jan. 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024. -- Submitted a PBT precertification request prior to the date of service that was initially approved and received a denial between Jan. 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024, for post-service claims for the delivery of PBT. Potential Award Up to $48,000 Proof of Purchase Proof of payment and/or proof of indebtedness for PBT treatment. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/03/2025 Case Name Prolow, et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., Case No. 9:20-cv-80545, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Final Hearing 11/18/2025 Settlement Website AetnaPBTSettlement.com Claims Administrator Lemmerman v. Aetna Life Insurance Company c/o Atticus Administration P.O. Box 64053 Saint Paul, MN 55164 AetnaPBTSettlement@atticusadmin.com (800) 757-8121 Class Counsel Stephanie A. Casey COLSON HICKS EIDSON P.A. Maria D. Garcia Robert Neary KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP Defense Counsel Ardith Bronson Brian Benjet DLA PIPER LLP Mark C. Nielsen Paul J. Rinefierd GROOM LAW GROUP CHARTERED [GN] AIR CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Strike-Related Cancelled Flights ------------------------------------------------------------------ Isabelle Docto of Daily Hive reports that Canadians who have been affected by preemptive Air Canada strike cancellations could be part of a new class-action lawsuit. Law firm LPC Avocat Inc. applied to authorize a class-action lawsuit against Air Canada on behalf of a Canadian traveller who was impacted by the strike-related cancelled flights. The proposed class action, which was filed in the Quebec Superior Court, claims the airline "misled their customers and provided them with inaccurate information in order to convince them to accept a refund (which was given in the form of a credit towards future travel), instead of informing them of their legal obligations and rights under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR)," and other passenger rights laws. According to the filing, the applicant bought a ticket from Montreal to Grenada for $440.95. It was scheduled to depart on Aug. 17 at 6 a.m. and arrive at 2:40 p.m. The carrier issued a 72-hour lockout notice on Wednesday, Aug. 13, notifying customers that it would begin cancelling Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge flights on Thursday and Friday, with a complete halt on Saturday in anticipation of the flight attendants' strike. The plaintiff was notified about her cancelled flight on Saturday, Aug. 16, at 8:32 a.m. via email. "We're searching for rebooking options on more than 120 carriers for up to three days after your cancelled flight," reads the Air Canada email, obtained by the law firm. "This may take some time. If you don't want to wait and you prefer to search options yourself or cancel your booking to receive a refund, please use the button below." LPC Avocat Inc. argues that the email "contains false and misleading information." "[It] induces class members in error as it implies that Air Canada is allowed to book people 'up to three days after your cancelled flight' which is contrary to the law," reads the court filing. The law firm states that the email also fails to mention that when the delay or cancellation is outside of its control, the airline has a legal obligation to provide the passenger with a free rebooking on the next available flight operated by any carrier, on any reasonable air route from the airport where you're located, or another airport within a reasonable distance. The flight must leave within 48 hours of the original departure time on the original ticket, according to the APPR. LPC Avocat Inc. added that the airline also omitted to inform customers that, if it can't book the passenger on the next available flight within 48 hours of the original ticket's departure time, it would need to refund any unused portion of the ticket, or provide free alternative travel arrangements (including rebooking them on the next available flight operated by any carrier), depending on the traveller's choice. After several hours of no communication from Air Canada, the applicant booked a new flight directly with American Airlines on Aug. 16 at 10:27 a.m. Shortly after, she received an email from Air Canada saying it rebooked her via Caribbean Airlines, leaving on Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2025, at 8 p.m., with multiple stopovers and arriving in Grenada on Thursday, Aug. 21, at 8:10 a.m. Based on the plaintiff's situation, the filing argues that Air Canada contradicted the APPR by rebooking the applicant on a flight that was 86 hours after her cancelled flight, instead of 48 hours. It also stresses that the carrier "failed in its legal obligation pursuant to subsection 18(1.1)(a) APPR to reserve the Applicant a ticket on 'the next available flight that is operated by any carrier.' Indeed, there were flights available with other Airlines on Aug. 17, 18 and 19, 2025." Who is part of the proposed Air Canada strike cancellations class action? The proposed class members include any person around the world whose travel plans since Aug. 14, 2025, were affected by the Air Canada strike and were not provided a reservation for the "next available flight" or "alternate travel arrangements" as required by law. The law firm says the class action is seeking reimbursements for Air Canada passengers who had to rebook their flights, as well as compensatory damages in amounts to be determined. [GN] ALEMBIKA USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Alembika USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09830 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through https://alembika.com, the suit contends. Accordingly, Alembika.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Alembika USA excludes the blind and visually impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Alembika' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Alembika.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Alembika USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law AMERICAN WOODMARK: M&A Investigates Sale to MasterBrand Inc ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- American Woodmark Corporation (NASDAQ: AMWD) related to its sale to MasterBrand, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, each share of American common stock will be exchanged for 5.150 shares of MasterBrand common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-woodmark-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Aris Water Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ARIS) related to its sale to Western Midstream Partners LP. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Aris shareholders will receive either 0.625 common units of Western for each Aris share or $25.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aris-water-solutions-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- International Money Express, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMXI) related to its sale to The Western Union Company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, International shareholders will receive $16.00 in cash per International share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/international-money-express-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) related to its sale to Alcon Research LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, STAAR shareholders will receive $28.00 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/staar-surgical-company/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] APEX LUGGAGE: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX LUGGAGE STORE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06546 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.apexluggagenyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 1, 2024, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services, asserts the complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a new trolley bag for future trips. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Apex Luggage Store, Inc. operates the website that offers luggage and travel accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ARCHERY TRADE: Swails Sues Over Archery Product Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ TYLER SWAILS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; and PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03146 (D. Minn., August 7, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy to fix the prices of archery products in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Beginning no later than January 1, 2014, the Defendants conspired, colluded, and entered into an agreement to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of Archery Products at supracompetitive levels, asserts the complaint. The Defendants' actions resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supracompetitive prices for Archery Products in the United States and its territories. The manufacturers and retailers used Archery Trade Association, Inc. to "police" the conspiracy that is, to confirm that conspirators are following the Minimum Advertised Price. The ATA encouraged the other conspirators to adhere to the conspiracy while assuring those Defendants that the others were doing the same. The Manufacturer and Retailer Defendants, through the ATA, also suppressed competition and monitored adherence to the conspiracy by regularly and continuously exchanging competitively sensitive information, says the suit. The Defendants' conspiracy injured persons and entities that purchased Archery Products directly from the Manufacturer Defendants or their co-conspirators, including Plaintiff, the complaint says. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class Members, seeks to recover the overcharges they paid for Archery Products during the Class period. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION is the trade group representing manufacturers, retailers, distributors, sales representatives and others working in the archery and bowhunting industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD South 8th Street, Suite 90 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com BAILLIE LUMBER: King Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- KODY KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAILLIE LUMBER CO., L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00736 (W.D.N.Y., August 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information including names and Social Security numbers. From February 6 to February 12, 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential private information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached their duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their private information it collected and maintained, including failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal private information from Defendant's care. To recover from Defendant for these harms, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information in its care, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who was required to provide his private information to Defendant as a condition of employment. Baillie Lumber Co., L.P. is a hardwood lumber manufacturer with a principal place of business in Hamburg, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 24 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com BAPTIST HEALTH: Kostantinidis Alleges Inadequate Data Security -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW KOSTANTINIDIS, JESSICA KOSTANTINIDIS, M.K., A.K., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., and CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00619-BP (W.D. Mo., August 8, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendants responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiffs and over tens of thousands of others due to Defendants' egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. On March 7, 2025, Defendant Baptist Health learned that an unauthorized third party gained access to and stole data maintained by Baptist Health's vendor, Defendant Oracle. According to Oracle, the unauthorized third party accessed personal identifying information and protected health information on Oracle's systems at least as early as January 22, 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these injuries on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was exposed and compromised in the data breach. The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory/injunctive relief. Baptist Health is a corporation that operates urgent care centers, diagnostic imaging centers, surgery centers, and other outpatient facilities throughout South Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Matthew French, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: mfrench@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com BOWTECH INC: Langley Balks at Price Fixing of Archery Products -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN LANGLEY AND MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOWTECH INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS, INC d/b/a JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; and ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03190 (D. Minn., August 8, 2025) is a suit against the Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix the prices of Archery Products sold throughout the United States in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, concerned about price competition within the industry which was driving prices down and impacting profit margins for manufacturers and retailers, the Defendants acted collectively to implement and vigorously enforce minimum advertised price policies throughout the industry. The lynchpin of Defendants' conspiracy was the Archery Trade Association, Inc., who, through its power and influence in the industry, as well as its purportedly third-party status, encouraged the Manufacturer and Retailer Defendants to adopt MAP policies while assuring those Defendants that the others were doing the same. In order to further the anticompetitive aims of the conspiracy, the Defendants also engaged in a continuous and multi-faceted exchange of competitively sensitive information, which further suppressed price competition and permitted Defendants to monitor each other's adherence to the conspiracy. Moreover, ATA created myriad opportunities for Defendants to meet in person and exchange sensitive information, including the annual ATA trade show -- where in fact Defendants did meet to discuss the conspiracy, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Archery Products that were manufactured by Defendant Matthews Archery, Inc., and sold by a retailer co-conspirator. The Archery Products that Mr. Langley purchased were sold at artificially inflated prices due to the conduct by Defendants as alleged herein. BowTech Inc. is a provider of bows, arrows, and accessories with primary place of business in Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. Zachary J. Freese, Esq. Giselle M. Webber, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com zachary.freese@zimmreed.com giselle.webbber@zimmreed.com CARSON CITY, NV: Court Tosses Pearson Suit Over Medical Research ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Andy Donald Pearson and Nathan S. Chavez, Plaintiffs v. Carson City Sheriff's Department/Jail, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00363-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismisses the class action complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court found that pro se Plaintiffs Andy Donald Pearson and Nathan S. Chavez, who are incarcerated at the Carson City Jail, submitted a class action civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff neither filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the full $405 filing fee for a civil action. Plaintiffs sought class action certification on behalf of themselves and all inmates in Nevada and California jails and prisons who have been tracked without consent in an illegal human medical experimentation research study known as the T.B.I. Clinical Study. The Court determined that Plaintiffs were attempting to represent numerous inmates, which they cannot do. The Court noted that pro se litigants have the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654. However, pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves, citing Cato v. United States and C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request to certify the class. The Court dismissed the Class Action Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs may each pursue their own respective claims in their own lawsuits. The Court ordered that if Plaintiffs wish to pursue their own respective claims, they may each file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action and each submit a new complaint to the Clerk of the Court that only references allegations pertaining to themselves. The Court further ordered that the Clerk of the Court send Plaintiffs copies of: (1) the Class Action Complaint; (2) the approved form for filing a Section 1983 complaint with instructions; and (3) an application to proceed in forma pauperis for an inmate with instructions. The Court ordered that the Clerk of the Court close the case and enter judgment accordingly. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qzrXIk CENTRAL GARDEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Central Garden & Pet Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-09812 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through https://ferrymorse.com, the suit contends. Accordingly, ferrymorse.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, the Defendant excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Ferrymorse.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Central Garden & Pet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Oct 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTR) securities, including purchasers of call options or sellers of put options between July 26, 2024 and July 24, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 14, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Charter Communications class action lawsuit. Captioned Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 25-cv-06747 (S.D.N.Y.), the Charter Communications class action lawsuit charges Charter Communications and certain of Charter Communications' top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Charter Communications class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-charter-communications-inc-class-action-lawsuit-chtr.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Charter Communications operates as a broadband connectivity and cable operator company serving residential and commercial customers. The Charter Communications class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the impact of the Federal Communications Commission's Affordable Connectivity Program ("ACP") end was a material event Charter Communications was unable to manage or promptly move beyond; (ii) the ACP end was actually having a sustaining impact on Internet customer declines and revenue; (iii) neither was Charter Communications executing broader operations in a way that would compensate for, or overcome the impact, of the ACP ending; (iv) the Internet customer declines and broader failure of Charter Communications' execution strategy created much greater risks on business plans and earnings growth than reported; and (v) accordingly, Charter Communications had no reasonable basis to state it was successfully executing operations, managing causes of Internet customer declines, or providing overly optimistic statements about the long term trajectory of Charter Communications and EBITDA growth. The Charter Communications class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 25, 2025, Charter Communications announced second quarter 2025 financial results, reporting EBITDA of $5.7 billion, which suggested 0.5% growth, and a decrease in Internet customers of 117,000, which included the impact of approximately 50,000 disconnects related to the end of the ACP in the second quarter of 2024. On this news, the price of Charter Communications' stock fell more than 18%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Charter Communications securities, including purchasers of call options or sellers of put options during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Charter Communications class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Charter Communications class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Charter Communications class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Charter Communications class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] COMMONWEALTH BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ ClassAction.org attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Commonwealth Business Bank data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Commonwealth Business Bank Security Incident: What Happened? Commonwealth Business Bank (CBB) recently experienced a data breach when unauthorized actors gained access to the bank's systems between January 25 and February 8, 2025. The Los Angeles-based commercial bank, which serves mid-sized businesses across California, Texas and Hawaii, discovered the suspicious activity on February 6, 2025. The bank launched an investigation and began notifying affected individuals by mail on August 13, 2025. According to a data breach notice provided to the Texas Attorney General's Office, the Commonwealth Business Bank data breach exposed names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license and government-issued ID numbers, financial information, and birthdates. A report from the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation specifies that financial accounts and credit/debit card numbers were exposed in the CBB data breach. What You Can Do After the Commonwealth Business Bank Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Commonwealth Business Bank to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. [GN] CPAP MEDICAL: Abington Cole Investigates Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Abington Cole + Ellery is investigating the data breach recently announced by CPAP Medical Supplies and Services. CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Data Breach Summary: Approximately 90,000 individuals were affected by the CPAP Medical Supplies and Services data breach, and breached data may include, but is not necessarily limited to: personal information and/or protected health information. On June 27, 2025, CPAP Medical Supplies and Services identified a data breach within its network environment. An unauthorized individual reportedly accessed certain systems between December 13, 2024, and December 21, 2024. Upon discovery, CPAP Medical Supplies and Services says it took immediate steps to contain the threat and secure its internal systems. The organization reportedly initiated a comprehensive investigation, collaborating with external cybersecurity experts to assess whether personal or sensitive data had been compromised. Through a detailed forensic analysis and manual document review, CPAP Medical Supplies and Services determined that the affected systems contained personal information and/or protected health information belonging to some individuals. As a result of the data breach, CPAP Medical Supplies and Services is offering free credit monitoring and/or identity theft protection services to some affected individuals. Additional information about the CPAP Medical Supplies and Services data breach may be found here: CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Data Breach Notification. The CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Website may also have additional information about or provide periodic updates regarding the data breach. [GN] DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Woods Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- INFINITI WOODS, individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02772-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., August 4, 2025) seeks to recover the applicable Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees who are currently or previously employed by Defendant. Plaintiff worked as a tipped employee at Defendant's Longhorn Steakhouse restaurant in Bartlett, Tennessee. According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a common plan, policy and practice of compensating Plaintiff and other similarly situated restaurant employees under a tip-credit compensation plan, consisting of paying such employees only a sub-minimum hourly rate of pay and then crediting tips received by such employees during their shifts which, when added to the sub-minimum pay, would amount to at least the FLSA required hourly rate of pay of $7.25 per hour. The Defendant also has a common plan, policy, and practice of denying minimum wages and overtime compensation to its tipped employees at its Longhorn Steakhouse restaurants during all times material. Plaintiff Woods was unlawfully discharged from her employment with Defendant in retaliation for complaining to Defendant about being required to work "off the clock" for Defendant, added the suit. Darden Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates over 530 Longhorn Steakhouse Restaurants in Tennessee and in more than 40 other states across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com DCI DONOR: $175K Class Settlement in Wells Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Mariah Wells, Plaintiff v. DCI Donor Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action 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 final approval of the parties' class action settlement. The Court certified a settlement 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." Mariah Wells was appointed as class representative, with Jonathan Melmed and Hannah Becker of Melmed Law Group, P.C. serving as class counsel, and ILYM Group, Inc. as settlement administrator. According to the Settlement the parties agreed to a $175,000 gross settlement allocated as follows: (1) up to $52,500 for attorney's fees and $2,588.01 in litigation costs; (2) $5,000 class representative service award for plaintiff; (3) $4,850 for settlement administration costs; (4) $12,500 in civil penalties under the PAGA, with $9,375.00 paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; and (5) the remainder allocated to the net settlement fund. This left a net settlement amount of $97,561.99 for distribution to class members. The net settlement amount will be disbursed to class members on a pro rata basis based on the total number of pay periods worked during the class period. Based on current estimates, 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 settlement provides for a non-reversionary arrangement, with any uncashed checks distributed to the California State Controller for deposit in the Unclaimed Property Fund. The Court applied the Churchill factors to evaluate fairness, finding that consideration weighed in favor of approval. Regarding the strength of plaintiff's case, the Court noted that proceeding after settlement would have resulted in potential poor results for class members and difficulty establishing common Labor Code violations. Defendant maintained that it complied with California law, denied all liability, and argued its realistic exposure was effectively $0. The Court found that the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation favored approval, noting the hotly-contested nature of claims and uncertainties of continued litigation. There appeared to be risk that plaintiff would not maintain class action status through trial, as defendant denied the allegations were appropriate for class treatment beyond settlement purposes. The Settlement Administrator mailed class notice to 38 class members, with all estimated to have received actual notice. Four notice packets were returned without forwarding addresses, but none were deemed undeliverable. According to plaintiff, no class member objected to the settlement agreement, proposed service awards, or attorney fee request, and not one of the 38 class members chose to opt out. The Court found this absence of objections raised a strong presumption that the settlement terms were favorable to class members. The Court examined potential subtle signs of collusion recognized by the Ninth Circuit and found none present. First, class counsel was not seeking a disproportionate distribution, as the 30% attorney fee award was common in the Ninth Circuit. Second, there was no evidence of a clear sailing arrangement where defendant agreed not to contest attorney fees. Third, the parties did not arrange for unawarded fees to revert to defendants, as uncashed settlement checks would go to the California State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund. The Court approved class counsel's request for $52,500 in attorney's fees, representing 30% of the gross settlement fund. While higher than the 25% Ninth Circuit benchmark, the Court found this reasonable given the risks of litigation, defendant's denial of all claims, and counsel's skill in achieving settlement. Using a lodestar cross-check with adjusted hourly rates ($700 for the partner, $473 for the associate, and $200 for the paralegal), the Court calculated a multiplier of 3.33, supporting the requested award. Class counsel contends that these rates are supported by the Laffey Matrix. The Court also approved $2,588.01 in litigation costs and expenses, finding all charges reasonable and necessary. Additionally, the Court granted plaintiff Wells a $5,000 incentive award, noting she spent 23 to 28 hours participating in the case and provided comprehensive employment history and documentation to counsel. The Court applied a fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable standard to the PAGA portion, finding the $12,500 penalty payment reasonable. This represented 14% of the gross settlement amount, with $9,375.00 allocated to the LWDA and $3,125.00 to aggrieved employees. The Court noted the LWDA did not comment on the settlement after notification. The Court granted plaintiff's motion for final approval, awarded the requested attorney's fees, costs, and incentive payments, and directed the parties to effectuate all settlement terms. The action was dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the settlement agreement, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=knXBEk DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Limits Barnes' Class Counsel to One --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Makel Barnes, et al., Plaintiffs v. The District of Columbia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-RCL (D.D.C.), Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify the Appointment of Class Counsel. The plaintiffs are currently incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons facilities serving sentences for D.C. Code felony convictions. They alleged that defendants BOP and the District of Columbia have denied them special education services in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and the Due Process Clause. The Court certified the following class: "All District residents between the ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) who: (1) are incarcerated in the BOP as D.C. Code offenders and are currently entitled to receive special education and/or related services pursuant to the IDEA and its federal and local implementing regulations and District law; (2) are or were incarcerated in the BOP as D.C. Code offenders and were entitled to receive special education and/or related services pursuant to the IDEA and its federal and local implementing regulations and District law, but have since aged out of eligibility; or (3) will be incarcerated in the BOP as D.C. Code offenders and were entitled to receive special education and/or related services pursuant to the IDEA and its federal and local implementing regulations and District law, and do not, did not, or will not, receive special education and/or related services pursuant to the IDEA and its federal and local implementing regulations and District law while incarcerated in the BOP." Under the IDEA, states and the District of Columbia must provide a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities until their 21st birthday. District of Columbia regulations broaden eligibility for D.C. residents through the end of the school year in which a child turns 22. Federal regulations require State and local juvenile and adult correctional facilities to comply with the IDEA. Class Representatives Makel Barnes and Darius McNeal were committed to BOP custody for D.C. Code felonies at the ages of 19 and 18 years old, respectively. Prior to their incarceration, each was a student within the D.C. Public Schools system and was determined by DCPS to qualify for specialized instruction and behavioral support services. On February 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed administrative complaints alleging that the District and BOP were each denying them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) while incarcerated. They each sought extended IDEA eligibility, compensatory services, and a transfer to a D.C. correctional facility. The hearing officer provided much of the requested relief in determinations issued on December 15, 2023. Specifically, the officer granted the request for compensatory services but concluded that he lacked authority to extend IDEA eligibility or order a facility transfer. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit in March 2024 based on the hearing officer's denial of the latter relief. Plaintiffs moved for class certification in June 2024. In August 2024, the District and BOP filed separate motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. After full briefing, the Court denied the motions to dismiss with respect to alleged violations of Section 1412(a)(1)(A) of the IDEA and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and otherwise granted the motions. In the Court's analysis of the adequacy of proposed representation, the Court reviewed the pending applications for appointment of class counsel. School Justice Project (SJP) the Committee, and Nixon Peabody collectively applied for appointment as class counsel. The Court acknowledged that all three entities had invested heavily in pre-litigation research; had collectively filed the pleadings, then-pending motions, and related briefing; and had promised to allocate the financial resources necessary to pursue this litigation through its completion. The Court ultimately concluded that because SJP was counsel for plaintiffs in the Brown litigation cited approvingly by the hearing officer," that entity was the best applicant to sustain this action on behalf of all plaintiffs. The Court specified in the Memorandum Opinion that it would therefore appoint SJP as class counsel, though it did not specifically provide for such appointment in the accompanying order. According to the Court, on May 7, 2025, Barnes and McNeal moved for clarification of the Court's appointment of class counsel, contending that the Court did not formally appoint class counsel, either SJP or all three Plaintiff's counsel, in its Order certifying the class. They requested a further order from this Court appointing class counsel and clarifying that SJP, Nixon Peabody, and the Committee are appointed under Rule 23(g) as class counsel. The District opposed on May 21, 2025, and Barnes and McNeal replied on May 28, 2025. The Court determined that plaintiffs' motion was properly classified as a motion to reconsider because it seeks to alter or modify the result, rather than merely to grasp its meaning or scope in the face of an actual and material ambiguity. The Court noted that its Memorandum Opinion was crystal clear that only SJP would be appointed as class counsel, and plaintiffs asked the Court to amend not only the March 28 Order, but the Memorandum Opinion. The Court declined to reconsider the appointment of SJP as class counsel. Plaintiffs presented two grounds for reconsideration, but each argument was already presented to the Court in the briefing on class certification and addressed by the Court in its ruling. First, plaintiffs asserted that the three entities were not, and are not, competing to be class counsel. However, the Court was well aware of this fact, acknowledging that the three entities had collectively applied for appointment. The Court assessed that serving the best interests of the class called for giving final decision-making authority on strategic matters to the single entity with the critically relevant experience. Second, plaintiffs contended that the Court misapprehended Rule 23(g)(1) as only allowing the appointment of a single entity as class counsel. The Court explained that while it could have appointed co-counsel, it concluded that the qualifications of the SJP beat those of its proposed peers and having a single entity serve as class counsel allows for more expeditious decision-making on behalf of the class. The Court was persuaded that allowing the Committee and Nixon Peabody to assist SJP in this litigation, albeit not as co-counsel, would substantially benefit the interests of the class. Therefore, the motion was granted in part to the extent it seeks an order formally appointing SJP as class counsel and permitting the Committee and Nixon Peabody to assist class counsel, and denied in part insofar as it seeks appointment of the Committee and Nixon Peabody as class co-counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bvFKVo from pacermonitor.com DRY CREEK: Baldwin Sues Over Failure to Remove Physical Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Baldwin, on behalf of others similarly situated v. DRY CREEK INTERESTS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02476 (D. Colo., 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 once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Taku Sushi, to be a new customer of the Dollar Tree and Chinese Restaurant, 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. DRY CREEK INTERESTS, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Colorado 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 DYSON DIRECT: Deprives Consumers of Express Warranties, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Dyson Direct Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims Dyson violates California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Where: The Dyson warranty class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Dyson violates California law by starting its express warranties on the date of purchase rather than the date of delivery. Plaintiff Nancy Ellen Tevis claims Dyson's warranty policy violates California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which she argues explicitly requires that a manufacturer, distributor or retail seller not make an express warranty that commences earlier than the date of delivery of the purchase. "Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA," the Dyson warranty class action lawsuit says. Tevis wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased one or more Dyson products between July 1, 2023, and the date of class certification whose products were delivered to them after the date of purchase. Dyson policy deprives consumers of full value of warranty, class action alleges Tevis argues Dyson's warranty policy deprives consumers of the full value of their warranty and that the company benefits from fewer warranty claims. "Furthermore, Defendant unfairly benefit by saving themselves the added time and expense that would be required to properly track and administer their warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery," the Dyson warranty class action lawsuit says. Had the plaintiff known the warranty practices did not comply with the law, she would either not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, the Dyson warranty class action lawsuit says. Tevis claims Dyson is guilty of violating California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and punitive damages for herself and all class members. Other lawsuits accusing companies of short-changing customers on warranty start dates include a LG Electronics class action and a Shark Ninja class action, both filed in California. The plaintiff is represented by Ryan McBride and Jonathan Gil of Kazerouni Law Group APC and Adib Assassi and Veronica Cruz of Assassi & Cruz Law Firm PC. The Dyson warranty class action lawsuit is Nancy Ellen Tevis, et al. v. Dyson Direct Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00821, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] EXICURE INC: Settlement in Colwell Securities Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Exicure, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned "Mark Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., has received final court approval. The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were defendants in Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:21-cv-06637). On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint generally alleging that the defendants made false statements about the results of experiments concerning the drug XCUR-FXN and asserting claims for violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On October 8, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the Securities Class Action and set a schedule for final approval proceedings, including a final approval hearing on January 13, 2025. On January 13, 2025, the court entered final judgment approving a settlement of this litigation, which settlement included a $5,625,000 payment. The settlement will be fully covered by insurance. However, the settlement includes a reservation of rights by the insurers against the Company for the unsatisfied portion of its self-insured retainer. As a result, the Company recorded an accrual as of September 30, 2024 for the amount of the unsatisfied retainer of approximately $1,100 needed to bridge the $2,500 retainer that the Company is liable for under its self-insured retention. On July 29, 2025, the Company entered into an agreement with the insurer to remit $1,000 in order to satisfy the remaining balance of its self-insured retention obligation. EYM CHICKEN: English Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COSHIRA ENGLISH, DAWN WASHINGTON, OTIS CHILDS, and LATESSA LEROGAN-WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v. EYM CHICKEN OF ILLINOIS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03202-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting them leave to file a motion for class certification, and (2) denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss or in the alternative stay action and compel arbitration, The Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, asserting claims arising under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). On Sept. 30, 2022, this case was removed to this Court by Defendant. On Feb. 11, 2025, this Court found that a factual dispute existed regarding whether Plaintiffs signed the purported arbitration agreements and ordered an evidentiary hearing. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of: "Defendant's employees who scanned their fingerprints using the Defendant's biometric timeclock system without first receiving written notice in violation of section 15(b), without being provided access to a publicly available policy on data retention and destruction in violation of section 15(a), and whose biometric information was disclosed to third-party vendors without prior consent in violation of section 15(d)." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pkoNOZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Fullett, Esq. Max P. Barack, Esq. THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60622 Telephone: (312) 736-7991 E-mail: andrew@garfinkelgroup.com max@garfinkelgroup.com FANATICS INC: Faces Suit Over Pro Sports Trading Cards' Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN AULD, DANIEL ENRIQUEZ, RYAN MEUSE, AND EDGAR NAVA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FANATICS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:25-cv-06825 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons and entities in the United States who, at any time from January 1, 2022 until such time as the alleged anticompetitive conduct ceases, purchased from a non-Defendant not for resale, newly issued, fully licensed MLB, NFL, and NBA (collectively as "Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues") trading cards produced by Fanatics. The Defendants have allegedly engaged in an anticompetitive scheme in the market for newly issued, fully licensed Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues trading cards (Pro Sports Trading Cards) produced by Fanatics resulting in inflated prices and reduced competition for purchasers of such cards. Pro Sports Trading Cards featuring professional athletes are valued both as collectibles and as investments, creating a thriving and competitive market. To effectively compete in this market, manufacturers must obtain licenses from both professional sports players associations to use the names, images, and likenesses of players, and from professional sports leagues to use the names, logos, and uniforms of the players' teams. Historically, licenses from professional sports leagues and professional sports players associations were awarded through a public bidding process resulting in non-exclusive license agreements or in exclusive license agreements typically of five years or less, and with staggered terms, where no single licensee controls exclusive rights across all of Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues and players associations at once. Beginning in August 2021, Fanatics announced the acquisition of the leading professional sports licenses in North America: professional baseball from the MLB and the MLBPA; professional men's basketball from the NBA and the NBPA; and professional football from the NFL and the NFLPA (MLBPA, NBPA, and NFLPA are referred to collectively as the "Players Associations"). Thus, for the first time, one licensee, Fanatics, secured exclusive licenses across all six Major U.S. Professional Sports League licensors, the suit says. Fanatics obtained long-term exclusive licenses -- at least 10 years, and in most cases, 20 years -- by promising Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues and Players Associations an equity stake in its future monopoly profits in exchange for those long-term exclusive licenses. Fanatics made these deals with all Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues and Players Associations, eliminating competitors and securing monopoly power. These were "back room" deals, accomplished without any open bidding process, asserts the suit. In January 2022, Fanatics acquired Topps, which was the dominant producer of MLB player trading cards, and which had an exclusive license with MLB until 2025 and a semi-exclusive license with the MLBPA through 2022. The Plaintiffs purchased from a non-Defendant Pro Sports Trading Cards. The prices they paid for Pro Sports Trading Cards were artificially inflated as a result of Fanatics' and its co-conspirators' anticompetitive conduct. The Defendants include FANATICS, LLC; FANATICS COLLECTIBLES INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO, INC.; FANATICS SPV, LLC; FANATICS HOLDINGS, INC.; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC.; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; MLB PLAYERS, INC.; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; NFL PROPERTIES LLC; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; NFL PLAYERS INC.; NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION; NBA PROPERTIES, INC.; NATIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; and ONETEAM PARTNERS, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander W. Cogbill, Esq. ZELLE LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 876-4420 E-mail: acogbill@zellelaw.com - and - Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Qianwei Fu, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com qfu@zellelaw.com FCA US: Kendrick Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kendrick, et al., v. FCA US LLC TONYA CLAYTON, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12995-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order: -- reinstating previously terminated motions, -- granting FCA's motions to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, and -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Clayton and Stroble have not carried their burden to show that their claims are typical of the claims or defenses of the proposed class or that they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as currently defined. Their motion for class certification motion therefore must be denied The Plaintiffs Tonya Clayton and Hazel Stroble allege that an automobile assembly plant operated by the Defendant near their homes in Detroit, Michigan emits noxious odors into their neighborhood. They say that these odors unreasonably interfere with their ability to use and enjoy the residences that they own and depreciate the values of those residences. In this putative class action, Clayton and Stroble assert claims of nuisance and negligence against FCA based on FCA's operation of the Detroit Plant. FCA is an automobile manufacturer based in Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wPHA0S at no extra charge.[CC] FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Unlawfully Delays Fund Transfer, Vaccaro Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID VACCARO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. (Aug. 18, 2025) is a class action Complaint against the Defendant to stop its practice of unlawfully delaying the transfer of funds by consumers who were allegedly misled by their advertisements. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertised to consumers that electronic fund transfers in and out of consumer accounts are completed within one to three business days. Indeed, Defendant's website still claims that: "EFTs in and out of Fidelity accounts are generally received within 1-3 business days, though the funds may immediately be available for trading. Regardless of these promises, however, the Defendant's policy and procedure is to significantly delay such transfers, resulting in consumer funds being unavailable for weeks instead, asserts the suit. The Defendant's claim regarding the speed of its transfers is valuable to consumers, because this allows them to invest their funds as needed, as well as comparing the Defendant's services to those offered by its competitors, the suit adds. The Plaintiff contends that they were exposed to these advertisements through print and digital media. The Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised and represented to Plaintiff and others similarly situated by failing to disclose in its advertisements that it delayed the transfers of funds for weeks, rather than one to three business days. The Defendant is financial services company offering investment services to consumers such as Plaintiff.[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 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FLOWERS BAKERIES: Faces Class Suit Over Artificial Preservatives ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Maria Nelson filed a class action lawsuit against Flowers Bakeries LLC. Why: Nelson claims Flowers Bakeries falsely advertises its Nature's Own brand products are free from artificial preservatives. Where: The Nature's Own class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Flowers Bakeries falsely advertises that its Nature's Own brand products are free from artificial preservatives. Plaintiff Maria Nelson filed the class action complaint against Flowers Bakeries on July 16 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the Nature's Own class action, Flowers Bakeries prominently displays the claim on the front label of its Nature's Own brand products that they contain "Never any artificial preservatives, colors or flavors and no high fructose corn syrup." Nelson argues this claim is false and misleading, as the products contain ascorbic acid, an artificial preservative. "The ascorbic acid in the Products functions as a preservative because it is an antioxidant that prevents microbial growth, thereby preserving color and freshness," the Nature's Own class action says. Nelson claims Flowers Bakeries' packaging, labeling and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium product that is free from artificial preservatives. The plaintiff argues she was deceived by Flowers Bakeries' alleged false advertising and purchased the products in California, believing they were free from artificial preservatives. Nature's Own bread allegedly contains ascorbic acid Nelson argues Flowers Bakeries' conduct violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law as well as constitutes a breach of express warranty. She wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased Nature's Own products labeled as containing "never any artificial preservatives" that contain ascorbic acid as an ingredient. The Nature's Own class action lawsuit demands a jury trial and seeks certification of the class action, an order enjoining Flowers Bakeries from continuing the alleged false advertising and damages and restitution for the purchase price of the products. Nelson argues that consumers, including herself, relied on the "never any artificial preservatives" labeling statement and would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, if they had known the products actually contain an artificial preservative ingredient. She claims Flowers Bakeries knew or should have known that consumers would want to know that the products contain an artificial preservative. Meanwhile, Kroger faced a similar class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertised its Simple Truth Fruit & Grain Bars as containing no preservatives when they actually contain citric acid. What do you think of the claims made in this Nature's Own class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Michael T. Houchin, Craig W. Straub and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal P.C. The Nature's Own class action lawsuit is Nelson v. Flowers Bakeries LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01801, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. [GN] FRESHREALM INC: Thompson Balks at Contaminated Food Products ------------------------------------------------------------ SARA WREN and MELINDA THOMPSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRESHREALM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02063-K (N.D. Tex., August 4, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other consumers nationwide, who bought Defendant's Chicken Fettucine Alfredo products produced prior to June 17, 2025 and sold at Walmart and Kroger store, that were and are unfit for distribution and/or consumption because they became contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. On June 17, 2025, the Defendant announced a recall of some chicken fettuccine alfredo products due to the potential for contamination with L. monocytogenes, which provided information for consumers regarding which products were affected. The L. monocytogenes is a harmful bacterium which causes the infection listeriosis and can lead to severe symptoms including but not limited to fever, muscle aches, fatigue, confusion, seizures, and loss of balance. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiffs or Class members of the risk of contamination through the product labels, ingredients, packaging or advertising -- an omission which caused serious harm to the purchases of the Products. The Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased the Products had they known the products contained, or might have contained, dangerous or toxic levels of L. monocytogenes and/or that Defendant did not adequately test, screen, and/or inspect the Products before selling them, says the suit. FreshRealm, Inc. is a manufacturer of fresh meals, including ready-to-cook, ready-to heat, and meal kits, that it distributes to grocery chains and retailers for sale across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bart Dalton, Esq. BROZYNSKI & DALTON PC 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 Plano, TX 75024 Telephone: (972) 371-0679 E-mail: bart@bdlegalgroup.com - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com sjackson@cbplaw.com FRITO-LAY NORTH: Eavesdrops Users' Private Web Info, Brown Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY BROWN, CHRISTINE WILEY, ROBERT BONKOWSKI and ITATY HERNANDEZ, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. and PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-06929 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025) concerns an egregious privacy violation and total breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendants' websites (including, www.doritos.com; www.lays.com; www.cheetos.com; www.missvickies.com; www.roldgold.com; www.simplyfritolay.com; www.stacyssnacks.com; www.smartfood.com; www.powerade.com; and www.gatorade.com, Defendants display to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendants' cookie banner discloses that the Websites use cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendants assure visitors that they can choose to "change [their] cookie settings, by clicking 'Manage Cookie Preferences.' However, unlike other websites, the Defendants' Websites offer consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. But, Defendants' promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to "Manage Cookie Preferences" and reject all non-required cookies, including "Functional Cookies" and "Advertising Cookies," Defendants surreptitiously cause third parties -- including Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., X Corp, Microsoft Corporation, ByteDance Ltd., and Snap Inc (the Third Parties) -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Websites, the suit alleges. The Defendants specialize in manufacturing and distributing snack food products and beverages, including brands such as Doritos tortilla chips, Lay's potato chips, Cheetos cheese-flavored snacks, and Powerade drinks, among many others. The Defendants own and operate each of the Websites, which allow visitors to receive information about their products. As they interact with the Websites.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail¨seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com G5 KUYKENDAHL: Segovia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Segovia, Jr., on behalf of others similarly situated v. G5 KUYKENDAHL VILLAGE LLC and 1960 WINGS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-03781 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Defendant, as property owner, is responsible for complying with the ADA for both the exterior portions and interior portions of the Property. Even if there is a lease between Defendant and a tenant allocating responsibilities for ADA compliance within the unit the tenant operates, that lease is only between the property owner and the tenant and does not abrogate the Defendant's requirement to comply with the ADA for the entire Property it owns, including the interior portions of the Property which are public accommodations. The Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and for Advocacy Purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. G5 KUYKENDAHL VILLAGE LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that Wings N Things.[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 GIORGIO ARMANI: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Reset to Sept. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for class certification is reset to Sept. 15, 2025. The Court does not expect to grant further extensions of this deadline. The Parties request additional time for Plaintiff to file her class certification motion to allow time to address an outstanding discovery dispute and for the Plaintiff to complete an additional limited 30(b)(6) deposition. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products including apparel, accessories, eyewear, watches, jewelry, and home interiors. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yICJJX at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks Prelim OK of $12.5MM Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, GARY CARDONE, MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to a Class Settlement to resolve the putative Class's claims against those Defendants in exchange for $12.5 million. After two years of litigation, multiple mediations, and on the eve of trial, Plaintiffs and Chargebacks911 have arrived at a settlement which will resolve the claims against the defendant in a way which is beneficial to the Class—and which Plaintiffs request be preliminarily approved by the Court, pending a final hearing after input from members of the Settlement Class. The Defendant is a risk mitigation and chargeback remediation firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iT2kCx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 1720 Amber Park Dr Ste 160 PMB 1271 Alpharetta, GA 30009 GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Taylor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TAYLOR, EDWARD MLAKAR, MICK CLEARY, EUGENE ALVIS, and JENNIFER NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file a supplemental brief in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Google operates as a global technology company specializing in internet related services and products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6dNv3s at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Max A. Bernstein, Esq. Anupam Dhillon, Esq. Emily J. Born, Esq. Caroline A. Lebel, Esq. Ariana E. Bustos, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com mbernstein@cooley.com adhillon@cooley.com eborn@cooley.com clebel@cooley.com ABustos@cooley.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Allows Opt-In Plaintiffs to Remain -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Chris Rice, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-414 (MTT) (M.D. Ga.), Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia grants the Plaintiffs' motion for clarification regarding their ability to continue pursuing claims after conditional certification was denied. The Court ordered that dispositive motions will focus on the viability of each individual plaintiff's claims. The plaintiffs' motion for clarification was granted as stated in the order dated July 24, 2025. The Court ruled that the named plaintiff Chris Rice and the six existing opt-in plaintiffs may continue to pursue their claims against Government Employees Insurance Company in this case. The decision came after the defendant opposed the plaintiffs' motion for clarification of the Court's June 30, 2025 order that denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Government Employees Insurance Company presented two primary arguments against the motion: the plaintiffs had not met the legal standard for reconsideration, and the opt-in plaintiffs should be dismissed because they were not similarly situated and could not meet the requirements for permissive joinder. However, the defendant offered no argument that the existing opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated to the named plaintiff. The Court clarified that its June 30, 2025 order denying conditional certification without prejudice did not rule that the current opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated to the named plaintiff. Instead, the Court declined to authorize notice to the proposed collective, which included all hourly-paid Government Employees Insurance Company employees handling communications with prospective customers nationwide, because of a lack of evidence of a common unlawful policy or practice uniformly resulting in unpaid overtime across the country. According to established precedent, when conditional certification is denied, the Court has two options: either the existing opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice and the matter proceeds on the named plaintiff's individual claims, or the Court can allow opt-in plaintiffs to stay in the litigation, even after certification is denied. The Court has discretion to determine whether the opt-in plaintiffs can proceed individually or whether their claims should be dismissed without prejudice. Given the expiration of the discovery deadline, as well as the extensive opt-in plaintiff discovery conducted by the parties and Government Employees Insurance Company's failure to meaningfully address whether the existing plaintiffs are similarly situated, the Court exercised its discretion to permit the existing opt-in plaintiffs to remain in this case. The Court ordered that dispositive motions shall focus on the viability of each individual plaintiff's claims. The plaintiffs' motion for clarification was granted as stated in the order dated July 24, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g5tnuj GRAND ISLE: Bid to Certify Class Action Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR CAGARA ORTIGUERRA ET AL., V. GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-00309-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl Barbier entered an order granting in part the ex parte consent motion for an extension of case deadlines. 1. The pending Motion for Certification of a Class Action is denied without prejudice, to be re-urged if necessary following the ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration. 2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file any opposition to the motion for reconsideration is extended until Aug. 26, 2025. 3. The Defendants' deadline to file any reply brief to the Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for reconsideration is extended until Sept. 2, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. Grand provides oilfield and construction services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DZdoNp at no extra charge.[CC] HBH CALIFORNIA: Filing for Class Cert. in Garcia Due Nov. 1, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HBH CALIFORNIA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00398-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Class certification discovery shall be completed by no later than Oct. 2, 2026. 2. The motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Nov. 1, 2026. 3. Any opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Jan. 15, 2027. 4. Any reply brief in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Feb. 5, 2027. 5. The motion for class certification shall be heard on March 3, 2027, at 9:30 a.m. 6. A status conference to set further scheduling dates is set for May 25, 2027, at 9:30 a.m., before Magistrate Judge Oberto. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EWsOhV at no extra charge.[CC] HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend DeSimone Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Herbalife Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the DeSimone Labor Code class suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On October 31, 2024, the Company and certain of its executive officers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, titled Sarah DeSimone v. Herbalife Ltd. et al. The complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code, including misclassification of distributors as independent contractors. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 21, 2025 to assert claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The Company will vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of the loss that may result from an unfavorable outcome and does not believe a loss is probable. Herbalife Ltd. (formerly Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.) is a global nutrition company that sells weight management, targeted nutrition, energy, sports, and fitness and outer nutrition products to and through a network of independent retailers. HOLISTIC CHOICE: Wiedinmyer Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Acts -------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER WIEDINMYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLISTIC CHOICE LABS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06685-RMI (N.D. Cal., August 7, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on her telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations. The Defendant has violated the law by bombarding Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers' cellular telephones with non-emergency communications and telemarketing phone calls without prior express written consent, asserts the complaint. In response to Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited pre-recorded voice messages to non-consenting consumers, as well as an award of statutory damages and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations) for Plaintiff and each of the Class Members, per violation, together with court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Holistic Choice Labs, LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com HUMANA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Use of AI Denying Post-Acute Care ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Marselas of McKnights Long-Term Care News reports that Humana must face a class action lawsuit alleging that its use of artificial intelligence to deny post-acute care to Medicaid Advantage beneficiaries became fraud when those automated decisions replaced the interpretation of clinicians. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled that the plaintiffs did not have to exhaust Medicare administrative appeals before filing their complaint in late 2023. In March, Humana asked the court to dismiss those claims, arguing that the District Court had no jurisdiction because two women initially behind the lawsuit didn't ask the Quality Improvement Organizations to review their coverage denials first. But the judge found that repeated denials by the nation's second larger MA insurer risked irreparable harm to the plaintiffs because waiting for appeals left only two choices: to stay in a post-acute care facility and risk being responsible for medical bills if their appeals are denied; or forgoing care while waiting on a decision. That, Jennings said, allowed her to waive the requirement for appeals exhaustion. She cited the example of plaintiff Sharon Merkley, who received seven denials for the same care within 30 days. When Merkley had to return to the hospital a month later, she claimed Humana issued five more denials for post-acute care even after successful appeals. "Class Members have forgone medically necessary care which resulted in admittance to the hospital or additional treatment," Jennings wrote. "These medical setbacks cannot be remedied by retroactive benefits or ultimate success on appeal." The case centers around Humana's use of nH Predict to make coverage determinations, which the plaintiffs said results in wrongful denials of claims that few beneficiaries ever appeal. Attorneys for the plaintiffs alleged that Humana "fraudulently misled its insureds into believing that their health plans would individually assess their claims and pay for medically necessary care." 'Futile' appeals When they did try to use the appeals process, Humana often overturned its own decisions or allowed Administrative Law Judges to do so. Even then, the attorneys have argued, Humana would start the same denial-appeal cycle all over again. Jennings agreed that forcing plaintiffs to exhaust appeals would have been futile, citing the plaintiffs argument that "Humana abuses and undermines the administrative review process such that its conduct is capable of repetition while evading review." She noted claims that Humana denies patients the results of or rationale behind nH Predict decisions, leaving them no way to understand why services were denied. "There is no way for any individual patient to challenge the systemic process that leads to that refusal [by nH Predict]," the opinion said. "Even if Plaintiffs succeed on their QIO appeal, 'Humana and its contractor, naviHealth, request updated medical records, issue another denial, and force patients to restart the appeals process.' . . . And if patients appeal to an administrative law judge after the QIOs process, Humana agrees to pay the claims, therefore bypassing any scrutinization of the nH Predict AI Model." Contract dispute Ultimately, the question before the court, Jennings wrote, is not whether Humana violated the Medicare Act in denying benefits. It's whether the company knowingly violated its contract with its beneficiaries and kept the proceeds. The plaintiffs argue they would have chosen another insurer had they known about Humana's pattern of delegating the legally required review process to NH Predict. "Plaintiffs believed their insurance premiums were paying for an individualized assessment, rather than an assessment by AI," Jennings wrote, allowing the class pursuit of injunctive and declaratory relief to move forward. "This relief seeks to enjoin Humana from 'continuing its improper and unlawful claim handling practices' . . . This relief seeks to ensure that claims are individually assessed by a medical professional rather than artificial intelligence, not a different result in a benefits decision." Jennings let stand claims for breach of contract, breach of the good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. She did, however, dismiss four other claims regarding claims settlement, unfair competition, insurance bad faith and unfair and deceptive insurance practices because federal law preempted state law in those areas. The class action suit is seeking actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, damages for emotional distress and restitution -- as well an order prohibiting Humana from continuing its AI-enabled claim handling practices. [GN] HUNTER WARFIELD: Blizzard Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew Blizzard, et al., v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03374-ABA (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying the proposed Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, -- Appointing themselves as Class Representatives, and -- Appointing their counsel as Class Counsel. Hunter is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RRYgsl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph S. Mack, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH S. MACK Baltimore, MD 21209 Telephone: (443) 423-0464 E-mail: joseph@macklawonline.com - and - Ingmar Goldson, Esq. THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE, LLC 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (240) 780-8829 E-mail: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com I3 VERTICALS: Continues to Defend PaySchool Suit ------------------------------------------------ i3 Verticals, Inc. disclosed in its 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 putative class action lawsuit alleging damages related to PaySchools services. On May 16, 2025, Suzanne Hess, individually and on behalf of a putative class of citizens of the State of New York, filed a Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, against i3 Verticals, LLC and CP-DBS, LLC d/b/a "PaySchools," a subsidiary of i3 Verticals, LLC. The claimed damages relate to services offered by PaySchools that enable parents, guardians and caregivers to fund lunches for students in certain New York school districts, and allegedly unlawful practices by PaySchools related to the fees charged for these school lunch services. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief prohibiting PaySchools from charging transaction-based fees. On June 20, 2025, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where the case remains pending. "The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation. While the Company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, the Company cannot give assurance that this matter will not have a material effect on its results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period," the Company stated. ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER KAINZ, SARA BAILEY, REBECCA BUCZKOWSKI, SABRINA DRYSDALE, and REBEKAH McGRATH, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them an extension of time through Sept. 12, 2025, to respond to both the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and the Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of class certification, and for any other relief that the Court finds reasonable and just to grant to Wexford. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the extension request. Wexford makes its request for an extension in good faith. Granting of the requested extension will not cause any improper or undue delay. On Aug. 6, 2025, this Court granted the Motions of all other Defendants to extend the deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants include ROB JEFFREYS, in his Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections; LEONTA JACKSON, in his Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center, TERI KENNEDY, former Warden, in her Individual Capacity, EMILY RUSKIN, former Warden, in her Individual Capacity; KELLY RENZI, former IDOC Psychology Administrator, in her Individual Capacity; JOHN SOKOL, in his Individual Capacity; and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Illinois operates 25 adult correctional centers as well as boot camps, work camps and adult transition centers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q1tNaH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com pcowlin@hq-law.com - and - Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. Matthew J. Turchyn, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com sweiss@hertzschram.com lthomson@hertzschram.com mturchyn@hertzschram.com - and - Martin A. Dolan, Esq. DOLAN LAW PC 10 South LaSalle Street #3702 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: mdolan@dolanlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert T. Shannon, Esq. Justin Penn, Esq. Stephen D. Mehr, Esq. Mr. Ambrose V. McCall, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-3901 Facsimile: (312) 704-3001 E-mail: rshannon@hinshawlaw.com jpenn@hinshawlaw.com smehr@hinshawlaw.com amccall@hinshawlaw.com - and - Denise Baker-Seal, Esq. Jessica Holliday, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, P.C. Richland Plaza I 525 West Main Street, Suite 200 Belleville, IL 62220-1547 E-mail: dbaker-seal@bjpc.com jholliday@bjpc.com - and - Michael A. Warner Jr., Esq. Hailey M. Golds, Esq. Tracey L. Truesdale, Esq. Jenny V. Lee, Esq. FRANCZEK P.C. 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60604 E-mail: maw@franczek.com tlt@franczek.com hmg@franczek.com jvl@franczek.com IN-SHAPE FAMILY FITNESS: Yost Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC. The case is styled as Jacqueline Yost, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0011008 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." In-Shape Health Clubs -- https://www.inshape.com/ -- offers all-star fitness experience and feature key amenities and classes for all ages and fitness levels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Gaines, Esq. GAINES LAW CORPORATION 4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824 Phone: 805-892-8200 Fax: 805-800-8928 Email: evan@gaines.law INSPIRA MEDICAL: Oatman Seeks Notice Issuance to FLSA Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA OATMAN and DENISE RICHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01695-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to enter an order permitting issuance of notice to the Inspira's other similarly situated current or former employees of the pending action and to afford those individuals an opportunity to "opt-in" to the action pursuant. Inspira provides general medical and surgical hospital services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=41YSce at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Andrew Lapat, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com alapat@edelson-law.com IPREH LLC: Burton Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA BURTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. IPREH, LLC d/b/a INNOVATIVE PRODUCTION USA, Case No. 4:23-cv-04132-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting revised unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement. Specifically, the Rule 23 Class consists of: "those individuals who, at any time during the period between Sept. 22, 2022, and Sept. 17, 2023, were employed by the Defendant at its facility located in Galesburg, Illinois, involved in the manufacturing, packaging, or handling of food or food products, and required to don and doff sanitary clothing and other protective equipment at any time." The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class refers to: "any individual who opts in to this action via written consent and who, at any time during the period between Sept. 22, 2022 and Sept. 17, 2023, was employed by the Defendant at its facility located in Galesburg, Illinois, involved in the manufacturing, packaging or handling of food products, and required to don and doff sanitary clothing and other protective equipment at any time." Ipreh operates within the food manufacturing industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6pbZ5f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. Taryn R. Dissett, Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com tdissett@hkmlawfirm.com JJF MANAGEMENT: Faces Escobar Over ESOP Inflated Purchase Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAZMIN ESCOBAR, in her capacity as beneficiary of the Estate of Jose Escobar, JOSH KRUMPACH and CHRIS TURGEON on behalf of the JJF Management Services, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF J.J.F. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02712-CJC (D. Md., Aug. 15, 2025) is a civil enforcement action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP. The JJF ESOP is an ERISA-protected retirement plan whereby the individual retirement accounts of current and former employees are invested entirely in the stock of the Company. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Capital Trustees, LLC and Richard A. Heeter (now deceased and named via Marianna F. Heeter as the personal representative of his Estate), the Company's Board of Directors, and the "Successor Trustee Defendants" caused ERISA prohibited transactions whereby the ESOP purchased the Company from the Sellers at inflated purchase prices and borrowed money from the Sellers, which prohibited transactions continued through ongoing loan payments to the Seller Defendants after the sale. On Jan. 31, 2023, the Trustee Defendants caused the ESOP to acquire 1,000,000 shares of JJF common stock from the Seller Defendants for approximately $442 million -- which exceeded the fair market value of those shares. According to financial statements filed by the ESOP with the Department of Labor, the value of the JJF shares was just $13.4 million on the same day the shares were purchased by the ESOP (Jan 31, 2023), which is just 3% of the price paid to the Seller Defendants: $442 million. The Defendants include MARIANNA F. HEETER, as Administrator of the Estate of Richard A. Heeter, 17055 CAPITAL TRUSTEES, LLC, DOROTHY M. FITZGERALD, in her personal capacity and in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of John J. Fitzgerald, Jr., JOHN J. FITZGERALD, III, WALTER SKIPPER, JAMES W. CASH, GREGG STEINBARTH, MARGARET M. FITZGERALD, KATHLEEN ICEBERG, ROBERT M. SMITH, JR., and DAVID JENKINS. The Defendant is a family-owned auto-dealership that began in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. Elizabeth McDermott, Esq. Zachary Krowitz, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com apienta@cohenmilstein.com emcdermott@cohenmilstein.com zkrowitz@cohenmilstein.com jschutz@cohenmilstein.com JPMORGAN CHASE: N.D. Iowa Dismisses Behrens Suit Over PFG Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Bruce Behrens, Kathleen Behrens, Sherri Sheffert, and David J. Sheffert, Plaintiffs v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A., Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., The CME Group, Inc., John Does Section 1-40, Defendants, Case No. C24-2047-LTS-MAR (N.D. Iowa), Judge Leonard T. Strand of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The ruling favors all Defendants -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A., Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., and The CME Group, Inc. The Court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs who alleged they were victims of Peregrine Financial Group (PFG) and suffered investment losses. The plaintiffs contend that they invested with PFG from 2007 to 2008 and suffered losses in September and October 2008. The case involves complex procedural history spanning multiple federal court actions related to the collapse of PFG. This case does not involve a certified class action. While the plaintiffs previously attempted to pursue class action litigation in other jurisdictions, this particular case was filed as an individual action by four named plaintiffs. The Court noted that plaintiffs were effectively decertified, as the settlement class included only customers who actually owned money, property or securities at the time Peregrine went bankrupt on or about July 10, 2012. The litigation stems from the collapse of PFG in July 2012, when PFG CEO and Chairman Russell Wasendorf, Sr., attempted suicide and confessed in a note that he had committed fraud. Prior to this case, plaintiffs filed actions in multiple jurisdictions. On July 11, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendants and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That case, known as Behrens I, was ultimately dismissed with federal claims found time-barred and state law claims dismissed without prejudice. The current case was filed on September 10, 2024 in the Northern District of Iowa. The plaintiffs alleged thirteen counts including principal agency liability, fraud by omission, violation of the Illinois Fiduciary Obligations Act, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, aiding and abetting, violation of Iowa Code Section 706.A2, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, and intentional interference with contract. The Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss based on res judicata, finding that the doctrine barred plaintiffs' claims. The Court determined that "plaintiffs could have (and should have) asserted jurisdiction under CAFA to allow the New York court to hear their state law claims." The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) provided an available basis for federal jurisdiction in the prior New York case that plaintiffs failed to invoke. The Court explained that res judicata precludes plaintiffs from pursuing their state law claims (or any other claims that could have been raised in the first instance) in a subsequent federal lawsuit. The Court found that CAFA jurisdiction would have been mandatory in the prior case, stating: "it appears CAFA jurisdiction would have been mandatory unless one of the exceptions applied." Even if res judicata did not apply, the Court found that plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. The Court determined that the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' claims began to run on October 8 or 9, 2008 when their accounts were wiped out. Since plaintiffs did not file their claims until 2016 at the earliest, they are barred by the statute of limitations. Judge Strand rejected plaintiffs' arguments for equitable estoppel based on fraudulent concealment, finding that plaintiffs have not identified any false representations or concealment of material facts by these defendants. The Court also rejected tolling arguments under American Pipe, noting that such tolling does not allow successive class actions. The Court concluded that both res judicata and statute of limitations grounds warranted dismissal. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants' motions (Docs. 56, 57, 60) to dismiss are each granted and this action is dismissed. Plaintiffs' cross-motion (Doc. 76) to change venue or sever CMEG and CME is denied as moot. A copy of the Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p1P6q6 KAMA RESTAURANTS: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kama Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09665 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Kamabistro.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, Kamabistro.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. Kamabistro.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Kama Restaurants.[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 KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE: Fine Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Robert R. Fine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kansas City Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02071 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Aug. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00626-JAM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Kansas City Life Insurance Company -- https://www.kclife.com/ -- is a public insurance company established in 1895 and located in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Schirger, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. Katherine Feierabend, Esq. Olivia C. Bess-Rhodes, Esq. SCHIRGER FEIERABEND LLC 6811 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 312 Overland Park, KS 66202 Phone: (816) 561-6504 Email: schirger@SFlawyers.com feierabend@SFlawyers.com kfeierabend@SFlawyers.com bess-rhodes@sflawyers.com - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Ethan M Lange, Esq. Lindsay T. Perkins, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP - KCMO 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7110 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com wilders@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com - and - David A. Hickey, Esq. 4536 Jefferson Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (913) 209-9070 Email: hickey@stuevesiegel.com - and - E. Scott Palmer, Esq. Katelyn B. Hunter, Esq. PALMER HUNTER AND HALL 301 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 705 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (213) 789-7501 Email: scott@palmerhunter.com Katelyn@palmerhunter.com - and - Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. FRAWLEY LYTLE LLC 1600 Gennessee Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64102 Phone: (816) 800-5001 Email: matt@frawley-lytle.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam Randall Fox, Esq. Chassica Soo, Esq. Hannah Makinde, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 So. Flower Street, Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 689-5166 Fax: (213) 623-4581 Email: adam.fox@squirepb.com chassica.soo@squirepb.com hannah.makinde@squirepb.com - and - Amy Brown Doolittle, Esq. John A Burlingame, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP 2550 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 626-6707 Fax: (202) 457-6315 Email: amy.doolittle@squirepb.com John.Burlingame@squiresanders.com - and - Derek Centola, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 272-3200 Fax: (678) 272-3211 Email: derek.centola@squirepb.com - and - Francisco J. Rolon, Esq. James R. Evans, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3150 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 272-3219 Email: francisco.rolon@squirepb.com randy.evans@squirepb.com - and - Jesse L. Taylor, Esq. Traci Lynn Martinez, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP 2000 Huntington Center 41 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 365-2714 Email: jesse.taylor@squirepb.com traci.martinez@squirepb.com - and - John William Shaw, Esq. Lauren Tallent, Esq. BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 561-7007 Fax: (816) 561-1888 Email: jshaw@berkowitzoliver.com ltallent@berkowitzoliver.com KENDALLGATE CENTER: Pardo Balks at Disabled-Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. KENDALLGATE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LTD. and CLAUDIA AND SONS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23567 (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2025) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the individual Plaintiff visits Defendants' commercial property and businesses located within the commercial property, to include visits to the property and business on April 28, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and business located within the commercial property. The barriers to access at the commercial property, and business within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit. The Plaintiff has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, inhibiting him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. Kendallgate Center Associates, Ltd. owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, its general parking lot and parking spots located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com KINDERCARE LEARNING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (NYSE: KLC) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, visit this link for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/kindercare-learning-companies-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=161787&wire=5&utm_campaign=16 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: This lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of KinderCare common stock in or traceable to the Company's October 2024 initial public offering CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (a) numerous incidents of child abuse, neglect, and harm had occurred at KinderCare facilities; (b) KinderCare did not provide the "highest quality care possible" at its facilities, and, indeed, in numerous instances had failed to provide even basic care, meet minimum standards in the child care industry, or comply with the laws and regulations governing the care of children; and (c) as a result of (a)-(b) above, KinderCare was exposed to a material, undisclosed risk of lawsuits, adverse regulatory action, negative publicity, reputational damage, and business loss. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. during the relevant time frame or pursuant to the relevant offering, you have until October 14, 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] KITCHEN KAPERS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kitchen Kapers, Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-09812 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.kitchenkapers.com, the suit contends. Accordingly, kitchenkapers.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, the Defendant excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Kitchenkapers.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Kitchen Kapers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law L.O.D.C. INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.O.D.C., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06580 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://lilyofthedesert.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, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on July 29, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Aloe Juice from Defendant and to view the information on the website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. L.O.D.C., Inc. operates the website that offers aloe products.[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 LANDHOMESTX PLLC: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenny Smith, individually and for others similarly situated v. LANDHOMESTX, PLLC and WILLIAM MATTHEW RIEHS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01283 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours each week. But Defendants did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendants improperly classified The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers as independent contractors ineligible for overtime. This practice violates the FLSA. Rather, the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Smith and the Straight Time Workers overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers worked for Defendants as operators. LandHomesTX, PLLC is a Texas limited liability company engaged in land development, excavation, and construction-related operations throughout the Greater Austin area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal LIDESLAMBOUS INC: Has Until Sept. 9 to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JALISHA BRAXTON, KEITH SAMPLE, HANNAH MORGAN, ZACH PORTILLO, and ROBERT HAMRICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. LIDESLAMBOUS, INC., GEORGE PITSILIDES AND SHARON PITSILIDES, Case No. 4:24-cv-00119-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Lawrence Leonard entered an order granting the Moving Defendants' Consent Motion for additional time up to and including Sept. 9, 2025, for all defendants to file their response in opposition to the Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Lideslambous is a seafood restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HWqIZr at no extra charge.[CC] LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD BOYNES, et al., v. LIMETREE BAY VENTURES, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-0253-WAL-EAH (D.V.I.), the Hon. Judge Emile A. Henderson III entered an order that: 1. Sedgwick's "Motion to Stay the Magistrate Judge's May 16, 2025 Order Pending Review of Objections," is denied. 2. Sedgwick remains bound by the Court's May 16 Order and shall turn over the documents requested by the Plaintiffs no later than Aug. 18, 2025. Upon receipt of the documents, the Plaintiffs shall pay Sedgwick $25,000 to mitigate the burden imposed by complying with the subpoena. 3. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as affecting any claims Sedgwick may have against the Limetree Bay entities for the work Sedgwick performed for the Limetree Bay entities in early 2021. Sedgwick seeks to stay an Order of this Court, directing it to comply with a subpoena issued by the Plaintiffs by disclosing certain documents in its possession. After setting an expedited briefing schedule, the Court held a hearing on the motion on June 20, 2025. On Feb. 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Sedgwick to produce its claims files and related documents pursuant to a Rule 45 subpoena. On May 30, 2025, Sedgwick timely filed objections to the May 16 Order. On May 30, 2025, Sedgwick filed a motion to stay the May 16 Order and accompanying memorandum in support of its motion. Limetree produces clean fuels required by transportation markets. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bbxUiU at no extra charge.[CC] LINDA SOUTHERN: Wennerstein's IFP Status Revoked; Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as James E. Wennerstein, Plaintiff v. Linda Southern, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-CV-00084-BSM (E.D. Ark.), Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas grants the Defendants' motion to revoke in forma pauperis status and dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. The Court certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith, effectively preventing Wennerstein from appealing without paying the required fees. The Court addressed a recommended disposition and Wennerstein's objections to that recommendation. Despite Wennerstein filing a notice of interlocutory appeal of the order denying his petition for class action status, the Court determined the recommended disposition was ripe for review. The Court applied the four-factor analysis established in Stuart v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., concluding the factors weighed against staying the case pending the class certification appeal. After conducting a de novo review of the record and the underlying cases that Wennerstein asserted could not be counted as strikes to render him a three-striker under federal law, the Court adopted United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney's recommended disposition. The Court found that Wennerstein's previous cases constituted strikes under the three-strikes provision of federal prisoner litigation statutes. Accordingly, the Court granted the defendants' motion to revoke in forma pauperis status and revoked Wennerstein's ability to proceed without paying court fees. The Court dismissed his complaint without prejudice, meaning he may refile if he meets certain conditions. The Court ordered that if Wennerstein wishes to continue this case, he must submit the statutory filing and administrative fee of $405 to the clerk within 15 days of the order, along with a motion to reopen the case. Upon receipt of the motion and full payment, the case will be reopened. LIVUNLTD LLC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Rivera ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIRSON RIVERA, v. LIVUNLTD LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01348-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. LIVunLtd is a multifaceted service provider, specializing in concierge, fitness, and wellness offerings. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UDqQyf at no extra charge.[CC] MANSFIELD HOTEL: Tanner Sues to Recover Compensation ---------------------------------------------------- Dina F. Tanner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MANSFIELD HOTEL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01672-PAB (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 12, 2025), is brought against Defendant in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attomeys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1939 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (the 'Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ('OPPA") (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be collectively referred to as the 'Ohio Acts'). The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are current and former employees of Defendant who did not receive one and a half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. (hereafter, "Putative Plaintiffs"). Under the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Acts, Defendant was required to pay for all hours Putative Plaintiffs worked and pay them 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. By willfully failing to compensate the Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs who performed pre-shift and post-shift work, Defendant violated the FISA and the Ohio Acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in a front desk position from March 2024 until June 2024, changed roles to General Manager as remained in that role until October 2024. Mansfield Hotel LLC is a domestic limited liability company registered to do business in the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna Caplan, Esq. BARRAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 2214221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlisll.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com MAO-MSO RECOVERY: Court Upholds Medicare Assignment Agreements -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Government Employees Insurance Company, et al. v. MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, Series PMPI, et al., Misc. Nos. 3 & 4, September Term, 2024, Justice Biran of the Supreme Court of Maryland ruled that the Plaintiffs did not violate Maryland's barratry statute or common law doctrines by obtaining assignments from Medicare secondary payers to seek reimbursement from primary insurers. The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, finding that assignments of Medicare reimbursement rights pursuant to contingency compensation agreements are valid and not void as against Maryland public policy. Because the Court found the assignments valid, it did not need to address the second part of the question regarding choice-of-law provisions. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified three questions to the Maryland Supreme Court regarding whether assignments of Medicare reimbursement rights violate Maryland public policy. The federal court reformulated these questions as: Whether the assignment of the right to seek and receive unpaid reimbursement of payments for expenses under 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) (2018) pursuant to a contingency compensation arrangement/agreement is void as against public policy of Maryland, and if so, whether such an arrangement/agreement is unenforceable regardless of any choice of law provision contained in such an agreement. Plaintiffs effectuated "Claims Cost Recovery Agreements" under which Medicare Advantage Organizations and other secondary payers assigned their rights to seek reimbursement from primary payers. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs had no preexisting interest in the claims. Rather, all of their claims are derivative of the Assignors' alleged rights. The agreements included contingent compensation arrangements where clients receive a percentage of any recovery and Plaintiffs keep the remainder of the proceeds. The Court examined Maryland's barratry statute, which provides: "Without an existing relationship or interest in an issue ... a person may not, for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person in a lawsuit." The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs did not solicit any secondary payer to file a lawsuit. Rather, Plaintiffs obtained the right to bring suit against primary payers in Plaintiffs' own names by obtaining assignments of secondary payers' claims. Regarding the historical doctrines of maintenance, champerty, and barratry, the Court explained: The common law doctrines of maintenance, champerty, and barratry were designed to prohibit 'the officious stirring up of ... litigation in which a person had no interest.' However, the Court noted these doctrines have largely fallen into obsolescence, stating: "Apart from the Fourth Circuit's decision in Accrued, we are unaware of any case in which a cause of action has been sustained, or a contract voided, based on Maryland common law related to maintenance or champerty." The Court distinguished the Fourth Circuit's decision in Accrued Financial Services, Inc. v. Prime Retail, Inc., which had found similar assignments void under Maryland public policy. The Court stated: "To the extent the Accrued Court read Son to support the proposition that 'surviving common law principles' concerning maintenance, champerty, and barratry undergird a public policy that invalidates assignments similar to those at issue here, we disagree." The Court emphasized that assignees become real parties in interest: "An assignee of a claim is a real party in interest with respect to that claim." The Court explained: "At common law an assignment passes the title to the assignee so that he is the owner of any claim arising from the chose and should be treated as the real party in interest. The Court acknowledged a modern trend toward abolishing champerty and maintenance doctrines, citing decisions from Minnesota, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. The Court noted: "Today, claims are often viewed as valuable assets rather than as threats to public order. The growth of litigation financing, the widespread acceptance of contingency-fee agreements, and the debt collection industry all reflect this shift." The Court concluded that Plaintiffs' assignments do not violate Maryland public policy. While GEICO may prefer that Plaintiffs be prevented from pursuing these claims, Maryland public policy does not prevent sophisticated parties like Plaintiffs and the assignors from striking a bargain they both deem valuable. The Court added that the Plaintiffs' assignments are not sufficiently 'officious' as to warrant invalidation. A copy of the Supreme Court of Maryland Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BC7pk6 MARTIN ZAKARIAN: Arnold Bid for Leave to Seal Document Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN ARNOLD, et al., v. MARTIN ZAKARIAN, et al., Case No. 3:25-mc-00003-BJB-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin Lindsay entered an order that: a) The Motion to quash filed by Petitioners is granted. b) The Motion for leave to seal document filed by respondents is denied. The Clerk of Court shall permanently unseal DN 15. c) The Motion for leave to seal document filed by petitioners is denied. The Clerk of Court shall permanently unseal DN 10. The redacted information only reveals what information can be retrieved by the SRS, as well as who is responsible for the business side of the SRS and who is responsible for IT issues. The Court does not see how this information, if publicized, would harm Petitioners’ competitive standing at all, nor do Petitioners even explain how publication would harm their competitive standing. Accordingly, the Court holds that Petitioners have not established a compelling interest in secrecy. Thus, the Court holds that the public interest in the supporting testimony is low. However, as the Court does not find that there is a compelling interest in secrecy, the Court holds that maintaining these documents under seal is not justified. A copy of the memorandum opinion and order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Heb81 at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAELS STORES: Bid for Evidentiary Class Cert. Hearing Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEA VIZCARRA, et al., v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order denying administrative motion for evidentiary class certification hearing: On August 1, 2025, Michaels Stores filed an administrative motion for a limited evidentiary hearing. The Defendant asks the Court to permit live cross examination and redirect of Plaintiff Nea Vizcarra's experts, Bruce G. Silverman and Colin B. Weir, at the class certification hearing scheduled for Aug. 20, 2025. The Court is unpersuaded that an evidentiary hearing is necessary at this time and denies the Defendant's motion. The parties have provided the Court with a sufficient record to consider the motion for class certification. Nothing in this Order prevents either party from making arguments at the hearing regarding how, if at all, the opinions of experts retained in this matter (including opinions expressed in depositions or other discovery) support the respective party’s position in this motion. Michaels is an American privately held arts and crafts retail chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VZLvWP at no extra charge.[CC] MORGAN STANLEY: McKinney Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mark E. McKinney, Neal Gagner, and James Bertonis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, and E*Trade Securities LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-8860 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants Thomas Simmons' motion to intervene and transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. The Court found no reason to deviate from the first-filed rule in this case, emphasizing that the purpose is to promote wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation. Thomas Simmons, the plaintiff in an action similar to this one that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, moved to intervene in this case and to transfer it to the District of New Jersey. He has represented that, following the transfer, he intends to move to consolidate this case with his action and with a separate, earlier-filed action also pending in the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Simmons is not entitled to intervene and that this District is the appropriate venue for this action. This motion implicates two actions currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Burmin et al. v. E*TRADE Securities LLC et al., 24-CV-603 (D.N.J.) ("Burmin") and Simmons v. E*TRADE Securities LLC et al., 24-CV-11341 (D.N.J.) ("Simmons"). The Court examined multiple related actions pending in different districts involving ETrade's Bank Deposit Sweep Program ("BDP"). In February 2024, Burmin et al. v. ETrade Securities LLC et al. was filed in the District of New Jersey and assigned to Judge Esther Salas. The Burmin plaintiffs are individuals who maintained retirement accounts with ETrade, a registered broker-dealer and subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. ETrade allegedly required retirement accountholders to enroll in its Bank Deposit Sweep Program, which automatically transfers free credit balances in clients' retirement accounts into interest-bearing accounts at banks operated by Morgan Stanley or its affiliates. The agreement through which clients enrolled in the BDP provided that the accounts into which balances were automatically deposited would pay a reasonable rate of interest. The crux of the Burmin complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities who maintained ETrade or ETrade from Morgan Stanley retirement accounts"during the relevant time period, is that E*Trade and Morgan Stanley breached their contractual obligations by not paying reasonable interest rates on retirement sweep accounts. In November 2024, Mark E. McKinney filed this action. Like the Burmin plaintiffs, McKinney is an ETrade accountholder challenging the interest rates paid pursuant to the BDP. Unlike in Burmin, however, the putative class in McKinney is not limited to ETrade retirement accountholders; rather, it purports to represent all persons who had cash deposit or balances in any Morgan Stanley cash sweep account administered under the BDP. On December 19, 2024, Thomas Simmons, who is represented by the same attorneys who represent the Sherlip plaintiffs, sued ETrade, Morgan Stanley, and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC in the District of New Jersey. His complaint, like the one in McKinney, challenges the interest rates paid on ETrade BDP accounts. The putative class in Simmons is similar to the one in McKinney, although the Simmons putative class consists specifically of clients of ETrade and ETrade from Morgan Stanley who had cash deposits or balances in E*Trade's Cash Sweep Programs or Morgan Stanley's Bank Deposit Program. The Court considered Simmons' motion under both intervention as of right and permissive intervention frameworks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. To intervene as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), a movant must (1) timely file an application; (2) show an interest in the action; (3) demonstrate that the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action; and (4) show that the interest is not protected adequately by the parties to the action. The Court found that Simmons' application was timely, noting that he moved to intervene approximately one month after the complaint in this action was filed, which is well within a reasonable timeframe. However, the Court determined that Simmons had not shown that his interests are not protected adequately by the parties in this action because he seeks the same relief as Plaintiffs and the putative class. Despite not qualifying for intervention as of right, the Court granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). The Court found that Simmons has claims and defenses that share common questions of law and fact with this action, his motion was timely, and his intervention is unlikely to unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties. Additionally, allowing Simmons to intervene for the purpose of moving to transfer would help the Court ensure that this case proceeds equitably and efficiently. Simmons sought to transfer this case to the District of New Jersey by invoking the first-filed rule. The first-filed rule states that, in determining the proper venue, where there are two competing lawsuits, the first suit should have priority. The Court found this case and Burmin are sufficiently similar to warrant application of the first-filed rule because the claim at the heart of both cases is identical: E*Trade breached its duties to customers by not paying reasonable interest rates on its BDP accounts. The Court noted that Burmin being more narrowly tailored to address only E*Trade retirement accounts, and that this case contains more claims than Burmin, does not preclude a finding that the cases are substantially similar, given that the cases involve the same defendants and the same sweep program. When assessing the balance of convenience, the Court considered factors relevant to a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), including the plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience of witnesses, the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, the convenience of the parties, the locus of operative facts, the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, and the relative means of the parties. The Court found that almost all of the convenience factors are neutral. E*Trade is headquartered in New Jersey and Morgan Stanley is headquartered in New York, meaning both forums are likely to have relevant documents and witnesses. More important, Judge Salas' courtroom in Newark and the Court's courtroom in Manhattan are less than 15 miles apart. The sole factor that tilts clearly in favor of one court is the plaintiff's choice of forum, which favors the District of New Jersey because that is where the first-in-time Burmin plaintiffs brought suit. The Court granted Plaintiff-Intervenor Thomas Simmons' motion to intervene and transfer. The Clerk of the Court was directed to terminate all open motions and transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kOFWCy for pacermonitor.com MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stillwell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD STILLWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN LAUREL DERMATOLOGY, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 25CV004853-100 (N.C. Super., Buncombe Cty., August 7, 2025) is a class action which arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members. On July 10, 2025, the Defendant identified it was subject to a cyberattack. On the same day, the Defendant mailed Plaintiff a letter advising him that the private information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) negligence per se, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment. Mountain Laurel Dermatology, PLLC provides general dermatology, surgical dermatology, and medical aesthetics at locations in Clyde and Asheville, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah A. Knox, Esq. HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC Post Office Box 25555 Charlotte, NC 28229 Telephone: (704) 377-9157 Facsimile: (704) 377-9160 E-mail: sak@hunter-everage.com - and - Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd. Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: jelllzey@eksm.com NATERA INC: Settlement Deal in Davis Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis v. Natera, Inc. (RE NATERA PRENATAL TESTING LITIGATION), Case No. 4:22-cv-00985-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement as modified. 1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, and the terms embodied therein pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). 2. Within seven (7) business days of this Order, the Defendant shall pay the Escrow Agent Eight Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($8,250,000) to be placed in an interest- bearing account that constitutes a qualified settlement fund ("QSF"). 3. The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a "Settlement Class," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), consisting of: "All persons in the United States who purchased at least one Natera NIPT (under the brands Panorama and Vasistera) during the applicable Class Period." 4. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Lisa Cassinis, Sara Martinez, Amanda Law, Lillian Delaurie, Laura Ashley Heryla, Yelena Kreynstein, Chelsey Stephens, and Amanda Davis as Settlement Class Representatives to represent the Settlement Class. 5. The Court appoints the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Jan. 8, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., remotely via Zoom webinar. Natera is a clinical genetic testing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0F149W at no extra charge.[CC] NAVIENT CORP: Class Cert Fact Discovery in Ballard Due Sept. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jill Ballard, v. Navient Corporation et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Phillip Caraballo entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Class Certification Fact Discovery: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Telephone status conference: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Disclosures of Experts: Oct. 1. 2025 -- Expert Reports: Oct. 15, 2025 -- Rebuttal Expert Reports: Nov. 3, 2025 Navient is an American financial services company and former student loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ujOXub at no extra charge.[CC] NEOGEN CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of common stock of Neogen Corporation (NASDAQ: NEOG) between January 5, 2023 and June 3, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 16, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Neogen common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Neogen class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42260 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 16, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements which led investors to believe that the integration was progressing smoothly when the opposite was true. At the beginning of the Class Period, defendants touted that the integration process was "off to a great start" and that Neogen "delivered solid core growth in both of our segments and, notably, a level of profitability well ahead of where the company was prior to the acquisition." In addition, while Neogen admitted that certain "inefficiencies" arose as a result of the integration process, defendants downplayed them assuring investors, "we have our arms around the key issues and are fully committed to resolving them in the near future." When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Neogen class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42260 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS: Settlement in Jackson Get Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA JACKSON and MARTA MEDA, v. NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS, INC.; PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DONALD COMB; JAMES V. ELLARD; RICHARD IRELAND; COMMITTEE OF NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS, INC. EMPLOYEES' STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, and NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS, INC. NON-VOTING STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 1:23-cv-12208-RGS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard Stearns entered an order granting final approval of class actions settlement. The Class defined by the Court's order dated Apr. 21, 2025 is finally certified for settlement purposes under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) as follows: "All participants in the New England BioLabs Non-Voting Stock Ownership Plan whose NEB stock in their Plan account was liquidated (in whole or in part) between Sept. 29, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2021 – including all participants to whom NEB shares were distributed in kind (i.e. in the form of physical share certificates) between Sept. 29, 2017 and Sept. 30, 2019 and which were subsequently repurchased by NEB or the Plan before Dec. 31, 2020 – and the beneficiaries of such participants, except the Excluded Persons." "Excluded Persons” means the following persons who are excluded from the Class: (a) Defendants, (b) officers and directors of New England Biolabs, Inc., (c) any fiduciaries of the Plan at any time during September 2017 and Dec. 30, 2021, (d) the beneficiaries of such persons (e) the immediate family members of any of the foregoing, and (f) any participants who previously settled claims alleged in the Amended Complaint, and (g) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Court confirms its prior appointment of Melissa Jackson and Marta Meda as representatives of the Class and its prior appointment of R. Joseph Barton and Jonathan Feigenbaum as co-lead class counsel. The distribution of the notice of class action settlement was in accordance with the terms of the settlement and the preliminary approval order. New is an American life sciences company which produces and supplies recombinant and native enzyme reagents for life science research. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UQa67t at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Burns Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ RACHEL BURNS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Rachel Burns, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-1132, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against the Defendants alleging gender bias and wage discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On Nov. 19, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Brenda K. Sannes granted on Aug. 1, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege their employer delegated a core duty to Defendant New York State Civil Service Commission. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. The appellate case is entitled Burns v. State of New York, Case No. 25-1979, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RACHEL BURNS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael H. Sussman, Esq. 1 Railroad Avenue, Suite 3 P.O. Box 1005 Goshen, NY 10924 Defendants-Appellees STATE OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 NEWMARK GROUP: Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- Newmark Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Sherman Antitrust Act-related class suit remains pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265). The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited partners on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law. The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, as amended, on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade. In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from competition, and limit innovation. The plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least $5,000,000. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and in response, on May 31, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging similar allegations as a basis for claims for breach of contract and violation of the Sherman Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On February 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, repleading claims for violation of federal antitrust laws and challenging economic forfeiture and non-compete obligations as violative of federal competition law. On December 2, 2024, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On December 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The parties have completed briefing the appeal. The Company continues to believe the lawsuit has no merit and that the District Court's dismissal of the matter will be affirmed on appeal. However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined with certainty. NEXT SOLUTIONS: Initial Briefing in Lee Class Suit Due Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARED LEE, v. NEXT SOLUTIONS, LLC ET AL., Case No. 5:25-cv-00003-BJB-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Lanny King entered an order a class certification briefing schedule: -- Initial Briefing due Sept. 30, 2025; -- Response due Oct. 21, 2025; and -- Reply, if any, due Nov. 4, 2025 The parties shall contact the Court for a status conference following resolution of the motion or motions. Next is a field service provider, primarily focused on satellite and cable TV and internet services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ciWWT at no extra charge.[CC] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Buchanan Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amanda Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Case No. 2025CH06865 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09577. In her Complaint, Plaintiff brings a putative class action alleging that Norfolk Southern violated Plaintiff's privacy rights under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Becky L. Kalas, Esq. FORDHARRISON LLP 180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 1660 Chicago, Il 60601 Phone: (312) 960-6115d Facsimile: (312) 332-6130 Email: bkalas@fordharrison.com NOUVEAU ESSENTIALS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 14, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LOPRESTI, v. NOUVEAU ESSENTIALS MARKETING LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00282-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Carlos Mendoza entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Action or Event Deadline Mandatory initial disclosures: Aug. 11, 2025 Motion to join a party or amend pleadings: Sept. 15, 2025 The Plaintiff's expert report disclosure: Feb. 3, 2026 The Defendant's expert report disclosure: Mar. 5, 2026 Completion of discovery and motion to Apr. 3, 2026 compel discovery: Class Certification: Apr. 14, 2026 Dispositive and Daubert motions: May 5, 2026 Trial Status Conference: Sept. 17, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PGJ3NN at no extra charge.[CC] ORTLIEB USA: Lopez Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ORTLIEB USA LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06750 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://us.ortlieb.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, us.ortlieb.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. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://us.ortlieb.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal OTTER.AI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unconsented Recordings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Morrison of WPN reports that in the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence tools designed to enhance productivity, a new legal battle is underscoring the delicate balance between innovation and user privacy. Otter.ai, a popular transcription service, finds itself at the center of a class-action lawsuit alleging that its Otter Notetaker feature records virtual meetings without obtaining consent from all participants. The complaint, filed in a California federal court, claims violations of both federal wiretap laws and California's Invasion of Privacy Act. The plaintiff, Christopher Papa, a California resident, discovered the issue during a virtual medical appointment when an unannounced Otter.ai bot joined the call, capturing sensitive discussions without his knowledge or approval. According to details reported by WebProNews, the suit argues that Otter Notetaker integrates seamlessly with platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet, but fails to notify or seek permission from non-users whose conversations are recorded and processed for transcription and AI training. The Mechanics of Otter Notetaker and Its Integration Otter.ai's Notetaker is marketed as an AI-powered assistant that automatically joins meetings to transcribe conversations in real-time, generating summaries and actionable insights. Users can invite the bot to meetings, but the lawsuit highlights a critical flaw: it does not explicitly alert all participants, particularly those who are not Otter subscribers, about the recording. This oversight, the complaint asserts, turns routine virtual interactions into potential privacy breaches, especially in sensitive contexts like healthcare or confidential business discussions. As PCMag explains in its coverage, the feature's failure to disclose its active recording status when other members have not consented violates key privacy statutes. The suit seeks to represent a class of potentially millions of individuals whose conversations may have been captured without permission, demanding damages and an injunction against such practices. Broader Implications for AI in Communication Tools This case arrives amid growing scrutiny of AI technologies that handle personal data. Otter.ai, founded in 2016, has gained traction among professionals for its accuracy in transcribing accents and technical jargon, boasting integrations with major conferencing software. However, the lawsuit points to a larger issue: the use of recorded data not just for transcription but also for training AI models, which could perpetuate privacy risks if not handled transparently. Reports from Mashable note that the complaint emphasizes how Otter Notetaker "doesn't ask for permission to record video meetings," potentially affecting users worldwide but focusing on California's strict two-party consent laws. Industry insiders are watching closely, as a ruling could set precedents for how AI bots must obtain explicit consent in multi-party settings. Public Reaction and Industry Response Sentiment on social platforms like X reflects widespread concern, with users expressing shock over the potential for unauthorized recordings in private conversations. Posts highlight fears that such tools could erode trust in virtual communications, especially post-pandemic when remote meetings have become ubiquitous. Otter.ai has yet to publicly respond in detail to the allegations, but sources like LAist describe the suit as accusing the company of "deceptively and surreptitiously" recording to train its service. Legal experts suggest this could lead to settlements or feature overhauls, similar to past privacy cases involving tech giants. Legal Precedents and Future Outlook Drawing parallels to previous lawsuits, such as those against Zoom for data sharing without consent, this action underscores California's role as a bellwether for privacy regulation. The complaint, as detailed in NPR's reporting, claims the service may be processing millions of private conversations without consent, raising questions about data retention and usage. For industry insiders, the case signals a need for robust consent mechanisms in AI tools. As virtual collaboration tools proliferate, companies like Otter.ai must navigate tightening regulations to avoid similar pitfalls. Updates from ongoing coverage indicate the lawsuit is in its early stages, with potential for expansion as more plaintiffs emerge. This development could reshape how AI assistants operate, prioritizing transparency to mitigate legal and reputational risks. [GN] OXY USA: Rider Appeals Tossed Class Certification Bid to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family Trust, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Cherry Rider, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family Trust, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oxy USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01274-KHV-TJJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Plaintiffs brought this complaint against the Defendants for breach of contract. On Jan. 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On the same day, the Defendants also filed a motion to strike and a motion to exclude the expert opinions of Paul Saas as an improper rebuttal expert. On June 18, 2025, Judge Kathryn H. Vratil overruled the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Defendants' motion to strike and motion to exclude the expert opinions of Paul Saas are overruled as moot. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs have not established that the proposed class satisfies all requirements of Rule 23. On July 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the June 18 Order, which the Court granted on Aug. 13, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Rider, et al. v. Oxy USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-3142, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on August 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family Trust, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David G. Seely, Esq. Ryan K. Meyer, Esq. Emily K. Arida, Esq. FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH, LLC 1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 267-7361 - and - Erick E. Nordling, Esq. KRAMER, NORDLING & NORDLING, LLC 209 E. 6th St. Hugoton, KS 67951 Telephone: (620) 544-4333 Defendants-Appellees OXY USA, INC., et al. are represented by: Daniel M. McClure, Esq. James V. Leito, IV, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1550 Lamar, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5151 Email: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com james.leito@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Robert W. Coykendall, Esq. Will B. Wohlford, Esq. Jonathan A. Schlatter, Esq. MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD. 300 N. Mead, Suite 200 Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 262-2671 Email: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com wwohlford@morrislaing.com jschlatter@morrislaing.com - and - James M. Armstrong, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 291-9576 Email: jarmstrong@foulston.com - and - Mark Rodriguez, Esq. Maryam Ghaffar, Esq. BECK REDDEN LLP 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Email: mrodriguez@beckredden.com mghaffar@beckredden.com PACCAR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in 10th Gear Due July 13, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as 10th GEAR LLC, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PACCAR INC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01933-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order as follows: Event Date Motion for Class Certification Due: July 13, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification Due: Aug. 13, 2026 Reply to Class Certification Due: Aug. 27, 2026 Deadline for Amending Pleadings: Oct. 8, 2026 Expert Disclosure Reports: Oct. 8, 2026 Discovery completed by: Dec. 7, 2026 Settlement conference held no later than: Dec. 21, 2026 Motions in Limine filed by: March 8, 2027 Trial date: April 5, 2027 Paccar is an American company primarily focused on the design and manufacturing of large commercial trucks. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bjkaeG at no extra charge.[CC] PAPA JOHN'S: Settlement Deal in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as in Re: Papa John's Employee and Franchisee Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00825-BJB-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Beaton entered an order preliminarily approving settlement agreement & authorizing notice 1. Solely for the purposes of the proposed Settlement, the following Settlement Class is provisionally certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All individuals who were employed at a Papa John's branded restaurant located in the United States, whether owned by the Defendants or a Papa John's franchisee, at any time between Dec. 18, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2021 and who received more than $200 in compensation during that time period." 2. Solely for the purposes of the proposed Settlement, the Court preliminarily approves Lin Y. Chan of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Christian Levis of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.; Richard McCune of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP; and Michelle E. Conston of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP to be appointed as Class Counsel. The Court also preliminarily approves Page as the Class Representative. 3. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Claim Form and Notice of Class Action Settlement with the following modifications: (1) the procedure must specify that the 100-day deadline for response will be calculated from the date emails and postcards are sent, and (2) once the content of the email notice is developed by Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, it must receive final approval from the Court. 4. A hearing, for purposes of determining whether the Settlement should be finally approved, shall be held before this Court on Jan. 7, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. Ashley Page is the sole representative of a putative antitrust class of pizza chain employees subject to franchise-wide no-poach provisions. She has filed an amended motion for preliminary approval of a classwide settlement with Papa John's International and Papa John's USA. The Court previously issued an opinion denying Page's initial motion for preliminary approval of this settlement. Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rLME2L at no extra charge.[CC] PEARCE-WENTZVILLE LLC: McCauley Sues Over Physical Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------- Maryanne McCauley, on behalf of others similarly situated v. PEARCE-WENTZVILLE, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01209 (E.D. Mo., 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 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 to El Maguey, 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. Pearce-Wentzville, LLC is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Missouri.[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 PERFECT MOVING: Vorburger Class Suit Assigned to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alex Vorburger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Perfect Moving and Storage LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06387-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order referring action to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): General pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pre-trial motions, and settlement) Specific non-dispositive motion/dispute: class certification Dispositive motion (i.e. motion requiring a report and recommendation. Perfect is a moving and storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6gdzk9 at no extra charge.[CC] PIONEER BANCORP: "O'Malley's" Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------- Pioneer Bancorp, Inc disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the O'Malley's Oven LLC class suit remains stayed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. On September 2, 2022, two substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The first complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo's Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern which seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. The second complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC. Similar to the first complaint, the two named plaintiffs in the second complaint seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the same set of facts as the AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. Both complaints assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment. Both complaints also seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of December 30, 2022. On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss the complaints. On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that assert the same causes of action but include additional allegations. On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26, 2023. On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the Pioneer Parties. On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the response of the plaintiffs. On February 1, 2024, the court entered an order, on its own motion, staying both actions pending the outcome of the ongoing, earlier-filed federal litigation. On January 31, 2025, the parties submitted a joint written update to the court concerning the status of the federal litigation. These actions remain stayed pending the outcome of that litigation. PMI WW BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PMI WW Brands, LLC d/b/a Stanley1913, Case No. 0:25-cv-03218-LMP-SGE (D. Minn., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.stanley1913.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 drinkware and accessories for sale, including but not limited to, water bottles, tumblers, beverage containers, coolers 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 PREMIUM MERCHANT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY STORY, v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00910-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered a scheduling order as follows: Completion of fact discovery: March 31, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert disclosures: April 26, 2026 The Defendant's expert disclosures: May 23, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: April 26, 2026 The Response to motion for class certification: May 23, 2026 The reply supporting motion for class certification: June 20, 2026 Premium offers merchant cash advances, small business loans, and equipment financing. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QLDxsx at no extra charge.[CC] QUAKER OATS: Class Settlement in Kessler Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raymond Kessler, Hartence Hill, Lazaro Rodriguez, Teresa Herendeen, and Barbara Abreu individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class. The Court re-affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies Raymond Kessler, Hartence Hill, Lazaro Rodriguez, Teresa Herendeen, and Barbara Abreu as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and finally appoints Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC, Levin Sedran & Berman, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Reese LLP, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Poulin Willey Anastapoulo, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Goldenberg Schneider, LP.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Pat Zhen is the only Class Member who has objected to the Settlement or any of its terms. Pat Zhen's objections are overruled for the reasons stated on the record at the Settlement Hearing. Quaker is an American food company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0kGbbf at no extra charge.[CC] RECOVER-CARE: Vasquez Seeks Final Collective Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE VASQUEZ, MELISSA SIMS, and ALICIA THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated employees, v. RECOVER-CARE SHAWNEE, LLC, RECOVER-CARE PINNACLE PARK, LLC, and MRC SNF MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02183-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting their motion for final collective action certification, and -- approving their resolution of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Kansas law through the Settlement Agreement. The Defendant provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services, therapy and social services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OUcu4y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. Ethan A. Crockett, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Kevin A. Todd, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 754 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 708-2496 E-mail: bthoenen@hkm.com ecrockett@hkm.com jziegelmeyer@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel B. Boatright, Esq. Christopher M. Helt, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 1450 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 627-4401 Facsimile: (816) 817-7703 E-mail: dboatright@littler.com chelt@littler.com REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Class Settlement in Berry Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REFRESCO BEVERAGES U.S. INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02763-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber entered an order adopting report and recommendation and granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. For purposes of settlement only, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(b), the Court provisionally certifies the class, defined as follows: "All persons Refresco identified as being among those individuals impacted by the March 2023 Data Breach, including all who were sent a notice of the Data Breach (the "settlement class members")." The settlement class specifically excludes: (1) any judge presiding over this matter and any of their first-degree relatives and judicial staff; (2) Refresco's officers, directors, and members; and (3) persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the settlement class. 2. The Plaintiff John Berry is designated and appointed as the class representative. The Court provisionally finds that the class representative is similarly situated to absent settlement class members and is typical of the settlement class, and, therefore, will be an adequate class representative. 4. The Court finds that Nicholas A. Migliaccio of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, and Scott D. Hirsch of Scott Hirsch Law Group, PLLC are experienced and adequate counsel and are appointed as settlement class counsel. 5. The payments available to settlement class members under subsection 8(a), together with settlement administration charges, and Plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses, shall derive from the $650,00.00 non-reversionary net settlement fund. The case involves a putative class action against Refresco relating to a criminal data security incident it suffered that potentially allowed an unauthorized actor to access the personal information of approximately 23,491 individuals in or around March 2023. Refresco announced the Incident in a notice sent to affected individuals in November 2023. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Berry filed a complaint alleging, among other things, that Refresco failed to take adequate measures to protect her and other putative class members’ personal information and failed to disclose that its systems were susceptible to such a criminal attack. The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 14, 2024. Refresco is a producer of soft drinks, water, fruit juices, energy drinks, alcohol, and plant-based drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Eg81GB at no extra charge.[CC] ROBERT LUNA: Bid for Renewed Certification Denied w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Stewart et al., v. Robert Luna et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for renewed certification. The Plaintiffs will have one final opportunity to move to certify a class. An amended case schedule, including dates for the filing of any renewed motion for class certification, will issue, the Court says. On April 21, 2022, Stewart and Vazquez were pretrial detainees housed in Unit 711 at the Los Angeles County North County Correctional Facility ("NCCF") located in Castaic, California. The Plaintiffs previously moved to certify the following class: All NCCF Unit 711 inmates -- approximately 62 (two inmates, Treyvon Daniels and Mynor Larios,1 have opted out and two inmates who did not comply with orders given by Defendant Gutierrez are excluded) -- who, on April 21, 2022, were subjected to continual tear gassing, pepper spray, and being shot with pepper balls without any justification. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FlKgjh at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKFISH SEAFOOD: Manzanares Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Makayla Manzanares, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ROCKFISH SEAFOOD GRILL, INC. d/b/a ROCKFISH SEAFOOD & GRILL, Case No. 4:25-cv-03762 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's unpaid minimum wages. When the Defendant hires Servers, like the Plaintiff, it attempts to credit a portion of the tips earned by Servers toward its federal minimum wage obligations, and, consequently, it compensates Servers at an hourly rate below the applicable federal minimum wage. However, the Defendant fails to provide its Servers, including the Plaintiff, with sufficient notice of the tip credit under federal law. During all times material hereto, the Defendant did not: provide the full statutorily required tip notice under federal law; or pay the full federal minimum wage. The Plaintiff and the collective members are entitled to recover at least the federal minimum wage for each hour spent performing work for the Defendant within the past 3 years, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server at the Rockfish Seafood & Grill Restaurant. The Defendant owned, operated, and controlled 7 Rockfish Seafood & Grill restaurants in the State of Texas.[BN] Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael V. Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com RUGSUSA LLC: Parties in Hong Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification deadlines: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Reply in support of motion for Jan. 16, 2025 Jan. 23, 2026 class certification: Hearing on class certification: Mar. 26, 2026 April 9, 2026 RugsUSA provides flooring products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i52JPB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vivek Kothari, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: vivek@dovel.com simon@dovel.com christin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 526-7903 Facsimile: (949) 526-7903 E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com RXO LAST: Seeks to Vacate Jan. 26, 2023 Class Cert Order -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR A. ESPINAL, FREDY O. CARBAJAL, ARLEN Y. MARTINEZ, OSCAR RENE CALDERON ROMERO and WELLINGTON TORRES On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02854-JKS-JBC (D.N.J.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order vacating its Jan. 26, 2023 Order granting certification and to enter an Order decertifying the Class. RXO is a last mile provider. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J5UJ0U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. Carole Lynn Nowicki, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com cnowicki@s-tlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: James J. Panzini, Esq. Adam L. Lounsbury, Esq. D. Paul Holdsworth, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Connell Drive, Suite 2000 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Telephone: (908) 795-5200 Facsimile: (908) 464-2614 E-mail: James.Panzini@jacksonlewis.com Adam.Lounsbury@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Holdsworth@jacksonlewis.com RXSIGHT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against RxSight, Inc. ("RxSight" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RXST) and reminds investors of the September 22, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing "adoption challenges" and/or structural issues resulting in declines in sales and utilization; (2) Defendants had overstated the demand for RxSight's products; (3) as a result, RxSight was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance for fiscal year 2025; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On July 8, 2025, after the market closed, RxSight reported preliminary second quarter 2025 financial results, revealing significant declines in LDD sales, LAL utilization, and overall revenue. The Company also lowered its full year 2025 guidance by approximately $42.5 million at the midpoint. The Company's Chief Executive Officer, Ronald Kurtz, disclosed that "[a]doption challenges over the last few quarters have been a primary reason for the LDD stall." On this news, RxSight's stock price fell $4.84, or 37.8%, to close at $7.95 per share on July 9, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding RxSight's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the RxSight class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/RXST or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).[GN] SELECTQUOTE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired SelectQuote, Inc. (NYSE:SLQT) securities between September 9, 2020 and May 1, 2025. SelectQuote is an insurance broker which sells Medicare Advantage and other health insurance plans online and by telephone. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that SelectQuote, Inc. (SLQT) Violated the False Claims Act According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was directing Medicare beneficiaries to the plans offered by insurers that best compensated SelectQuote, regardless of the quality or suitability of the insurers' plans; (2) that SelectQuote did not provide unbiased comparison shopping for Medicare Advantage insurance plans; (3) that SelectQuote received illegal kickbacks to steer Medicare beneficiaries to certain insurers and limit enrollment in competitors' plans; (4) that as a result, SelectQuote had not complied with applicable laws, regulations, and contractual provisions; and (5) that SelectQuote was vulnerable to regulatory and legal sanctions as a result of its conduct, including claims that it had violated the False Claims Act. Plaintiff alleges that on May 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a False Claims Act complaint against SelectQuote, alleging, "[f]rom 2016 through at least 2021" SelectQuote received "tens of millions of dollars" in "illegal kickbacks" from health insurance companies in exchange for steering Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in the insurers' plans. Further, SelectQuote, in exchange for kickbacks, engaged in a conspiracy with major insurers to illegally discriminate against beneficiaries deemed to be less profitable, including those with disabilities. The DOJ concluded that SelectQuote made materially false claims by stating it offers "unbiased coverage comparisons" when in fact it "repeatedly directed Medicare beneficiaries to the plans offered by insurers that paid them the most money, regardless of the quality or suitability of the insurers' plans." On this news, SelectQuote's stock price fell $0.61, or 19.2%, to close at $2.56 per share on May 1, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against SelectQuote, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by October 10, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against CTO Realty Growth, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com[GN] SHOE SHOW: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Harris Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN HARRIS and MARTICILLA ROBERTS, individually on behalf of Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, v. SHOE SHOW, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00398-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time, up to and including Sept. 8, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional collective certification and court-authorized notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs. Shoe is a large American footwear retailer. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GGTDc8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Paul R. Piccigallo, Esq. Jennifer S. Kim, Esq. Stephen D. Dellinger, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022.3298 Telephone: (212) 583-9600 E-mail: ppiccigallo@littler.com jeskim@littler.com SIKA CORPORATION: Technical Service Reps in Cook Get Class Status ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP J. COOK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SIKA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-11304-ES-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order conditionally certifying, pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a collective action and directing that Court-facilitated notice should be sent to the following: "All current or former roofing technical service representative employed by Sika Corporation from May 27, 2022 to the present who were paid on a salary basis and worked more than 40 hours in any work week since that date." The Court further entered an order approving the Parties agreed upon notice documents, identified as: Exhibit A (mailing envelope); Exhibit B (notices); Exhibit C (consent form); Exhibit D (text notice) and Exhibit E (E-mail notice) attached to the Parties' stipulation. All other terms and conditions of the stipulation to conditional certification of FLSA collective action are approved. Sika provides diversified products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7UgkhE at no extra charge.[CC] SMTC MANUFACTURING: Nguyen Suit Remanded to Alameda Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOMO NGUYEN, v. SMTC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-07394-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting motion to remand case to Alameda County Superior Court. Nguyen argues that this case should be remanded because (1) SMTC Corporation's notice of removal was untimely, and (2) the SMTC Defendants fail to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Because the Court grants the motion on the basis that the SMTC Defendants failed to carry their burden to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the Court does not reach Nguyen's argument regarding timeliness of removal. Here, Nguyen's complaint does not pray for damages in a specific amount. The SMTC Defendants' opposition calculates the amount in controversy as follows: Rest Break Premiums: $2,849,587 Waiting Time Penalties: $1,646,400 Wage Statement Damages: $1,083,550 Attorneys’ Fees: $1,394,884.252 In total, the SMTC Defendants assert $6,974,421.25 in controversy. The SMTC Defendants argue that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied because Nguyen made a demand in the parties’ mediation above $5 million. Nguyen alleged that Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages and failed to pay all sick time. She filed the action on behalf of herself and the following proposed classes: (1) all non-exempt employees who work or worked for Defendants in California, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial; (2) all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in California and who worked overtime hours during at least one shift, during the four years immediately 28 preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial; (3) all employees who work or worked for Defendants in California, during the one year immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial; and (4) all employees who work or worked for Defendants in California and who left their employ during the three years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial. SMTC manufactures electronic products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6GWGLr at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN TIRE MART: Stephenson Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Tire Mart, LLC. The case is styled as Chris Stephenson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southern Tire Mart, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00111-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., Aug. 12, 2025). The nature of suit s stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Southern Tire Mart -- https://stmtires.com/ -- is a commercial retailer of tires and repair services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Russell Segars, III, Esq. THE DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 208 Waterford Square, Suite 300 Madison, MS 39110 Phone: (601) 607-3456 Fax: (601) 607-3393 Email: tripp@msattorneys.com SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Due March 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PEPPARS, v. SPARC GROUP LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-03618-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for March 6, 2026 class certification and disclose experts: The Defendant's deadline to file opposition June 4, 2026 to motion for class certification and disclose rebuttal experts: The Plaintiff's deadline to file reply in July 16, 2026 support of motion for class certification: Class Certification Hearing: Oct. 1, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Sparc retails apparel and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gwlV2a at no extra charge.[CC] SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sep 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces the reopening of the Lead Plaintiff appointment process in a pending securities class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI). Investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Spectrum and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until September 24, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. Spectrum is a biopharmaceutical company focused on oncology treatments. The class action lawsuit alleges that Spectrum made false or misleading statements to investors regarding its Pinnacle Study, a clinical trial involving poziotinib, a drug intended to treat certain lung cancer patients. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Telephone: (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 E-mail: dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN] ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Miller Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY MILLER, KAYLA KILPATRICK, and BLAKE BUMANN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY, Case No. 3:23-cv-02597-JPG (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge J. Phil Gilbert entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23. The Court will deny the plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 because they have not pleaded this action as a class action in the Second Amended Complaint (or any earlier pleading) and, even if they had adequately pleaded a class action, they have not established that the proposed class members are so numerous that joinder is not practicable. The case involves County employees who worked as Telecommunicators (commonly known as dispatchers) for the County's Emergency Management Administration. In the case, Miller, Kilpatrick, and Bumann complain of two County policies: (1) the "Break Policy" under which a half-hour was automatically deducted from their work time whether they took their allotted break or not, and (2) the "Work Week Policy" under which they were paid overtime premiums only for hours worked over eighty hours in a two-week period even where employees worked over forty hours in a one-week period. The plaintiffs assert that these policies violated section 207(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I), and section 4a(1) of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") (Count II). St. Clair is a county located in the US state of Michigan and bordering the west bank of the St. Clair River. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OCenqI at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Court Reopens Muhammad Class Action ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MUHAMMAD v. STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-06149 (D.N.J., Filed Oct. 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz entered an order that the case is reopened to allow for a motion to amend to be filed by the Plaintiffs on a schedule to be set by the United States Magistrate Judge. This is because the most efficient course of action is to have class certification issues resolved based on what is determined, after motion practice, to be the operative complaint, the Court says. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. State Farm Insurance is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[CC] SWN PRODUCTION: Appeals Court Order in Starcher Suit to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SWN PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Denver Starcher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SWN Production Company, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00061-JPB-JPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The Plaintiffs brought this complaint against the Defendants for breach of contract. The appellate case is entitled SWN Production Company, LLC v. Denver Starcher, Case No. 25-185, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent DENVER STARCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Joseph Guida, Esq. GUIDA LAW OFFICES 3374 Main Street Weirton, WV 26062 Telephone: (304) 748-1213 - and - Jeremy Matthew McGraw, Esq. Christian Edward Turak, Esq. GOLD, KHOUREY & TURAK, LC 510 Tomlinson Avenue Moundsville, WV 26041 Telephone: (304) 845-9750 Defendants-Petitioners SWN PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, et al. are represented by: Jennifer J. Hicks, Esq. Timothy M. Miller, Esq. Austin Drake Rogers, Esq. BABST, CALLAND, CLEMENTS, ZOMNIR, P.C. 300 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (681) 205-8888 (681) 265-1361 (757) 262-9029 - and - Marc S. Tabolsky, Esq. HICKS JOHNSON PLLC 700 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 255-4111 SYRACUSE HAULERS: Sims Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dillon Sims, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYRACUSE HAULERS WASTE REMOVAL, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01080-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Payment of Wages Act ("NYPWA"); and the New York Minimum Wage Act ("NYMWA") (the NYPWA and NYMWA are collectively referred to as the "New York Acts"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. During the relevant time period(s), Syracuse Haulers knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, Syracuse Haulers' regular practice, including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock") was (and is) to deduct a 30-minute meal-period from Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' wages for a meal break they did not receive, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Syracuse Haulers in New York. Syracuse Haulers is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael C. Conway, Esq. CONWAY, DONOVAN & MANLEY, PLLC 50 State Street, 2nd Floor Albany, NY Phone: 518-436-1661 Facsimile: 518-432-1996 Email: MConway@lawcdm.com TEA DATING: Fails to Properly Secure Private Info, Tucker Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SHERI TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06669-SK (N.D. Cal., August 7, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach publicly announced on July 25, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information it collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to anyone with a web browser. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. Tea Dating Advice, Inc. owns and operates an application called "Tea" which is marketed as a women-only app that offers dating tools for women and lets women anonymously share and search for information, advice, and photos of men they say they have dates with or are looking to date.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com TEA DATING: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLOTTE VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06691-AGT (N.D. Cal., August 7, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of persons impacted by Defendant's failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain and protect highly sensitive personal information, and on behalf of individuals whose information was provided to Defendant in connection with use of Defendant's dating safety application and services. On or about July 25, 2025, Tea discovered unauthorized access to its systems -- after being alerted to it by media. Their subsequent investigation revealed that users of the notorious message board 4Chan got a hold of and leaked online Tea users’ sensitive data. The catastrophic leak happened not because a sophisticated hacker managed to break into Tea's database, but because Tea's negligence was so egregious that it stored its most sensitive user data in a Google Firebase storage bucket configured for completely public access, the suit alleges. As a direct and proximate result of Tea's security failures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is now in the hands of unauthorized parties, the very predators they sought to avoid. The Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, including Court-ordered implementation of industry-standard information-security measures, regular security audits, and long-term identity theft protection services to prevent future breaches. Tea Dating Advice, Inc. owns and operates an application called "Tea" which is marketed as a women-only app that offers dating tools for women and lets women anonymously share and search for information, advice, and photos of men they say they have dates with or are looking to date.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com david@almeidalawgroup.com THERMO FISHER: Appeals Arbitration Order in Rickes Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Scott Rickes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00690-GPC-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against Thermo Fisher Scientific for discrimination on the basis of age, failure to prevent discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of California's Public Policy, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to produce copies of wage statements upon request, and representative action for civil penalties under California Private Attorneys General Act. On Mar. 12, 2025, Thermo Fisher Scientific filed a motion to compel arbitration, dismiss class claims, and stay action, which Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied on July 15, 2025. Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties did not enter into a valid arbitration agreement because the Plaintiff did not consent to the Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement ("MDRA"). Because no valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, Thermo Fisher Scientific cannot compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims. The appellate case is entitled Rickes v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-5138, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 14, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 19, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 23, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee SCOTT RICKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Stacey Y. Mouton, Esq MOUTON LAW 2150 Comstock Street, Suite 710754 San Diego, CA 92111 Defendant-Appellant THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC. is represented by: Leo P. Norton, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 TITAN SECURITY: Rogers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Rogers and Jessie Randolph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TITAN SECURITY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09564 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") (the IMWL and IWPCA are collectively referred to as the "Illinois Acts"). Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. Titan Security knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Titan Security in Michigan. Titan Security provides security services to its clients throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq. Michael J. Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Ste. 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com TTE TECHNOLOGY: TVs Do Not Contain QLED Technology, Mitchell Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TTE Technology, Inc., dba TCL North America, Case No. 6:25-cv-06424 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2025) arises from TCL's concealment of the technical specifications and display performance of its QLED televisions, and its related false advertising that certain of its QLED televisions, while advertised as having QLED technology, do not actually contain QLED technology or, if QLED technology is present, it is present in such minimal amounts that it does not meaningfully contribute to the performance or display output of the television, thereby making a claim the television is a QLED television and the advertised benefits of the QLED technology false, deceptive, and/or misleading. TCL has been aware that its QLED televisions do not have the advertised QLED technology (or include negligible amounts of the technology as to not provide the advertised benefits. According to the complaint, TCL continues to advertise that certain of its QLED televisions have QLED technology when they, in fact, do not contain QLED technology or include the technology in such negligible amounts as to fail to provide the advertised benefits. Through this conduct, TCL engages in unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent conduct with the intent to deceive the consuming public. As a result of TCL's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of TCL QLED televisions, including Plaintiff, have suffered ascertainable losses, the suit alleges. The unfair and deceptive practices TCL committed were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances. 5. Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known about the QLED Deficiency at the time of purchase, they would not have bought the TCL QLED televisions, or would have paid substantially less for them. TCL advertises that its televisions include QLED technology, despite its knowledge to the contrary, in order to charge a premium price to consumers, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff and putative Class Members paid a premium for technology that the televisions did not contain (or contained in such negligible amounts so as not to provide the advertised benefits). The Plaintiff seeks to redress TCL's violations of New York's consumer fraud statutes, New York's false advertising statutes, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiff purchased a new TCL television for personal use that TCL sold through Target. Target delivered the TCL TV to Mr. Mitchell's apartment in Canandaigua, New York. TTE is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place of business located within Orange County at 189 Technology Dr., Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. David A. McGee, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com dmcgee@tzlegal.com UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Elkhodari Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ HAMZA ELKHODARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., SHALABH GUPTA, and JOHN TOWNSEND, Case No. 3:25-cv-06923 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Unicycive securities between March 29, 2024 and June 27, 2025, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants consistently touted the prospects of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for OLC for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients on dialysis (the OLC NDA), assuring investors and analysts of the Company's readiness and ability to satisfy the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA), manufacturing compliance requirements. In September 2024, Unicycive announced that it had submitted the OLC NDA to the FDA. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Unicycive's readiness and ability to satisfy the FDA's manufacturing compliance requirements was overstated. On June 10, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release "announcing an update on its [NDA] for [OLC] to treat hyperphosphatemia in patients with [CKD] on dialysis." Therein, the Company disclosed that the FDA "had identified deficiencies in cGMP [current good manufacturing practice] compliance at a third-party manufacturing vendor”—specifically, a third-party subcontractor of Unicycive's contract development and manufacturing organization ("CDMO") – "following an FDA inspection" and that, "given the identified deficiencies, any label discussions between the FDA and the Company are precluded." On this news, Unicycive's stock price fell $3.68 per share, or 40.89%, to close at $5.32 per share on June 10, 2025. Then, on June 30, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter (CRL) for the OLC NDA, citing the previously identified cGMP deficiencies at the third-party subcontractor of its CDMO. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Unicycive is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that identifies, develops, and commercializes therapies to address unmet medical needs in the U.S. The Company is developing, among other therapies, oxylanthanum carbonate (OLC), a purported next generation phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. ("Unicycive" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:UNCY) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 25-cv-06923, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Unicycive securities between March 29, 2024 and June 27, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Unicycive securities during the Class Period, you have until October 14, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Unicycive is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that identifies, develops, and commercializes therapies to address unmet medical needs in the U.S. The Company is developing, among other therapies, oxylanthanum carbonate ("OLC"), a purported next-generation phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease ("CKD") patients on dialysis. At all relevant times, Defendants consistently touted the prospects of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for OLC for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients on dialysis (the "OLC NDA"), assuring investors and analysts of the Company's readiness and ability to satisfy the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA"), inter alia, manufacturing compliance requirements. In September 2024, Unicycive announced that it had submitted the OLC NDA to the FDA. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Unicycive's readiness and ability to satisfy the FDA's manufacturing compliance requirements was overstated; (ii) the OLC NDA's regulatory prospects were likewise overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 10, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release "announcing an update on its [NDA] for [OLC] to treat hyperphosphatemia in patients with [CKD] on dialysis." Therein, the Company disclosed that the FDA "had identified deficiencies in cGMP [current good manufacturing practice] compliance at a third-party manufacturing vendor"-specifically, a third-party subcontractor of Unicycive's contract development and manufacturing organization ("CDMO")-"following an FDA inspection" and that, "given the identified deficiencies, any label discussions between the FDA and the Company are precluded." On this news, Unicycive's stock price fell $3.68 per share, or 40.89%, to close at $5.32 per share on June 10, 2025. Then, on June 30, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter for the OLC NDA, citing the previously identified cGMP deficiencies at the third-party subcontractor of its CDMO. On this news, Unicycive's stock price fell $2.03 per share, or 29.85%, to close at $4.77 per share on June 30, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Window Seats' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Klint, writing for Live and Let's Fly, reports that according to multiple reports, United Airlines is the subject of a proposed class action lawsuit claiming the carrier engaged in false advertising by selling seats labeled as "window seats" that lacked an actual window. Travelers allegedly purchased what they thought would be a window seat only to find themselves staring at a blank cabin wall. The lawsuit claims United charges more for window seats and therefore deceived passengers who paid extra, believing they would enjoy a view outside. For many travelers, a window seat is worth the extra cost. But some passengers on United Airlines say they paid additional fees for a window seat and got something very different: a seat next to a solid wall. Now, a class action lawsuit alleges that United Airlines misled customers by selling "window seats" that did not actually have windows. Plaintiffs claim this practice may violate airline passenger rights and may constitute false advertising, and they are seeking compensation. At this point, I have not seen evidence that the class action lawsuit has officially been filed in federal court. Regardless, the potential claim highlights a recurring frustration among travelers: not all "window seats" are created equal. On many aircraft types, one case being the 11A select 737 jets, structural elements or design quirks can leave certain "window" seats without an actual window aligned beside them. Airlines continue to sell these seats as window seats in their booking systems, often at a premium. As frivolous as this lawsuit may seem, there is some validity to objection over the lack of disclosure. United does not clearly indicate which seats are missing windows (while it does indicate if a seat has limited recline). This class action lawsuit is limited to California residents, with California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law offering additional protections and the Golden State being seen as a friendlier venue for this lawsuit if it goes to a jury. CONCLUSION Just what is a window seat on an airplane? Is it always and necessarily a seat with a window or might it also simply describe seats that are adjacent to the fuselage of the plane, whether they have windows or not? A class action lawsuit in California against United Airlines seeks to answer this question. [GN] UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Injunction vs. Citizenship Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as State of Washington, State of Arizona, State of Illinois, State of Oregon, Delmy Franco Aleman, Cherly Norales Castillo, and Alicia Chavarria Lopez, Plaintiffs v. Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, United States Department of State, Marco Rubio, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Dorothy Fink, DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Pamela Bondi, United States Department of Agriculture, Gary Washington, United States of America, Kristi Noem, Jeff Wu, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Frank Bisignano, Defendants, Case No. 25-807 (9th Cir.), D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's grant of a universal preliminary injunction in favor of the State Plaintiffs. Writing for the Panel, Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould holds that President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, denying citizenship to children born in the United States to parents temporarily or unlawfully present, is invalid and unconstitutional. The Panel also dismissed the claims of the Individual Plaintiffs due to their coverage by another certified class action. The States and Individual Plaintiffs challenged Executive Order No. 14160, issued on January 20, 2025, which purports to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present. The privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary. The district court granted a temporary restraining order the day after the Executive Order was signed and later consolidated the cases, granting a universal preliminary injunction on February 6, 2025. The State Plaintiffs claimed that the Executive Order would cause economic injury by reducing federal reimbursements for programs like Medicaid, CHIP, and Title IV-E foster care, and by necessitating costly changes to eligibility-verification systems. The Individual Plaintiffs, noncitizen pregnant women, alleged that their children would be denied citizenship, resulting in loss of federal benefits. The States asserted standing based on concrete economic injuries, while the Individual Plaintiffs' standing was undisputed but later questioned for mootness--"As the majority observes, it appears that both Individual Plaintiffs have given birth, meaning their children are United States citizens--raising mootness concerns." The Defendants argued that the State Plaintiffs lacked standing, asserting that their alleged economic injuries were speculative and indirect. They proposed a novel interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, claiming subject to the jurisdiction thereof refers to political jurisdiction rooted in allegiance and permanent domicile, excluding children of temporarily or unlawfully present parents. The State Plaintiffs countered that the Executive Order violates the plain language of the Citizenship Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), arguing that subject to the jurisdiction thereof means subject to U.S. authority and laws. The Court found that the State Plaintiffs have standing because the loss of reimbursements, funding, and additional expenses incurred by the development of a new system to determine eligibility are concrete and imminent injuries-in-fact, traceable to the Executive Order, and redressable by an injunction . The Court dismissed the Individual Plaintiffs' claims, noting that to the extent the Individual Plaintiffs have live claims, those claims are covered by the class action certified by the district court of New Hampshire in Barbara. According to the Court, the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The Court further held that the plain text and ordinary meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, controlling precedent interpreting the Citizenship Clause, drafting history, and most post-ratification public understanding weigh in favor of Plaintiffs' interpretation. The Court affirmed the district court's grant of a universal preliminary injunction, concluding that the State Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause, as it denies citizenship to children born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. For the same reasons, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Executive Order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a)" (p. 43). The Court found that the State Plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm, as the denial of reimbursements and administrative costs are economic injuries for which monetary damages are not available. The balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction, as the Executive Branch does not have a legitimate interest in violating the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief, as a geographically limited injunction would not prevent the States' administrative burdens. Because the States' residents may give birth in a non party state, and individuals subject to the Executive Order may move between states, the States would need to overhaul their eligibility-verification systems for determining citizenship and incur administrative burdens. The Court verified that the Individual Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed because they are covered by a certified class action in the District of New Hampshire, Barbara, et al. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-244-JL-AJ, 2025 WL 1904338 (D. N.H. July 10, 2025), which includes all current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025 under the conditions specified in the Executive Order. The State Plaintiffs' claims do not involve a class action, as they sue on their own behalf for economic injuries. A copy of the Court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xg7dB from Pacermonitor.com UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Evangelista Prisoner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismisses most claims in the case captioned as Wayne Evangelista, individually and as a class, also known as Wayne Nance Jr., and Prisoners of F.P.C. Duluth, individually and as a class, Plaintiffs v. Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of F.P.C. Duluth, Defendants, File No. 25-CV-00778 (JMB/SGE) (D. Minn.). The class action lawsuit is brought by federal inmates alleging toxic exposure and mishandling of earned-time credits. The matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, dated June 3, 2025. The R&R recommends dismissing most of Plaintiff Wayne Evangelista's Class Action Complaint (Complaint). Evangelista makes several objections to the R&R. The Defendants did not respond. The Court overruled Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, resulting in dismissal of most claims in the action. Evangelista, an inmate at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, brought claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which runs FPC-Duluth, and the Warden of FPC-Duluth. Evangelista alleged that inmates at FPC-Duluth are exposed to toxins. He also alleged that the Federal Bureau of Prisons mishandles earned-time credits awarded under the First Step Act and placements in residential reentry centers under the Second Chance Act. Evangelista made these allegations on behalf of himself and a proposed class of prisoners of FPC-Duluth. The Court construed the Complaint as invoking the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, as well as violations of the First Step Act, Second Chance Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. For relief, Evangelista sought a declaration that Defendants' actions are unlawful, an injunction ordering safe, toxin-free housing, lifelong medical care for exposed FPC-Duluth inmates, accurate earned-time credit calculations and proper residential reentry center placement, and compensatory damages of $100,000 per prisoner per year. The Court overruled Evangelista's objection, explaining that a member of a class may sue on behalf of other members if the party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. However, a self-represented litigant cannot adequately represent the interests of a class because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others. The Court noted that Evangelista's argument that he is an attorney-in-fact in no way shows that he is authorized to practice law and represent others in federal court. As a self-represented party, Evangelista may represent himself, but he cannot represent the interests of members in the class. Therefore, to the extent the Complaint asserts class claims, the Court dismissed those claims with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice to the extent it asserts Eighth Amendment claims based on toxic exposure against the Warden in his individual capacity, and dismissal of the Warden, as sued in his individual capacity. Evangelista made a general, conclusory objection to these recommendations. The Court found no clear error by the Magistrate Judge and adopted these recommendations. Evangelista generally asserted that under the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Loper, the Warden "is in fact in his personal capacity," and the Magistrate Judge cannot overrule the standing precedent set in Loper. However, the general objection failed to fully cite to "Loper" or provide any analysis to support the assertion that the Magistrate Judge's recommendations conflict with that decision. Therefore, to the extent the Complaint asserts Eighth Amendment claims against the Warden in his individual capacity, those claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Warden, as sued in his individual capacity, was dismissed from this action. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of Evangelista's request for a preliminary injunction. Evangelista made a general, conclusory objection to this recommendation. The Court concluded that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err and adopted this recommendation. Evangelista articulated various consequences that he claims have resulted from the Court's failure to issue an injunction and reiterated his request for injunctive relief. However, these statements did not advance any specific legal argument or include any substantive legal analysis. The Court denied the injunction request. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice, as duplicative, to the extent it challenges handling of earned-time credits under the First Step Act and placements in residential reentry centers under the Second Chance Act. Evangelista did not object to these recommendations. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, to the extent that it asserts claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act or seeks monetary damages under the Eighth Amendment from the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Warden. Evangelista did not object to these recommendations. The Court reviewed these portions for clear error and discerned no clear error concerning these recommendations, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice to the extent it raises these claims. Based on the Court's analysis, the Court ordered as follows. Plaintiff Wayne Evangelista's Objection is overruled. The Report and Recommendation is adopted. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice to the extent it asserts class claims, and to the extent it asserts Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Warden of FPC-Duluth in his individual capacity. The Warden, as sued in his individual capacity, is dismissed from this action. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the extent it challenges handling of earned-time credits under the First Step Act and placements in residential reentry centers under the Second Chance Act. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the extent it asserts claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act or seeks money damages, under the Eighth Amendment, from Defendants. Evangelista's request for preliminary injunction is denied. At this time, the only remaining claims are Evangelista's request for injunctive or declaratory relief for alleged Eighth Amendment violations against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden in his official capacity. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BMmTCq from Pacermonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Marks Challenges Constitutionality of E.O. 14321 --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MIMOSA MARKS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. DONALD JOHN TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; PAMELA JO BONDI, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SCOTT TURNER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; SEAN P. DUFFY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION; AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:25-cv-06932-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025) is a federal civil rights action challenging the constitutionally deficient Executive Order titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets," signed by President Donald John Trump on July 24, 2025. The Executive Order mandate the involuntary civil commitment of homeless individuals nationwide, violating fundamental due process rights, equal protection guarantees, and federal disability rights laws. The Plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of this unconstitutional policy that threatens the liberty, dignity, and lives of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Plaintiff has Article III standing because enforcement of Executive Order No. 14321 places him at imminent and particularized risk of involuntary civil commitment, loss of liberty, and life-threatening medical harm; these injuries are directly traceable to Defendants' actions and redressable by this Court through injunctive and declaratory relief. The Plaintiff is an unhoused individual residing in Oakland, California. DONALD JOHN TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States. As President, Mr. Trump is ultimately responsible for the issuance and implementation of the Executive Order titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets," which is challenged in this action. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Settlement Deal in MAC Suit Gets Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARDEN'S ARK CORP., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:23-cv-00708-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Myers II entered an order approving the Settlement Agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel is permitted to seek court approval of a Service Award for the Class Representative. A service award to the Plaintiff of $5,000.00 is fair and reasonable the Court says. Having considered the motion and considering the percentage of the fund, lodestar cross-check, the quality of representation provided and the results obtained, as well as a number of other factors (including the Barber factors), Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of $615,500.00, and reimbursement of costs and expenses of $15,426.97, representing fair and reasonable compensation and reimbursement for Class Counsel's efforts in investigating, litigating, and settling this action. All payments of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to Class Counsel in this action shall be made from the Settlement Fund, and the Released Parties shall have no liability or responsibility for the payment of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees or expenses. Reimbursement of up to $77,646.04 to the Settlement Administrator is fair and reasonable to compensate it for the provision of notice to the Settlement Class and administering the settlement. The Settlement Class is certified as a class of: "All regular users or subscribers to numbers assigned to wireless carriers which Optum Community Health Workers called as part of the Optum at Home program during the Settlement Class Period using an artificial or pre-recorded voice who were not members or subscribers of United Healthcare or that opted out of receiving calls from United Healthcare." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) The Judges presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, Defendant's respective subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded person(s). UnitedHealth is a multinational health insurance and healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AAXF85 at no extra charge.[CC] UROTUNING LLC: Faces Enriquez Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. UROTUNING, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02112-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, between the dates April 9, 2025, and May 11, 2025, Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Plaintiff contends that he never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12- month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). The Defendant operates on-line retail store services featuring auto parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com USA DEBUSK: Class Cert Filing in Alexander Due July 2, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY ALEXANDER, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. USA DEBUSK LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-00839-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting the following briefing schedule and hearing dates as follows: -- Deadline for the Defendant produce its 30(b)(6) witness for deposition: Feb. 27, 2026; -- Expert disclosure exchange as to class certification issues: Apr. 3, 2026; -- Motion for class certification filing deadline: July 2, 2026; -- Opposition to motion for class certification filing deadline: Aug. 10, 2026; -- Reply in support of motion for class certification filing deadline: Aug. 31, 2026; and -- Hearing re: Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 21, 2026, or a date thereafter convenient for the Court. On July 30, 2025, the Parties attended the initial case management conference in the above-entitled action. USA DeBusk provides mechanical and industrial cleaning services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9XvQB9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Piya Mukherjee, Esq. Charlotte E. James, Esq. Andrew Ronan, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com kyle@bamlawca.com aj@bamlawca.com piya@bamlawca.com charlotte@bamlaw.com andrew@bamlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John T. Egley, Esq. Chris C. Scheithauer, Esq. Alexander M. Harrison, Esq. CALL & JENSEN 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 E-mail: jegley@calljensen.com cscheithauer@calljensen.com aharrison@calljensen.com VECTOR SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fabian Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE FABIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VECTOR SECURITY, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01257 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2025) alleges that Vector failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' personally identifiable information from hackers. On Aug. 1, 2025, Vector filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. On or about the same date, Vector also sent out data breach letters (the Notice) to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice, Vector detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files on or around mid-December 2024 (the Data Breach). Yet, Vector waited almost eight months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and "Class Members" had no idea for nearly eight months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, name, Social Security number, driver's license or state identification number, medical information, and health insurance information that Vector collected and maintained, says the suit. Vector, based in Warrendale, Pennsylvania, is an electronic security company that serves thousands of customers on the east coast of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT WOLFSON 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com VECTOR SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Handza Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL HANDZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VECTOR SECURITY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00258-SPB (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information and protected health information of thousands of its current and former employees, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed in or around December 2024. According to the Breach Notice, Vector "detected unauthorized activity in [its] information technology (IT) systems." An internal investigation revealed that "personal information may have been accessed by an unauthorized party" during the Data Breach.2 5. Upon information and belief, the total number of individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant's failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is approximately 30,282. 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 Private Information, says the suit. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Plaintiff Handza is a former employee of Defendant, like the members of the class he seeks to represent. He received a letter (the Breach Notice) on or around August 1, 2025, notifying him more than eight months belatedly about Defendant's Data Breach. Vector is an electronic security company that offers services such as fire protection, video surveillance, and automation services to residential, commercial, and multisite customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com VISTRA CORP: 7th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Pricing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vistra Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the class certification order in the gas index pricing litigation. "We, through our subsidiaries, and another company remain named as defendants in one consolidated putative class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Wisconsin claiming damages resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading, and churn trading from 2000-2002. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices during the relevant time period and seek damages under the respective state antitrust statutes. In April 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit Court) heard oral argument on an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's order certifying a class. In August 2025, the Seventh Circuit Court vacated the district court's order certifying the class and remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration consistent with the Seventh Circuit Court's decision," the Company stated. VULCAN MATERIALS: Tejeda Labor Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN MANUEL TEJEDA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY; CALMAT COMPANY; AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00619-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 3, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting class certification pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The plaintiff class consists of the following: 1. Rounding Class: "All hourly non-exempt employees employed by Calmat Company in California whose time cards were subject to rounding any time between Feb. 12, 2022 and the date of the order certifying the class." 2. Wage Statement Class: "All hourly non-exempt employees employed by Calmat Company in California whose time cards were subject to rounding any time between Feb. 12, 2022 and the date of the order certifying the class." 3. Final Wages Class: "All hourly non-exempt employees employed by Calmat Company in California whose time cards were subject to rounding and they separated employment with Calmat Company any time between Feb. 12, 2022 and the date of the order certifying the class." In addition, the Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him as Class Representative. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint his counsel, Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP and the Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II as Class Counsel. Vulcan is engaged in the production, distribution and sale of construction materials. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kvLaSK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. Win Pham, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.com wpham@lelawfirm.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818)609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com W. L. GORE: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Waterproofing Membrane ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that on February 2025, three law firms from Seattle, Minnesota, and New York boldly filed a Class Action Lawsuit against W. L. Gore & Associates, the manufacturer of the well-known rainproof product "Gore-Tex." The lawsuit, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, centers on allegations from four plaintiffs who claim fraud, misrepresentation, and violations of the consumer protection acts across 28 states. They argue that Gore-Tex is deceivingly marketed as an environmentally friendly waterproofing membrane used in a range of products, including raincoats, hiking boots, and other outdoor apparel. The plaintiffs allege that "Gore offers not much more than empty environmental promises" stating that "greenwashing is the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a product . . . " The plaintiffs contend in their 138-page complaint that they were misled into paying a premium for garments that contain hazardous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as "forever chemicals," which pose serious risks to both health and the environment. On April 28, 2025, the defense filed a motion to dismiss, effectively arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit in the Eastern District of Washington. The motion points out that only one of the four plaintiffs resides in Washington and purchased a Gore-Tex product online, while the others bought their items in San Francisco, Minnesota, and Illinois. The defense rightfully contends that the plaintiffs base their claims on vague allegations, asserting that the product's packaging or advertisements failed to disclose the presence of PFAS. They emphasize that any claims regarding the concealment of harmful chemicals are unfounded, as the plaintiffs claim they would have refrained from purchasing or paying a premium for these products had they been adequately informed. Although the plaintiffs reference three studies from the Environmental Protection Agency supporting their claims about the dangers of PFAS, the defense points out that these studies do not mention Gore-Tex or any of the specific products purchased by the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the defense argues that this lawsuit relies on mere speculation without substantive evidence. This "greenwashing" lawsuit reflects a growing national trend. We've seen a range of similar claims, such as a lawsuit against Target in Minnesota for allegedly overusing its "Target Clean" label and a suit against Tyson Foods in D.C. for misleading statements about its beef products' environmental impact. In January, Proctor & Gamble faced legal action for allegedly misrepresenting its Charmin toilet paper's sustainability efforts. Analysis As their lack of residency in Washington undermines their case, Gore-Tex's legal defense team possesses compelling arguments for dismissing the claims of three of the out-of-state plaintiffs. While the defense may face challenges arguing against jurisdiction based merely on their location outside the state of Washington, their strongest argument lies in demonstrating that the plaintiffs' claims are speculative. Federal district courts have consistently dismissed similar greenwashing lawsuits when the allegations lacked factual support. Favorable rulings for the defense have also occurred in federal courts in New York. The court is set to review the defendant's motion to dismiss concerning Gore-Tex this July. I am confident the court will dismiss the claims against the three out-of-state plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds. If the remaining plaintiff from Washington can present concrete evidence supporting liability against Gore-Tex, the court may reject the motion to dismiss his claims. However, if this plaintiff fails to substantiate his case, I fully expect the court to dismiss his claims as well. Takeaway Historically, defendants achieve more favorable outcomes with dispositive motions in Federal Court compared to Washington State Court. It is noteworthy that the plaintiffs chose to file their lawsuit in Federal Court rather than pursuing other avenues, which could impact the trajectory of this case. If this case were filed in Washington state court, I am confident that the court would determine the Plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently notifies the maker of Gore-Tex of the claims, allowing the case to move forward. In contrast, federal courts take a more rigorous approach, thoroughly scrutinizing the basis of claims against a defendant and swiftly dismissing those founded on speculation and conjecture. Therefore, it is a strategic decision for defense counsel to remove the case to federal court when: 1) it meets the diversity and amount in controversy requirements, and 2) there is a strong expectation that the case will involve significant motions practice. [GN] WHOOP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses health and wellness company Whoop, Inc. of unlawfully disclosing to a third party the sensitive personal data of its fitness tracker and app users. The 15-page lawsuit says that consumer information is captured through Whoop's wearable device, which measures and tracks workouts, sleep patterns, blood pressure, stress levels, heart rate and other health metrics and vitals. According to the suit, Whoop has shared this "treasure trove" of personal data without users' knowledge or consent via a third-party tracker called Segment embedded into the app—in violation of federal and state privacy laws. Whoop's fitness tracker, which consumers receive as part of their annual subscription to the app, is designed to be worn "24/7" to monitor a user's activity and vitals, the case states. The app offers metrics analysis and hosts a library of health-centered educational videos to help guide consumers looking to improve their overall well-being, the complaint describes. The filing asserts that through its app, Whoop has secretly shared users' full names, email addresses, heights, weights, birthdays, genders, cities, usernames and mobile device details. In addition, the app discloses consumer vitals, details about their overall health and the titles of any videos they viewed or requested, the Whoop lawsuit contends. The alleged conduct flies in the face of Whoop's "Privacy Principles," which pledge to keep user data anonymized and protected, the suit charges. According to the case, Whoop has also violated California law by sharing users' medical information and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing their video-watching history without consent. The class action lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who watched a video in the Whoop mobile app within the last two years, and all California residents who purchased a Whoop membership. [GN] WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Mortgage Fair Lending Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wintrust Financial 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 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Mortgage Fair Lending class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire suit and the court granted that motion to dismiss on September 27, 2023 and gave Plaintiff until October 20, 2023 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. Wintrust moved to dismiss the amended complaint on November 21, 2023. Wintrust vigorously disputes these allegations, and Wintrust otherwise lacks sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability. Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois. WISTIA INC: Discloses Viewing Info to Third Parties, Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAN LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WISTIA, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:25-cv-12296 (D. Mass., Aug. 15, 2025) alleges that Defendant knowingly installed tracking pixels from Meta, TikTok, Google, and LinkedIn on its Website in violation to the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the VPPA as well as California law by knowingly disclosing to third parties, including Meta, TikTok, and Google, the personally identifiable information (PII) and video-watching history of users of its Wistia.com website, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, without their knowledge or consent. The Defendant did not need to install the pixel in order to have a functioning website. Rather, the Defendant installed the pixels so that Meta, TikTok and Google would give Defendant valuable information about users of the Website, including demographic information, location, device type, and what videos the users watched and for how long, asserts the suit. The Defendant uses this information to support its revenue-generating activities, including sending targeted advertisements to potential customers and producing additional content tailored to user demand. The Defendant collects and shares Website users' personal information through the use of tracking technologies called pixels. Pixels are invisible snippets of code that monitor how users interact with a website, the suit added. The Plaintiff has been a subscriber of Defendant, having created an account with Defendant by submitting his email address. The Defendant is a video marketing company that provides a comprehensive platform for customers to create, host, and manage video content. Defendant also creates, hosts, and delivers its own video content, including educational and instructional videos about digital marketing and video strategy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan P. Donahue,- Esq. MOUNTAIN, DEARBORN & WHITING 370 Main Street, 8th Floor Worcester, MA 01608 Telephone: (508) 756-2423 Facsimile: (508) 351-0300 E-mail: rdonahue@mountaindearborn.com - and - Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com WYNN RESORTS: Hotel Price-Fixing Class Action Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Scarcella, writing for CDC Gaming, reports that Wynn Resorts, Caesars and Treasure Island convinced a U.S. appeals court on Friday, August 15, to turn back a consumer class action lawsuit accusing them of using shared computer software algorithms to illegally coordinate on Las Vegas hotel room prices. Affirming a lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it wasn't enough for the consumers to show that the rival resorts used the same revenue-management service provider amid an alleged rise in room rental rates. The plaintiffs had accused the resort companies of colluding to overcharge guests by feeding sensitive internal information to a shared software platform operated by Cendyn that offered pricing recommendations. [GN] XOOM ENERGY: Mirkin Class Suit Trial Still Not Set -------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy 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 6, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has not yet set trial date for Mirkin class suit. Mirkin v. XOOM Energy (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2019) XOOM Energy is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York, alleging that XOOM Energy breached its contractual duty to set customer variable rates based on actual and estimated supply costs. The Court denied XOOM's motion for summary judgment and granted class certification. The Second Circuit denied XOOM's request to appeal the class certification grants. XOOM prevailed in its challenge to Mirkin's expert reports. The Court granted XOOM's motion to exclude both reports on damages. As a result, Mirkin has no method to establish damages for its class. The Court is considering whether class certification is still appropriate. Recently, this matter was moved to a new judge for further handling. A trial setting is not expected before Fall 2025. This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the XOOM acquisition. XOOM is an independent energy service company ("ESCO") that purchases energy from producers on the wholesale market and sells that energy to consumers as an alternative to local utilities. XPONENTIAL FITNESS: "McGill" Settlement Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Xponential Fitness Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the McGill class suit settlement remains pending for approval in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On November 22, 2023, former employees of a former franchisee of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03909, against the Company, as well as against a former franchisee of the Company and the franchisee's legal entity, MD Pro Fitness, LLC. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as employment laws from different states in connection with the franchisee's owner-operated studio locations. The Company was served with the complaint on December 4, 2023. On April 4, 2025, the parties executed a settlement agreement and filed a motion seeking court approval of the settlement. By order dated June 18, 2025 (the "Order"), the court enumerated requisite changes to the settlement structure, and the parties are working to comply with the Order. The Company recorded an accrual in anticipation of this settlement, which is included in accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2025. XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Nov. 14 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Xponential Fitness Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a November 14, 2025, hearing is scheduled for the company's motion to dismiss the federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On February 9, 2024, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, regarding misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's financial statements, press releases, and SEC filings made during the putative class period of July 26, 2021 through December 7, 2023. On July 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding three Company directors as defendants, as well as the underwriters from the Company's April 6, 2022 secondary offering, additionally bringing claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleging a putative class period of July 23, 2021 through May 10, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 8, 2024. On December 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss and also filed a motion to supplement the amended complaint, attaching a proposed supplemental complaint. On February 18, 2025, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to supplement, denying defendants' pending motion to dismiss as moot. On February 28, 2025, plaintiffs filed the supplemental complaint. On April 15, 2025, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint. Instead of opposing Defendants' motion to dismiss, on May 6, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which, among other things, adds three new entity defendants to the claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on July 1, 2025 that is scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2025, as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The litigation is preliminary in nature and involves substantial uncertainties, and the Company believes that a loss is not probable or estimable at this time. However, there can be no assurance that such legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. ********* 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 ***