250826.mbx

250826.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 26, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 170 Headlines 310 BOWERY: Court Approves Attys' Fees for Class Counsel 3M COMPANY: Alfaro Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Budnick Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Clark Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Dassylva Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Evans Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Faber-Webb Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Francis Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Frick Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Gilder Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Haas Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Heller Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Hill Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Jones Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: King Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Mahoney Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Meeker Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Stratton Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Williams Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Wolf Files Suit in D. South Carolina ACADIAN KITCHENS: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AIRGAS USA: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: Class Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod ALEXANDRIA FRAGRANCES: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Simon & Simon Antitrust Suit ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Snow Antitrust Class Suit ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Anderson Sues Over Data Breach ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Berger Sues Over Data Breach ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Butler Alleges AMAZON INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over UK Pricing Practices AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Princeton Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin AMERICAN HONDA: Shammam Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action AMERICAN PACIFIC: Fassler Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ANGEION GROUP: Baker Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ANN ARBOR, MI: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 17 in Yannotti Suit ANTHONY SKIN: Evans Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ARAMARK SERVICES: Harraghy Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ARROW FINANCIAL: NY Court Approves Settlement in "Ashe" ASIAN AMERICAN DRUG ABUSE: Banks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss Weinraub Class Suit Tossed BATH PLANET: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines by 30 Days BATH PLANET: Plaintiffs Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing BESTWAY USA: Castro Sues Over Defective Pool Products BETTERHELP INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Sept. 15 BEYOND MEAT: Settlement in Consumer Class Suit Has Final Court OK BEYOND MEAT: SHEPP Action Terminated BISHOP GOLD: Class Settlement in Pitts Suit Gets Initial Nod BOATS GROUP: Brill Sues Over Boat Services Market Monopoly BOWTECH LLC: Carollo Sues Over Archery Products' Monopoly BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: "Martin" Remains Pending in New York BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: "Newton" Remains Pending in Georgia BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Data Breach Suit BRIO WATER: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BRITTO CENTRAL: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BXP INC: Continues to Defend Fair Labor Class Suit in New York CANOPY GROWTH: "Asmaro" Remains Pending in British Columbia CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend "Baron" in New York CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend "Dziedziejko" in Ontario CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Plumbers Securities Class Suit CENTURYLINK INC: Court Orders $168M Bond for FCRA Class Appeal CERNER CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beckford Suit Says CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over 18% Stock Price Drop CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sexual Abuse CITY CHIC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CLOVER HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Bond" With Prejudice COATING SOLUTIONS: Avila Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Johnson Sues Over Labor Law Breaches CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach CS DISCO: Class Cert Hearing in Gambrill Suit Set for Dec. 4 DEALER GENERAL: Riley Seeks to Recover Detailers' Unpaid Wages DEMANDBASE INC: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $3MM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Morgan Wins Third Renewed Class Cert Bid DIVIDEND: Khan Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota DONALD TRUMP: Casa Wins Bid for Class Certification DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Custer Seeks More Time to File Class Cert EASTERLY ROCMUNI: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Williams Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina ELITE NURSES: Mathews Seeks Initial OK of $100K Settlement EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Court Approves Class Notice in Lewis Suit EVANSTON, IL: Jeter Suit Alleges Privacy Rights' Violations FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Suit Over Transfer Market Rules FINE FLATS: Alexandria Sues Over Website Inaccessibility FIRST ELEMENT: Overcharges Hydrogen Fuel Consumers, Harasis Claims FIVE STAR BANK: $29.5MM Deal in Repossession Suit Gets Prelim. OK FORD MOTOR: Court Stays Pacheco Class Suit GENERAL STORE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says GILBERT, AZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Armitage Alleges GLEN COVE: Hernandez Sues Over Website's ADA Violations GLOBAL INSPECTION: Rainey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GOD BLESS AMERICA: Fernandez Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 17, 2026 GOOGLE LLC: Reaches $30MM Settlement in Children's Privacy Suit GRANDMA DIM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Casarrubias Alleges GRINDR INC: Israeli Class Action Remains Pending HATTS OFF: Court Rejects Pre-Certification Discovery in Class Suit HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit in Illinois Over BIPA Violations HUNTER WARFIELD: Blizzard Suit Seeks to Certify Classes IDEAL CLAMP: Rutherford Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages IZAKAYA SEVEN: Wills Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance of ADA JOHN PAUL: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Suit JONES FINANCIAL: Expert Discovery Phase Ongoing in Dixon Suit KAISER FOUNDATION: Agrees to Settle Mental Health Class Suit KATI ROLL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jones Claims KENDALL HEALTHCARE: Pardo Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property KRAFT HEINZ: Danzy Sues Over Juice Products' Deceptive Labels KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Suit Over Capri-Sun Synthetic Ingredients KRISPY KREME: Bid to Name Lead Plaintiff Pending in Securities Suit LEE ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Breach Suit LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed in Charles LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed in Shirley LOANDEPOT INC: Awaits Final Court OK of Data Breach Settlement MENTOR TECHNICAL: Court Stays Ortiz Pending Resolution of Pappoe MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Hernandez Sues Over Sex Discrimination MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 29 MISSION CEVICHE: Class Cert Oral Argument in Flores Set for Sept. 2 MOUNT SINAI: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $5.25-Mil. MOUNTAIN CREST: Class Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2025 MOUNTAIN VIEW: Reaches Settlement in Class Suit Over Medical Debts NASCAR ENTERPRISES: Hargett Sues Over Unprotected Private Info NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Founds Sues Over Unsafe Beverages NATIONAL GENERAL: Custis Sues to Recover Insurance Deductibles NATIONAL GRID: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to August 28 NATIONAL GRID: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response NORDIK SPA: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault NORTH AMERICAN: Martinez Sues Over Labor Law Violations OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in Lilien Gets Initial Nod ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: "Alleman" Settlement Pending Final Court OK ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Pryde" Suit OWLET INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Awaiting Prelim Court OK PAYWARD INC: Filing for Conditional Cert Bid Due Sept. 23 PHIL SMITH: Gillis Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Settlement in "Felipe" Awaiting Court Approval PNC BANK: Lyons Suit Seeks Class Certification PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Lowry et al. Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PRODRIVERS WEST: Ruling on Class Cert Bid Denial Deferred PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Seeks to File Unredacted Exhibits Under Seal RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Patients Sue Over Alleged Data Breach RAINHAS LLC: Faces Alvarado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. RICOH USA: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Batten Alleges RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Hong Set for April 23, 2026 S&P GLOBAL: Dinosaur Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SELECTQUOTE INC: Lead Class Plaintiff Motions Due Oct. 10 SINCLAIR INC: April 2026 Tentative Trial Date in Antitrust Suit SITECORE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Constantine Says SOTERA HEALTH: Appeal from Stockholders' Suit Dismissal Pending TESLA INC: Drivers Can Pursue Class Suit Over Self-Driving Claims TWITTER INC: Parties Seek to Revise Briefing & Hearing Schedule TYRONE OLIVER: Benjamin Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification TYRONE OLIVER: Plaintiffs' Bid for Expedited Procedure OK'd UNITED STATES: Barco Suit Seeks Class Certification UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Nieto Suit UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Parole Terminations UNITED STATES: James Loses Bid for Class Certification UNITED STATES: May Face Class Action Over USAID Mass Layoffs UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Atlantic ERISA Suit Seeks Class Certification US CUSTOMS: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 12 VECTOR SECURITY: Kocher Sues Over Data Security Failures VENZA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Armstead Alleges VERIZON WIRELESS: May Face Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection ********* 310 BOWERY: Court Approves Attys' Fees for Class Counsel -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA MARIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. 310 BOWERY GROUP LLC d/b/a 310 Bowery Bar, EPSTEIN’S BAR LLC d/b/a Stanton Bar, and RICHARD AURIGEMMA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01340-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting the final approval motion seeking approval of attorneys' fees for Class Counsel, whom Defendants contend engaged in misconduct in communicating with potential Class Members. Accordingly, the Court conclude that the procedural fairness requirements under Rule 23(e)(2)(A)–(B) have been satisfied. The Defendants have not shown that Class Counsel’s communications with absent members were abusive or unethical under Rule 23(d)(1)(A)– (B). On July 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the Final Approval Motion, accompanied by a memorandum of law, declaration from Mr. Nussbaum and exhibits, and a declaration from the Claims Administrator. As part of the Final Approval Motion, Plaintiff asked the Court to approve an award of $250,000.00 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel. The billing records accompanying the Final Approval Motion reflect that three attorneys, at a rate of $500 per hour, recorded a total of 196.1 hours and paralegals and administrative assistants, at a rate of $125 per hour, recorded a total of 50.6 hours on this matter, for a total of $104,375.00. The Defendants inferred that, because as of late June 2025, the value of the claims submitted -- 195,812.47 -- was less than the Requested Fees, "Class Counsel needed to ensure that the value of the Class Members' claims sufficiently increased before" the Bar Date to justify the Requested Fees. 310 Bowery owns and operates several well-known establishments. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qtb7C1 at no extra charge.[CC] 3M COMPANY: Alfaro Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Laura Alicia Alfaro, 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-10523-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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: Budnick Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Noel Marie Budnick, 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-10462-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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: Clark Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Amy Gabrielle Clark, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva Inc.; Daikin America Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont De Nemours Inc. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex LLC; Fire Service Plus Inc.; Globe Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Innotex Corp.; Johnson Controls Inc.; Kidde PLC Inc.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; PBI Performance Products Inc.; Perimeter Solutions LP Ricochet Manufacturing Company Inc.; Safety Components Fabric Technologies Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10527-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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: Dassylva Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Julie Dassylva, 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-10448-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Evans Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Tyrone Evans, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva Inc.; Daikin America Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont De Nemours Inc. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex LLC; Fire Service Plus Inc.; Globe Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Innotex Corp.; Johnson Controls Inc.; Kidde PLC Inc.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; PBI Performance Products Inc.; Perimeter Solutions LP Ricochet Manufacturing Company Inc.; Safety Components Fabric Technologies Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10549-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 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: Joseph Yechiel Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN AND PARTNERS LLP (PA) 101 West Elm Street, Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4444 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Faber-Webb Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Stephanie Faber-Webb, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Amesricas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc.; Arkema, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kiddie PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Raytheon Technologies Corporation; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:25-cv-10697-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 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: Stephen Grant Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30324 Phone: (404) 381-2888 Fax: (833) 443-7529 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Francis Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Francis, 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-10452-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Frick Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Stanley Frick, 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-10576-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Gilder Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Rodney Gilder, 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-10581-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Haas Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Geoffrey Haas, 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-10340-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: Heller Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Larry Dean Heller, 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-10383-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: Hill Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Jeanonna Hill, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva Inc.; Daikin America Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont De Nemours Inc. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex LLC; Fire Service Plus Inc.; Globe Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Innotex Corp.; Johnson Controls Inc.; Kidde PLC Inc.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; PBI Performance Products Inc.; Perimeter Solutions LP Ricochet Manufacturing Company Inc.; Safety Components Fabric Technologies Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10646-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 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: Joseph Yechiel Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN AND PARTNERS LLP (PA) 101 West Elm Street, Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4444 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Jones Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Mitchell David Jones, 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-10391-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: King Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Thomas K. King, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01023 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08670-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Mahoney Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as John Patrick Mahoney, 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-10418-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: Meeker Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as John Gordon Meeker, Jr., 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-10345-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: Stratton Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Madison Stratton, 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-10519-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Williams Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Robert Logan Williams, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva Inc.; Daikin America Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont De Nemours Inc. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex LLC; Fire Service Plus Inc.; Globe Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Innotex Corp.; Johnson Controls Inc.; Kidde PLC Inc.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; PBI Performance Products Inc.; Perimeter Solutions LP Ricochet Manufacturing Company Inc.; Safety Components Fabric Technologies Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10513-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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: Wolf Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as John Christian Wolf, II, 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-10468-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 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 ACADIAN KITCHENS: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ACADIAN KITCHENS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09590 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.acadiankitchens.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant specializes in authentic Louisiana-style products, offering a wide selection of spice blends, sauces, and pantry staples inspired by traditional Southern cooking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com AIRGAS USA: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jeffrey Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIRGAS USA, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign profit corporation, AIRGAS SAFETY, INC. a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1¬20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21325-1-SEA was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01531. The Plaintiff asserts one claim against Airgas under the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA") for a purported violation of Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.58.110. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "he and more than 40 Class members applied for job openings with Defendant for positions located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered." The Plaintiff alleges that "some, if not all, of Airgas's job postings" lack pay information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, WSBA No. 59020 Emery Reddy, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 393-4058 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com - and - Matthew R. Kelly, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 393-4060 Email: mrkelly@seyfarth.com ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: Class Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Presson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00170-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement, certifying settlement class, appointing class representative, appointing class counsel, and approving notice plan. The final approval hearing shall be held on Nov. 5, 2025. 1. For purposes of settlement only: (a) Philip L. Fraietta, Stefan Bogdanovich, and Eleanor R. Grasso of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. are appointed as class counsel for the settlement class; and (b) James Presson is named Class representative. 2. For purposes of settlement only: the Court conditionally certifies the following settlement class as defined in the settlement agreement: "All individuals in the United States who purchased electronic tickets to any film screening in any of the Defendant's cinemas located in New York State from the Defendant's website, from Aug. 29, 2022 to and through Jan. 30, 2024, and were charged convenience fees." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=070buc at no extra charge.[CC] ALEXANDRIA FRAGRANCES: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEXANDRIA FRAGRANCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09684 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://alexandriafragrances.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Alexandria Fragrances, Inc. offers range of perfumes and fragrance products. [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 Email: achan@ealg.law ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Simon & Simon Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Align Technology 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Simon and Simon antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 5, 2020, a dental practice named Simon and Simon, PC (doing business as City Smiles) brought an antitrust action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated practices seeking treble monetary damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief relating to its alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a plaintiff on August 14, 2020. On December 18, 2023, the court certified a class of persons or entities that purchased Invisalign directly from the Company between January 1, 2019 and March 31, 2022. The court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of purchasers of scanners. On February 21, 2024, the court granted its motion for summary judgment on all claims brought by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on April 10, 2025. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore it cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss. Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Snow Antitrust Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Snow antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 3, 2021, an individual named Misty Snow brought an antitrust action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals seeking treble monetary damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief relating to its alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets based on Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs have since filed several amended complaints adding new plaintiffs, various state law claims and allegations based on Section 1 of the Sherman Act. On November 29, 2023, the court certified a class of indirect purchasers of Invisalign between July 1, 2018 and December 31, 2023 and a class of indirect purchasers of Invisalign seeking injunctive relief. On February 21, 2024, the court granted its motion for summary judgment on the claims related to Section 2 allegations. The court entered judgment for the Section 2 and related state law claims on March 22, 2024. Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on April 10, 2025. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore it cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss. Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Anderson Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Bradley Anderson, individually, and as next friend of L.A. (a minor), and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 0:25-cv-03235 (D. Minn., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant's recent data security incident that occurred on or around the date(s) of July 16, 2025, which resulted in the breach of Defendant's computer network systems (the "Data Breach") and the disclosure of Defendant's current and former customers, financial professionals, and employees (collectively, "the putative class members" or "Class Members") personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, the "Private Information") which was possessed by Defendant on the Defendant's computer network systems. The Defendant obtained, collected and maintained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information on Defendant's computer network systems, which lacked the adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols, leaving the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information entrusted to Defendant unprotected from the risk of improper disclosure. The data breach resulted from hackers accessing a cloud-based customer relationship management ("CRM") platform used by the company. Cyber-criminals exploited the vulnerabilities in the Defendant's computer network, accessed, encrypted, and stole the Private Information held on the Defendant's computer network systems which included the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The Defendant was on notice that failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols left the information held on Defendant's computer network systems in a dangerous condition and knew the risk of a data security incident occurring and leading to the improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information., says the complaint. The Plaintiff is one of the Defendant's customers who provided Defendant with his and his minor child's Private Information. Allianz Life is a Minnesota insurance corporation and provides financial and life insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Bleichner, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com pkreski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: service@eksm.com lmontgomery@eksm.com ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Berger Sues Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03221-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought against Allianz seeking recompense for its acts and omissions, as alleged below, which led to a breach of Allianz's computer systems and network in July 2025, culminating in the theft of Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive information by cybercriminals (the "Data Breach"). In the regular course of its business, Allianz gathers and stores highly personal information obtained from its customers, financial partners, and employees. This includes: personally identifying information ("PII"), like names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and other government issue ID numbers; financial information, including financial account and banking information; protected health information ("PHI"); and for employees, other employment-related details (collectively "Sensitive Information"). On information and belief, Allianz gathered the Personal Information of millions of its customers. Despite understanding the sensitivity of the data it stored and that it would be a prime target for hackers, Allianz failed to implement adequate systems and procedures for maintaining, safeguarding, and protecting the Sensitive Information it gathered and stored. As a result, in July 2025, cybercriminals capitalized on these deficiencies, infiltrated Allianz's systems, and extracted the highly sensitive information of approximately 1.4 million current Allianz customers., says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a customer of Allianz since 2012, including having an annuity set up and managed by Allianz. Allianz purports to be a leading provider of financial and retirement solutions, including providing life insurance, fixed and variable annuities, AllianzIM ETFs, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1201 17th Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202.540.7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 646.357.1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Butler Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- GLENDA BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03228-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 12, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' sensitive information, including names, addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, contact details, and other sensitive financial data (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information)). According to the complaint, despite Allianz's duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and previous customers, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on or about July 16, 2025, a "hacker posed as an IT helpdesk employee and managed to convince employees of Allianz to authorize access to its Salesforce customer relationship management ("CRM") system". This unauthorized access allowed for "the transfer of bulk data" including the Private Information (the "Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff will continue to be at a substantial and certainly impending risk for fraud and identity theft, and their attendant damages, for years to come, says the suit. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: jerry@lcllp.com AMAZON INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over UK Pricing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Global Cosmetics News reports that the UK's Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has filed a collective action against Amazon, claiming its policies inflated prices for millions of UK consumers. THE DETAILS ACSO's application to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, lodged on 14 August 2025, seeks to represent over 45 million shoppers who bought from Amazon's third-party sellers between August 2019 and August 2025. The claim argues that Amazon blocked sellers from offering lower prices elsewhere, enabling it to charge higher fees and pass costs to consumers. The case is opt-out, meaning eligible consumers are automatically included. Stephenson Harwood is representing ACSO, noting Amazon has previously been investigated over similar practices in Europe and Japan. The action aligns with global regulatory scrutiny, including ongoing US FTC proceedings. THE WHY? The case highlights mounting legal and regulatory pressure on dominant online marketplaces and could reshape the rules on competition and consumer redress in the UK. [GN] AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Princeton Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathleen Princeton and Richard Bojar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2025CV000197 was removed from the Circuit Court for Marinette County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin on Aug. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01215. In the Complaint, Plaintiff Princeton alleges that: she is the beneficiary of Earl W. Stone, who was an American Family independent contractor agent and who passed away on September 3, 2024, when he was over 60 years old; under Stone's agent contract, she is entitled to the present value of Stone's contract termination payments over his expected lifetime, and American Family miscalculated the amount it owed her under Stone's agent contract upon his death.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason R. Fathallah, Esq. Husch Blackwell LLP 511 North Broadway, Suite 1100 Milwaukee, WI 53202-5502 Phone: 414.273.2100 Email: jason.fathallah@huschblackwell.com - and - Melissa Z. Baris, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314.480.1500 Email: melissa.baris@huschblackwell.com - and - AJ Fabianczyk, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.655.1500 Email: aj.fabianczyk@huschblackwell.com - and - Sarah A. Zylstra, Esq. BOARDMAN & CLARK LLP P.O. Box 927 1 South Pinckney Street, Ste. 410 Madison, WI 53701-0927 Phone: (608) 283-1741 Email: szylstra@boardmanclark.com AMERICAN HONDA: Shammam Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM, individually and on behalf of all others, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order certifying case as class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and the two classes: TCPA Class: "All persons who were non-account holders with the Defendant within the United States who received any artificial or prerecorded voice messages from the Defendant or its agent/s and/or employee/s to said person's cellular telephone, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint. CIPA Class: "All persons in California who were non-account holders with The Defendant whose cellular telephone conversations were recorded by the Defendant, and or its agents, within the one year prior to the filing of the Complaint." The Plaintiff will also ask the Court for an order: -- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative for both classes; and -- appointing Swigart Law Group, APC and Shay Legal, APC to serve as co-lead class counsel. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the classes defined below in order to pursue claims on a classwide basis for relief under The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Classes Plaintiff seeks to certify the following two classes: Plaintiff seeks to be appointed as the class representative for both classes. American offers a range of leasing and financing solutions for automobiles. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cy0JkU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Ilana Platkiewicz, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com ilana@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com AMERICAN PACIFIC: Fassler Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW FASSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PACIFIC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-06698-EKL (N.D. Cal., August 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's telephone marketing practices that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On or about March 6, 2024, the Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. However, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging Plaintiff. The Defendant sent Plaintiff approximately two marketing text messages after Plaintiff's initial stop request, alleges the suit. American Pacific Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage company headquartered in Roseville, CA. [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 ANGEION GROUP: Baker Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Tyler Baker and Lauren Wolf in the case captioned as BAKER v. ANGEION GROUP LLC, et al, 2:25-cv-02079-KBH (E.D. Pa.) before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 3162) moves to transfer all pending and yet-to-be filed federal cases involving Defendants Angeion Group LLC, Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc., Digital Settlement Technologies LLC, Epiq Systems, Inc., JND Legal Administration, Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, Huntington National Bank, Tremendous LLC and Western Alliance Bank, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, before the Honorable Kelley Brisbon Hodge. Angeion Group Pty. Ltd. provides financial services. The Company serves customers in Australia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: lverderame@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, Suite 600 Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Shauna Itri, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 Email: sitri@seegerweiss.com ANN ARBOR, MI: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 17 in Yannotti Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ANTHONY YANNOTTI, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated as described, v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR, Case No. 2:22-cv-12147-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Anthony P. Patti entered an order setting fairness hearing procedures and hearing on class certification and whether to approve settlement: 1. The Parties shall by Aug. 15, 2025, file their joint motion for class certification and approval of the class settlement and post a copy of the same at the website, www.annarborchalk.com. 2. The Court sets Oct. 17, 2025 at 9:30am as the date set for the fairness/class certification hearing to held at the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 673, Detroit, MI 48226. 3. At the Fairness/Class Certification Hearing, the Court will consider the request to approve a class wide settlement, appoint Sean Yannotti as class representative, and appoint class counsel. 4. The proposed class consists of: "all persons and entities who were subject to the placement of a chalk mark on one or more of the four tires of vehicle to obtain information to justify the issuance of parking tickets within the territorial limits of Ann Arbor, Michigan between April 3, 2017 and April 23, 2019." 5. Notice of the Fairness/Class Certification Hearing and the ability to opt-out or object shall be provided by posting a copy of this notice at the Office of the Ann Arbor City Clerk; posted on the City of Ann Arbor Website; and being published in the Ann Arbor Observer, a newspaper of general circulation that includes the City of Ann Arbor. Press releases to traditional media outlets are also encouraged. Ann Arbor is a city in the US state of Michigan and the county seat of Washtenaw County. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LSKVmB at no extra charge.[CC] ANTHONY SKIN: Evans Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY SKIN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09623 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://anthony.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Anthony Skin, LLC is a multifunctional, multi-benefit personal care system of skin care, bath, and body products designed for men. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ARAMARK SERVICES: Harraghy Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled COREY HARRAGHY, for himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., F/K/A ARAMARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 250700570, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 11, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04566 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's failure to provide notice of Plaintiff's rights concerning lie detector tests under the Massachusetts General Laws' Chapter 149. Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, Aramark Services, Inc. provides food services and facilities management to several businesses including hospitals and universities. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Puma, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: michael.puma@morganlewis.com - and - Keri L. Engelman, Esq. Anna K. Perocchi, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 341-7700 Facsimile: (617) 341-7701 E-mail: keri.engelman@morganlewis.com anna.perocchi@morganlewis.com ARROW FINANCIAL: NY Court Approves Settlement in "Ashe" ------------------------------------------------------- Arrow Financial Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the class action lawsuit filed by Robert C. Ashe has received court approval. On June 23, 2023, Robert C. Ashe filed a putative class action complaint (the "Ashe Lawsuit") against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. In addition to the Company, the complaint names as defendants Thomas J. Murphy, the Company's former CEO and from September 30, 2022 to February 20, 2023, its interim CFO, Edward J. Campanella, the Company's former CFO, and Penko Ivanov, the Company's current CFO. The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and compliance policies in the Company's public filings between March 12, 2022 and May 12, 2023. The complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants are liable for these materially false and misleading statements as "controlling persons" of the Company. Based on these allegations, the complaint brings two claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Mr. Ashe, on behalf of a purported class of shareholders, seeks compensatory damages as well as recovery of the costs and fees associated with the litigation. On December 5, 2023, plaintiff Ashe filed an amended complaint that changed the putative class period to the period from August 5, 2022 through May 12, 2023, but challenged substantially the same statements on the same basis. On February 9, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the action in its entirety. On June 7, 2024, the parties reached a settlement (subject to court approval). On February 13, 2025 the court approved the settlement, which did not have a material impact on the Company's financial results or financial position and was fully recognized during 2023 and the first quarter of 2024. ASIAN AMERICAN DRUG ABUSE: Banks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc. The case is styled as Yolanda Banks, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc., Case No. 25STCV24020 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc. (AADAP) -- https://aadapinc.org/ -- is to change lives and save families by providing com- prehensive substance abuse and other social services for Asian.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss Weinraub Class Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WEINRAUB, on behalf of himself and as representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub Trust, and as next friend of Barbara Korman, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-03780-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting Weinraub's motion for determination of capacity to sue, and denying the Defendant Bank of America's motion to dismiss. The Defendant's motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part. The class allegations of the Complaint regarding the Rule 23(b)(3) proposed class are stricken. Because Georgia law governs the breach of trust action, Weinraub may rightfully maintain a claim for damages. Weinraub alleges that Bank of America breached its fiduciary duties as trustee by purchasing "excessively expensive" insurance coverage for the Property. The Complaint proposes a class of: "All beneficiaries of trusts in which [Bank of America] served or continues to serve as trustee in which it has, within the applicable statute of limitations . . . charged the trust for insurance through a master trust insurance program for residential real property held by the trust." Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, and mortgage services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CzBa7D at no extra charge.[CC] BATH PLANET: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines by 30 Days ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Margulis v. Bath Planet of St. Louis, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01265 (E.D. Mo., Filed Sept. 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order granting motion for extension of: -- Expert Witness and Class Certification Deadlines by 30 days by the Plaintiffs. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Bath offers bath and kitchen remodeling, shower and tub installations, window installations and related services.[CC] BATH PLANET: Plaintiffs Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MARGULIS & MAX MARGULIS, v. BATH PLANET OF ST. LOUIS, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01265-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to extend the expert witness deadlines and the class certification deadlines for 30 days. The scheduling order provides that Plaintiffs Marilyn and Max Margulis have to disclose their experts by September 4, 2025. The other expert witness deadlines follow the September 4, 2025, date. The scheduling order also provides that Plaintiffs Marilyn and Max Margulis have to file their motion for class on or before Sept. 4, 2025. The Defendant offers bath and kitchen remodeling, shower and tub installations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SnR9FB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Schultz, Esq. SCHULTZ LAW GROUP 11775 Borman Drive, Suite 216 Maryland Heights, MO 63146 Telephone: (636) 537-4645 E-mail: Rschultz@sl-lawyers.com BESTWAY USA: Castro Sues Over Defective Pool Products ----------------------------------------------------- SUSANA CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BESTWAY (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09570 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2025) is an action arising from the dangerous design and prolonged concealment of a known defect in certain Bestway-branded, above-ground pools ("Products" or "Pools"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant designed, marketed, distributed, and sold the Pools with compression straps located external to the pool's vertical support poles ("Defect"), design elements that created an accessible foothold for toddlers to climb into the pool, even when the ladder is removed, resulting in fatal drownings as a direct result of this hazard. When purchasing the Products, the Plaintiff and Class Members trusted Defendant and its representations that the Pools would be safe to use as intended. Had the Plaintiff and Class Members known about the Defect, they would not have purchased the Pools or paid less, alleges the suit. Bestway (USA), Inc. was founded in 2010. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of games, toys, hobby goods, and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Maria de los Angeles Lugo Colom, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com mcolom@laukaitislaw.com - and - Mason A Barney, Esq. Leslie Pescia SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com BETTERHELP INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, etc. et al., v. BETTERHELP, INC. and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to modify briefing schedule, hearing date on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- BetterHelp's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion will be due on or before Sept. 15, 2025; -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Motion shall be due on or before Oct. 16, 2025; -- The hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion will be re-set for Nov. 13, 2025, or a subsequent date available to the Court. On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On June 25, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ and BetterHelp's stipulated request to extend the briefing schedule on the Motion, making BetterHelp's response to Plaintiffs' Motion due by July 21, 2025; replies due by Sept. 2, 2025; and the hearing set for Oct. 2, 2025; On June 13, 2025, BetterHelp took the deposition of Professor Shafiq concerning the opinions contained in the Initial Report. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8GMwdk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary. M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com rnelson@milberg.com - and - Christina Tusan, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: ctusan@hammondlawpc.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (888) 341-5048 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com The Defendants are represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Jeffrey Hammer, Esq. Craig H. Bessenger, Esq. James A. Unger, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com jhammer@kslaw.com cbessenger@kslaw.com junger@kslaw.com BEYOND MEAT: Settlement in Consumer Class Suit Has Final Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: Beyond Meat, Inc. Protein Content Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-00669 (N.D. Ill.) has received final court approval. From May 31, 2022 through January 13, 2023, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the Company's products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states' laws. Specifically, each of these lawsuits allege one or more of the following theories of liability: (i) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; (ii) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; and (iii) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are "all-natural," "organic," or contain no "synthetic" ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. The named plaintiffs of each complaint seek to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. Additional complaints asserting these theories of liability are possible. Some lawsuits previously filed were voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed without prejudice, though they may be refiled. On November 14, 2022, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the Panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The Panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings, In re: Beyond Meat, Inc. Protein Content Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-00669 (N.D. Ill.) (the "MDL"). On March 3, 2023, the MDL court held the initial status conference. The MDL court granted plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class counsel. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 5, 2023. The Company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023. On February 22, 2024, the MDL court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report noting they had agreed to engage in mediation. On April 24, 2024, the parties engaged in mediation before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.) but did not reach agreement. Negotiations continued and the parties entered into a confidential binding settlement term sheet on May 6, 2024. On July 8, 2024, the parties entered into a class action settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to contribute $7.5 million to a settlement fund in full satisfaction of all settlement costs and attorneys' fees. On August 5, 2024, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The MDL court granted the motion for preliminary approval on August 14, 2024. On January 23, 2025, upon reviewing submissions from the court-appointed settlement administrator and the plaintiffs acting on behalf of the class, and after holding a final settlement hearing, the court issued a minute order approving the class action settlement and indicating a final approval order will be entered. On March 24, 2025, the court issued the final approval order. Final approval resolves the claims of all persons (individuals and/or entities) who purchased any Beyond Meat product (as defined in the settlement agreement) for household use and not for resale or distribution, from May 31, 2018 to August 14, 2024. The Company paid $250,000 to the settlement fund in August 2024. The final effective date of the settlement agreement was on April 24, 2025. The Company recorded $7.5 million in SG&A expenses in its condensed consolidated statement of operations and paid $250,000 in the year ended December 31, 2024, and included $7.25 million in Accrued litigation settlement costs in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The Company's final payment of $7.25 million was paid into escrow by May 14, 2025. The court appointed settlement administrator will handle distributions to the class. The active lawsuits, each of which was consolidated and transferred to the MDL and is subject to the class action settlement agreement, are: * Roberts v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02861 (N.D. Ill.) (filed May 31, 2022) * Cascio v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-04018 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed July 8, 2022) * Miller v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed July 26, 2022) * Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00297 (S.D. Iowa) (filed September 9, 2022) * Borovoy v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06302 (N.D. Ill.) (filed September 30, 2022 in DuPage Co., Ill.; removed on Nov. 10, 2022) * Zakinov v Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex.) (filed January 13, 2023) BEYOND MEAT: SHEPP Action Terminated ------------------------------------ Beyond Meat, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class action complaint captioned Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees' Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al., was terminated. On May 11, 2023, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03602. On July 26, 2023, the Court granted Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees' Pension Plan's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for its counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On August 9, 2023, the case was re-captioned as Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees' Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03602 ("SHEPP Action"). On October 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's ability to manufacture its products at scale and to its partners' specifications. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' and expert fees; and granting other unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The complaint alleges causes of action under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between May 5, 2020 and October 13, 2022, inclusive. On December 8, 2023, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss in March 2024. On August 9, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 6, 2024 (the "First Amended Complaint"), which no longer asserted a claim under Section 20A and which no longer included two of the individual defendants from the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on September 30, 2024. A hearing was held on November 25, 2024. On February 27, 2025, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs did not appeal the court's decision. Accordingly, the SHEPP Action was terminated. BISHOP GOLD: Class Settlement in Pitts Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PITTS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BISHOP GOLD GROUP LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00128-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement and certifying the settlement class: (1) The proposed Settlement Class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and is certified as a class for settlement purposes only; (2) The Plaintiff Jennifer Pitts is appointed as Class Representative; Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A and Michael Eisenband of Eisenband Law, P.A. are appointed Class Counsel; and Simpluris will serve as the Administrator; (3) The Settlement is preliminarily approved as the result of informed, good faith, negotiations between the Parties and their capable and experienced counsel, not the result of collusion, and within the range of reasonableness; and (4) The proposed Notice program and proposed forms of Notice satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and constitutional due process requirements, and are reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action, class certification, the terms of the Settlement, Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and request for a Service Award for the Plaintiff, and their rights to opt-out of the Settlement Class or object to the Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee Application, and/or the request for a Service Award for the Plaintiff. (5) A Final Approval Hearing will be held on Nov. 20, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. The Plaintiff Jennifer Pitts filed this putative class action against Defendant Bishop Gold Group, LLC, asserting claims pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The proposed Settlement Class is as follows: "All persons in the United States who, during the four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) received one or more text messages from the Defendant; (2) after requesting to not receive text messages from the Defendant by responding with a "stop" or "unsubscribe" request; and (4) who did not re-opt in to receive text messages prior to receipt of the text message(s)." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the trial judge and magistrate judge presiding over this case; (2) the Defendant, as well as any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or control person of the Defendant, and the officers, directors, agents, members, managers, servants, or employees of the Defendant; (3) any of the Released Parties; (4) the immediate family of any such person(s); and (5) the Plaintiff's Counsel, their employees, and their immediate family. Bishop is a precious metals dealer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bqjfzo at no extra charge.[CC] BOATS GROUP: Brill Sues Over Boat Services Market Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------------- BRILL MARITIME, INC. d/b/a EXPORT YACHT SALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOATS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-23663-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act, and the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful monopolization or attempted monopolization of the U.S. boat listing and marketing services market. The Plaintiff has been directly harmed by Boats Group's conduct and has been forced to pay supracompetitive prices for essential marketing services, with effectively zero viable alternatives available. Boats Group's exclusionary behavior has suppressed competition, harmed sellers and brokerages, and distorted the structure and dynamics of the online boat sales marketplace, alleges the suit. Boats Group, LLC provides technology based marketing solutions. The Company offers internet advertising, lead generation, customer relationship management, data management, and website design and hosting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq. Matthew Dellabetta, Esq. STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC Two South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 614-1400 Facsimile: (305) 614-1425 Email: tkolaya@sknlaw.com mdellabetta@sknlaw.com - and - Kerry J. Miller, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP 201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 Email: kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com BOWTECH LLC: Carollo Sues Over Archery Products' Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY CAROLLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOWTECH, LLC; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC D/B/A BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS, INC. D/B/A JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; TRACKSTREET, INC.; AND NEUINTEL LLC, D/B/A PRICESPIDER HOLDINGS, LLC, F/K/A ORIS INTELLIGENCE, Defendants, Case 4:25-cv-00631-SRB (W.D. Mo., Aug. 12, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into an unlawful and continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for Archery Products in the United States to supracompetitive levels, in violation of the Sherman Act. By reason of the violations of the antitrust laws, the Carollo and Class Members have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher prices for Archery Products than they would have paid in the absence of the Defendants' illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy, says the suit. Bowtech, LLC manufactures archery equipment. The Company distributes compound bows and archery related equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben T. Schmitt, Esq. Nicolas V. Cirese, Esq. SCHMITT TEMPLIN, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 380 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 400-1000 Facsimile: (816) 389-4015 Email: ben@kansascitylawyers.com cirese@kansascitylawyers.com - and - Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 W. Broadway, Ste 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: "Martin" Remains Pending in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Financial 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 purported class action lawsuit styled Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed April 6, 2021). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of universal life insurance policies issued or administered by defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees, interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2021, which was denied in February 2022. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY, was initially named as a defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: "Newton" Remains Pending in Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Financial 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 purported class action lawsuit styled Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company remains pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year. Plaintiff also alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages, interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part in March 2021. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. On January 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion on consent to amend the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope of the class sought to those who own or owned policies issued in Georgia. The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brighthouse Financial 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 it continues to defend itself against the MOVEit Data Security Incident Litigation. Kennedy v. Progress Software Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed October 3, 2023). BHF has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit. The action relates to a data security incident at an alleged third-party vendor, PBI Research Services ("PBI"), and allegedly involves the MOVEit file transfer system that PBI uses in its provision of services ("MOVEit Incident"). As it relates to BHF, plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of persons whose private information was allegedly maintained by BHF and accessed or acquired in relation to the MOVEit Incident. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that BHF negligently chose to utilize PBI to store and transfer plaintiff's and purported class members' private information despite PBI's use of the MOVEit software which plaintiff contends contained security vulnerabilities. The complaint asserts claims against BHF for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, and plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest. The court dismissed claims for injunctive relief against BHF, but denied the remainder of a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's lack of standing. BHF intends to vigorously defend this matter. BRIO WATER: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIO WATER TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09696 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://briowater.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Brio Water Technology, Inc. is an online store for water bottles and filters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BRITTO CENTRAL: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Windy Lucius, and other similarly situated individuals v. BRITTO CENTRAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-23609-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") for blind-inaccessible website. The Plaintiff uses the internet to help him navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet and websites provide him with a window into the world that he would not otherwise have. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for offering and maintaining a website that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left him feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave him a sense of isolation and segregation, as he is unable to participate in the same browsing, shopping experience, and access to the same information, sales, and services, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public. The Defendant has violated the provisions of the ADA by failing to interface its website with software used by visually impaired individuals. Thus, Defendant has violated the following provisions either directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements. Defendant's violations have resulted in Defendant denying Plaintiff effective communication on the basis of her disability in accordance with the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles. The Defendant controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.shopbritto.com ("Website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com BXP INC: Continues to Defend Fair Labor Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- BXP 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Fair Labor class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company is a named defendant in an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of certain individuals who provided off-duty, uniformed security services at the Company's buildings in New York City pursuant to the New York Police Department's Paid Detail Program. In addition to the Company, the plaintiffs also named as defendants more than ninety (90) other entities and institutions in the city. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 24, 2025, and brought the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Freelance Isn't Free Act. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint on February 7, 2025 and on February 24, 2025. Each of the complaints alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that the plaintiffs did not receive certain wage payment notices required by law. The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading and discovery has not yet commenced. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for which losses are reasonably possible. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend against them vigorously, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. BXP, Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The Company owns, develops, and manages workplaces and office properties. BXP serves customers in the United States. CANOPY GROWTH: "Asmaro" Remains Pending in British Columbia ----------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it the putative class action styled Asmaro v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., remains pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. On June 15, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action (Asmaro v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. VLC-S-S-234351) against the Company and two of its officers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between August 6, 2021 and May 10, 2023. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's disclosures contained misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act (British Columbia), that certain officers authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages. CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend "Baron" in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action styled Baron v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On April 4, 2025, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action (Baron v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al. Case 1:25-cv-01877) against the Company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between May 30, 2024 and February 6, 2025, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. The claim alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had allegedly incurred significant costs producing Claybourne(TM) pre-rolled joints in connection with the Claybourne(TM) product launch in Canada; (ii) the foregoing costs, in addition to certain indirect costs that the Company incurred in connection with its Storz & Bickel vaporizer devices, were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company's gross margins and overall financial results; and (iii) accordingly, the Company had allegedly overstated the efficacy of its cost reduction measures and the health of its gross margins while downplaying issues with the same. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend "Dziedziejko" in Ontario ----------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action styled Dziedziejko v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On June 27, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action (Dziedziejko v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00701769-00CP) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company, two of its officers, and the Company's auditor on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who acquired Canopy Growth's securities in the secondary market between June 1, 2021 to June 22, 2023 and held some or all of those securities until the close of trading on May 10, 2023 or June 22, 2023. The plaintiff alleges that the Company's disclosures contained misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act (Ontario), that certain officers authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, that the Company and one of its officers acted in a manner that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the proposed class members by failing to remedy alleged deficiencies in the Company's internal controls, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class. The action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, legal fees, and the costs of administering a plan of distribution of the recovery. The Company was also named in two other putative class proceedings that were commenced between May 2023 and July 2023 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging that the Company's disclosures contained misrepresentations. However, on November 10, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided a carriage motion staying those actions (Leonard v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00702281-00CP and Twidale v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00700135-00CP), and allowing Dziedziejko v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00701769-00CP to proceed to a hearing of the plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and class certification. CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Plumbers Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- CareDx 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Plumbers & Pipefitters securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal securities class action (the "Securities Class Action") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain individuals. On April 1, 2025, a mediation was held between the parties to the Securities Class Action with the assistance of Phillips ADR Enterprises. On April 22, 2025, the parties in the Securities Class Action reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve the Securities Class Action under which the Company would pay or cause to be paid a settlement payment of approximately $20.25 million. On May 16, 2025, the parties reached a definitive stipulation of settlement. On May 23, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval. On July 23, 2025, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement triggering the Company's obligation to fund its portion of the settlement. The Company has recorded the settlement payment obligation of approximately $20.25 million as accrued litigation settlement expense and also recorded approximately $14.9 million in expected insurance proceeds as other receivables on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2025. The Company recorded a net litigation settlement expense of approximately $5.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2025 based on the agreement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action but there is no guarantee that the agreement will be approved by the Court. CareDx develops, markets, and delivers a diagnostic surveillance solution for heart transplant recipients. CENTURYLINK INC: Court Orders $168M Bond for FCRA Class Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lydia Bultemeyer, Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink Incorporated, Defendant, Civil Action No. CV-14-02530-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.), Judge Steven P. Logan of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted as modified Defendant's Motion for Bond or Stay Execution and denied without prejudice Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class. Specifically, the Court required Defendant to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $168,225,000.00. The Court further ordered that Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class is denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff Lydia Bultemeyer filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendant CenturyLink violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b, by obtaining the credit reports of Plaintiff and putative class members without a permissible purpose. On February 2, 2023, the Court certified this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of every individual in the United States about whom Defendant CenturyLink obtained a consumer credit report using the personal information the individual entered into CenturyLink's ecommerce website from November 14, 2012 through November 14, 2014 and who did not sign an arbitration agreement or class action waiver with CenturyLink. On September 16, 2024, following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff. The jury found that Defendant violated the FCRA and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $500.00 in statutory damages and $2,000.00 in punitive damages per class member. On November 18, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Clerk's Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to add the following language: "This judgment applies to the 56,075 individuals to whom the Rule(c)(2) notice was directed, who fall under the certified class definition, none of whom has requested exclusion, and whom the Court finds to be members of the certified class in this matter." Defendant filed its Motion to Decertify Class on September 19, 2024, days after the conclusion of trial. On October 16, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the appeal until the district court ruled on the parties' timely tolling motions, which did not include the Motion to Decertify Class. Subsequently, Defendant filed the Motion for Bond or Stay Execution. Defendant argued that the Amended Clerk's Judgment was not yet final because it was not signed by the Court and because the parties had yet to undergo a claims administration process. The Court rejected these arguments. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(5), every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion for relief under Rule 60. The Court found it need not take further action to finalize the Amended Judgment. The Court also rejected the argument that the judgment was not final because parties had yet to undergo a claims administration process. The Court noted that in this case, no such individualized damages calculations are needed and that the jury determined that Defendant was liable and awarded per-violation statutory damages to each class member, and a judgment was entered as to that verdict. Defendant sought to post a bond in the amount of $85 million, asserting this was appropriate and sufficient to protect the interests of class members while the appeal was pending. Plaintiff asserted that the Court should only enter a stay of execution should Defendant post a bond in the amount of $168,225,000.00, which amounts to 120% of the total damages if all 56,075 individuals who received class notice qualify as class members. The parties consistently disputed the size of the proposed class -- specifically, whether all 56,075 individuals who Defendant identified as potential class members and who received the class notice qualify as class members under the class definition. Defendant contended that it manually searched this class list and identified one member of the class list who signed a class action waiver and thus does not qualify as class member. Defendant argued that individualized claim determinations would be necessary to identify which of the 56,075 individuals that received the class notice qualify as class members. The Court found that Defendant, as the party in possession of information about the individuals who it collected credit reports on and who did not sign a class action or arbitration waiver, has had multiple chances to identify which of the 56,075 individuals who received class notice as potential class members do not actually fall within the class definition. Defendant has thus far identified a single individual. The Court noted it was dubious that the class size will be reduced by half through this process and found it inappropriate to require a supersedeas bond that amounts to approximately half of the judgment should the class size remain the same. Instead, the Court exercised its discretion to require Defendant to post a supersedeas bond totaling 120% of the potential damages calculated based on the proposed 56,075-individual class list, amounting to $168,225,000.00. Following the conclusion of trial, Defendant filed its Motion to Decertify Class. After Defendant filed its Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court found that upon filing of the appeal, it was divested of jurisdiction to rule on Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class. Therefore, the Motion was denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jc7q0o from pacermonitor.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beckford Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE BECKFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH INC.; and BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00638-SRB (W.D. Mo., Aug. 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") including, but not limited to: health records, dates of birth, and Social Security Numbers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a direct result of Defendants' failures, on or about January 22, 2025, cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' systems, gained access to, and copied, the Private Information of Defendants' current and former patients, Plaintiff and the Class Members, including but not limited to their names, Social Security Numbers, and protected health information ("the Data Breach"). The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to implement an information security program designed to: (a) to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information; (b) to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of that information; and (c) to protect against unauthorized access to that information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer, alleges the suit. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health Inc. is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology (HIT) platforms and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles River Laboratories International 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 Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A putative securities class action (Securities Class Action) was filed on May 19, 2023 against the Company and a number of its current/former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 31, 2023, the court appointed the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on November 14, 2023 that, among other things, included only James Foster, the Chief Executive Officer and David R. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer as defendants along with the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company securities from May 5, 2020 through February 21, 2023, alleging that certain of the Company's disclosures about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human primates made during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. On July 1, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint, denied the plaintiff's informal request for leave to amend, and entered judgment for defendants. On July 30, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Oral arguments took place on May 5, 2025. While the Company cannot predict the final outcome of this matter, it believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend against it. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the maximum Headquartered in Wilmington, MA, Charles River is a full-service, non-clinical global drug development partner with a mission to create healthier lives. The company shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CRL." [BN] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over 18% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTR) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Charter, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/charter-communications-inc-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until October 14, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Charter securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06747. Why Was Charter Sued Under the Federal Securities Laws? Charter is a leading broadband, or high-speed internet, connectivity company and cable operator. Charter participated in the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program ("ACP"), which provided funding to Charter in exchange for subsidizing high-speed internet plans for low-income households. In June 2024, lack of federal funding caused the ACP to end, which led to customer declines at Charter. During the relevant period, Charter told investors that the Company was executing a plan to minimize and move beyond risks that the end of the ACP had on customer declines and earnings. The Company stated that it had "managed the end of the affordable connectivity program successfully" and that "[t]he impact of the elimination of the ACP is now behind us." As alleged, in truth, the impact from the ACP's elimination was not behind Charter as the Company continued to experience internet customer and revenue declines from the program's end. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On July 25, 2025, Charter announced its second quarter 2025 financial results. The Company reported that total internet customers decreased by 117,000 during the quarter, which included approximately 50,000 disconnects related to the end of the ACP, nearly double from the prior quarter. On this news, the price of Charter stock declined $70.25 per share, or 18.4%, from a closing price of $380.00 per share on July 24, 2025, to $309.75 per share on July 25, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/charter-communications-inc-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Charter you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/charter-communications-inc-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sexual Abuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marella Porter, writing for Local 12, reports that attorneys said disturbing child porn allegations against a former doctor at Cincinnati Children's was now turning into something even more unsettling. A class action lawsuit was in the works against Howard Saal and the hospital. Parents claim Saal took nude photos of their kids and touched them inappropriately. Attorneys believed there could be thousands of victims. Parents said picture-taking was routine during their appointments with Saal. "[My daughter] was born with a cleft lip, so they have to take pictures to see how her mouth's forming," said parent Christine Robinson. Saal treated kids with birth defects. He worked at the hospital from 1993 until July 14, 2025, just weeks before he was indicted on federal child porn charges. Christine Robinson received a letter from the state health department dated August 1 telling her Saal was "no longer available to provide medical care." Robinson also received a letter from Children's at some point in July informing her of his departure, though no reason was given. In June, FBI agents found 153,000 child sex abuse images and 470 videos on Saal's devices. So far, agents said they have not found evidence involving his patients. "Now that I'm looking back on it, I'm like hmmm did he look at her a certain way just any. all kinds of thoughts are going through my head right now," said Robinson. Other parents were also questioning their interactions with Saal. Alan Statman said more than 100 families have gone to his firm, Statman & Harris LLC, seeking answers. "The thing that sticks out as a lawyer is the similarity in the set of facts that these people relay to us and they don't know each other," said Statman. Statman filed a complaint Friday, August 15, on behalf of another woman whose daughter was a patient. It also included class action allegations from other parents. Parents claimed Saal would feel their children's private parts during exams whether there was a medical issue or not. They also claim Saal often took nude photos of kids, telling them it was for research and medical purposes. The mother in the complaint said Saal would take her daughter for what he called "glamour shots" and would tell her she was his "favorite." She never saw the photos. Statman said parents thought the doctor was creepy but trusted Children's Hospital. "They believed that since he worked at Children's he was expert and that this was the way he was and so they trusted him," said Statman. Parents claim complaints against Saal were ignored by the hospital. One of their biggest questions now was where all the photos were. Statman said as far as pursuing the class action lawsuit, Saal and Children's administrators will have 30 days to respond after they are served. Dozens of parents have also gone to Rob Lewis, who owns The Lawrence Firm in Northern Kentucky, as they try to get answers. Last week, Local 12 asked Cincinnati Children's when the hospital learned of the investigation, when Saal stopped working there and whether his departure was connected to the case. The hospital provided a statement, saying in part: The safety and care of children is at the core of what we do and who we are. We absolutely condemn the exploitation of children. We are cooperating fully with the authorities. Now that parents were seeking legal counsel, Local 12 followed up again on Monday, August 18. The hospital said there was nothing to add beyond its original statement. [GN] CITY CHIC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City Chic Collective USA Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09396 (N.D. Ill., August 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website, Citychiconline.com, contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Ridgewood, NJ, City Chic Collective USA owns and operates the website which offers women's clothes, footwear and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law CLOVER HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Bond" With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investments Corp. 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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed with prejudice the class action styled Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., following final approval of a settlement. In February 2021, the Company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.); Kaul v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.); Yaniv v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn.); and Tremblay v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn.). The complaints asserted violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The Kaul action asserted additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints generally related to allegations published in the Hindenburg Article. In April 2021, the Middle District of Tennessee class actions were consolidated under Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case. On April 21, 2023, the parties to the securities class action entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the action. The Court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice on October 3, 2023. Under the settlement, the class received $22 million dollars (less an award of fees and expenses to the plaintiffs’ counsel), and the defendants (including the Company) received customary releases. The Company used $19.5 million in insurance proceeds to fund the settlement. The Company previously filed a lawsuit in Delaware state court against certain of its insurers for full payment of its liabilities related to this securities litigation. The Company intends to oppose any efforts by the carrier defendants to recoup insurance proceeds that they have advanced to date. COATING SOLUTIONS: Avila Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Avila, and other similarly situated individuals v. Coating Solutions and Quality LLC, Service, Solutions and Quality Corp., Joseline Rivera, and Fernando Duarte, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-23623-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA or the "Act"). The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid for his regular and overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants controlled his schedule and activities. The Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a welder who handled and worked with goods and materials moved in interstate commerce at any time during the business. Coating Solutions and Quality LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Johnson Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------- TELECIA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01142 (W.D. La., August 8, 2025) accuses the Defendant of breaching the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as direct service workers who provided companionship services for the elderly, ill or disabled. The Plaintiff's hours varied from week to week but she regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was only paid a straight time rate for all hours worked but no overtime, says the suit. Headquartered in Lake Charles, LA, Comprehensive Health Systems, Inc. operates a home healthcare agency in Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ ClassAction.org reports that attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Openforce data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Openforce Security Incident: What Happened? On August 14, 2025, Contractor Management Services, LLC, which does business as Openforce, reported a data breach involving personal information. While few details are available about the Openforce data breach, the incident potentially compromised Social Security numbers and driver's licenses, according to a report submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. Letters are now being sent to those affected by the incident. Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, Openforce is a software and technology company offering products and services for both companies that work with independent contractors and the contractors themselves. What You Can Do After the Openforce 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 Openforce to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. [GN] CS DISCO: Class Cert Hearing in Gambrill Suit Set for Dec. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN GAMBRILL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CS DISCO, INC., KIWI CAMARA, and MICHAEL LAFAIR, Case No. 1:24-cv-00028-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Lane entered an order setting hearing for class certification at 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 4, 2025, in Courtroom Eight on the seventh floor of the Federal Courthouse located at 501 W. 5th Street, Austin, Texas. The court further advises the parties that any requests for extensions of time on responsive briefing to this motion will not be granted. CS is a legal technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TRiUxB at no extra charge.[CC] DEALER GENERAL: Riley Seeks to Recover Detailers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Riley, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dealer General Supply Company, LLC Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02111 (M.D. Fla., August 7, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Florida Statute, and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay lawful minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay for all uncompensated hours worked, and failure to pay federal payroll taxes and state unemployment taxes as well as other taxes, costs and expenses associated with Defendant's misclassifying employees as independent contractors. The Plaintiff was employed as a detailer in the automotive detail department beginning in or around January 2024 at a Mazda dealership. Dealer General Supply Company, LLC provides products and services to dealer groups and independent dealerships across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy Longman II, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN | GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 220-4000 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: tlongman@floringray.com wflorin@floringray.com DEMANDBASE INC: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $3MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Demandbase and InsideView have agreed to pay more than $3 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming they used consumer information to encourage subscription purchases without consent. The InsideView settlement benefits residents of Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio or South Dakota who are not registered users of InsideView or Demandbase and whose InsideView "people" profile was viewed by a free user without their consent between certain dates. The settlement creates seven state-specific settlement funds in the following amounts: Alabama, $325,575; California, $729,088.50; Illinois, $501,975; Indiana, $320,445; Nevada, $115,256.25; Ohio, $1,699,830.25; and South Dakota, $7,830. Demandbase is a business-to-business marketing platform that helps companies identify and engage with potential customers. InsideView is a similar platform that provides business insights. According to a class action lawsuit, Demandbase and InsideView used consumer information, such as names, contact information, job titles, places of work, education histories and more, to encourage people to purchase subscriptions to the companies' databases. The companies allegedly did this without getting consent from consumers. The plaintiffs in the case claimed that this practice violated right-of-publicity laws in Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio and South Dakota. Demandbase and InsideView have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this $3.7 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment from their state's settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the amount each fund collects. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the InsideView and Demandbase settlement is scheduled for Oct. 21, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 30, 2025. Who's Eligible For the Alabama, California, Indiana and South Dakota settlement classes, residents who are not registered users of InsideView or Demandbase and whose InsideView "people" profile was viewed by a free user between December 2019 and February 2022. For the Illinois settlement class, residents who are not registered users of InsideView or Demandbase and whose InsideView "people" profile was viewed by a free user between December 2020 and February 2022. For the Nevada and Ohio settlement classes, residents who are not registered users of InsideView or Demandbase and whose InsideView "people" profile was viewed by a free user between December 2017 and February 2022. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/30/2025 Case Name Hoffower, et al. v. Demandbase Inc., et al., Case No. 2025CH000014, in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois Final Hearing 10/21/2025 Settlement Website InsideViewROPSettlement.com Claims Administrator Insideview Right-of-Publicity Settlement Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2319 Portland, OR 97208-2319 (888) 818-4682 Class Counsel Sam Strauss Raina Borrelli Brittany Resch STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC Benjamin Osborn THE LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN PLLC Michael Ram MORGAN & MORGAN Defense Counsel R. Adam Lauridsen Cody Gray KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Morgan Wins Third Renewed Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MORGAN, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Leon entered an order that granting the Plaintiffs' Third Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The plaintiff class shall consist of: "All persons who have applied for, received, or are receiving D.C. Medicaid who present a prescription to a Medicaid- participating provider for a medication that is not completely excluded from coverage under the D.C. Medicaid program and who do not, or will not, receive timely and adequate individualized written notice when Medicaid coverage is denied for the prescription as written." The Court further entered an order that: -- The parties retain the right to seek amendment of the class definition as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(l). -- The following individuals shall represent the certified class: Antonio Morgan and J.Y., by and through their parent and next friend, Andrea Morgan; Nirey Bowden, by and through his parent and next friend, Nikia Bowden; K.M., by and through her parent and next friend, Cheri Mallory; and A.O., by and through her parent and next friend, Chioma Oruh. -- pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court appoints as class counsel: Kathleen L. Millian, Michael L. Huang, and Jane Perkins. District of Columbiais a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9MSnQO at no extra charge.[CC] DIVIDEND: Khan Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Zamena Khan, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dividend, A Division of Fifth Third Bank National Association, Affordable Solar Roof & Air, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00804 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Aug. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-03215-KMM-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Dividend Finance -- https://www.dividendfinance.com/ -- is one of the leading solar loan providers in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Horton, Esq. JOSHUA HORTON LAW FIRM 107 Pond Apple Lane Jupiter, FL 33418 Phone: (561) 764-4041 Fax: (561) 584-5212 Email: josh@joshuahortonlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandon Todd Holmes, Esq. Egle Vinickaite, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 201 N Franklin St Ste 3050 Tampa, FL 33602-5816 Phone: (813) 543-9848 Fax: (813) 543-9849 Email: brandon.holmes@dinsmore.com egle.vinickaite@dinsmore.com - and - Klarika Jean Caplano, Esq. FLORIDA FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 690 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: (727) 446-4826 Email: kcaplano@flaforeclosureattorneys.com DONALD TRUMP: Casa Wins Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA, INC., et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00201-DLB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah L. Boardman entered an order granting motion for class certification. On Jan. 21, 2025, CASA, Inc. and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project ("ASAP")—two nonprofit organizations that provide services to immigrants—and five pregnant women without permanent immigration status who expected to give birth in the United States in the coming months filed this lawsuit to preserve the constitutional right to citizenship by birth pursuant to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court certifies the following nationwide class: "Any child who has been born or will be born in the United States after Feb. 19, 2025, (1) whose mother was unlawfully present in the United States and whose father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) whose mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary and whose father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth." Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kJz1Gx at no extra charge.[CC] DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Custer Seeks More Time to File Class Cert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE CUSTER, v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the deadline to move for class certification and setting the following briefing schedule: a. The Plaintiff will file his motion for class certification by Sept. 11, 2025. b. The Defendant will file an opposition by Oct. 13, 2025. c. The Plaintiff will file a reply brief by Oct. 31, 2025. Dovenmuehle provides mortgage servicing for commercial banks, credit unions, mortgage bankers and housing finance agencies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eyGsL2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Aizpuru, Esq. Robin Bleiweis, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com rbleiweis@tzlegal.com - and - Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq. Jed R. Nolan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC PC 2500 Regency Parkway Cary, NC 27518 Telephone: (919) 899-9533 E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com jed@kleinsheridan.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. James L. Kauffman BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com jkauffman@baileyglasser.com EASTERLY ROCMUNI: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, PLLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Easterly ROCMuni High Income Municipal Bond Fund f/k/a Principal Street High Income Municipal Fund (the "Easterly ROCMuni Fund") (NASDAQ: RMJAX; RMHVK; RMHIX) between May 5, 2023 and June 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 22, 2025. If you have incurred significant losses and want to act as the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit or determine your eligibility to receive a potential recovery, submit your details at: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/easterly-rocmuni-high-income-municipal-bond-fund-principal-street-high-income. The Easterly ROCMuni class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund had marked tens of millions of dollars' worth of its portfolio assets at artificially inflated prices that did not reasonably reflect the fair value of those assets; (ii) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund had implemented a fundamentally flawed pricing and valuation methodology which had systematically inflated the Easterly ROCMuni Fund's NAV and individual asset valuations; (iii) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund was more heavily invested in illiquid assets than disclosed in its Offering Materials; (iv) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund's assets were more closely correlated and less diversified than disclosed in its Offering Materials; (v) as a result, the Easterly ROCMuni Fund's stated NAV, NAV per share, individual asset valuations, and historical performance were materially overstated; and (vi) consequently, the Easterly ROCMuni Fund was subject to a material undisclosed risk of a sudden collapse in the price of Easterly ROCMuni Fund shares. Johnson Fistel, PLLP | Top Law Firm for Securities Fraud and Investor Rights Johnson Fistel, PLLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, Colorado, and Idaho. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. We also extend our services to foreign investors who have purchased on US exchanges. Stay updated with news on stock drops and learn how Johnson Fistel, PLLP can help you recover your losses. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Achievements: In 2024, Johnson Fistel was honored to be ranked in the Top 10 Plaintiff Law Firms by the ISS Securities Class Action Services. This recognition underscores our effectiveness in advocating for investors, having recovered approximately $90,725,000 for aggrieved clients in cases where we served as lead or co-lead counsel. This notable accomplishment marks the eighth occasion our firm has been recognized as a top plaintiffs' securities law firm in the United States, as determined by the total dollar value of final recoveries. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Johnson Fistel, PLLP has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for its content. Contact: Johnson Fistel, PLLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq. (619) 814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Edwards Lifesciences 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 Patel securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of Edwards filed a putative securities class action (the "Securities Class Action") complaint against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Patel v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al., No. 24-cv-02221. The complaint alleges violations of various securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements regarding our business prospects. The complaint seeks damages, interest, costs and other fees. The Company intends to defend itself against the lawsuits vigorously. Edwards is an international company that researches, develops, provides products and technologies for heart valve repair and replacement therapies, as well as critical care monitoring solutions.[BN] ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Williams Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Cathy Williams, Catherine Segura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc., Electrolux North America Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00610 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Product Liability. Electrolux -- https://www.electrolux.com/en/ -- sells cookers, hobs, ovens, hoods, microwave ovens, refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ELITE NURSES: Mathews Seeks Initial OK of $100K Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASONDRA MATHEWS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELITE NURSES MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01518-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order 1. Conditionally certify a stipulated collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") defined as: "All Elite Nurses LLC Colorado employees who were classified as 1099 contractors from July 31, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2023 and who were not paid proper overtime wages;" 2. Preliminarily certify a Class Action under Colorado statutory wage law, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, defined as: "All Elite Nurses LLC Colorado employees who were classified as 1099 contractors from July 31, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2023 and who were not paid proper overtime wage" 3. Appointing Brandt Milstein as Class Counsel and Kasondra Mathews as Class Representative; 4. Directing preliminary approval to the Parties' Settlement Agreement; and 5. Setting a final fairness hearing at the Court's earliest convenience at least 140 days after the date on which the Court grants this Motion. The Plaintiff filed this action for unpaid wages in Colorado state court on May 1, 2024 alleging that Defendant misclassified a number of its health care provider employees as independent contractors and failed to pay them proper overtime wages. The Defendant removed the action to this Court on federal question jurisdiction grounds on May 29, 2024. The Plaintiff pleaded collective allegations of the federal FLSA and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class violations of Colorado's Minimum Wages of Workers Act as implemented by the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS") and the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"). Settlement Fund The settlement provides that Defendant will pay $100,000.00 to compensate Plaintiff and the Members of the Class who do not opt-out for their damages, inclusive of attorney fees and an incentive award to the representative Plaintiff. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Icvu0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt P. Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com The Defendant is represented by: Colin L. Barnacle, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 2700 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 702-0904 E-mail: Colin.Barnacle@gmlaw.com EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Court Approves Class Notice in Lewis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00302-FL-BM (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for approval of class notice. The court approves the notice substantially in the form proposed by the Plaintiff, with specified modifications. The parties are directed to file, within 14 days of the date of this order, a joint notice attaching the class action notice in its final form, in accordance with the instructions herein, and specifying the means of individual notice employed or to be employed. Equityexperts.Org is a collections agency for HOAs and Condo Associations. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Ok15y at no extra charge.[CC] EVANSTON, IL: Jeter Suit Alleges Privacy Rights' Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- MELVIN JETER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF EVANSTON, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09456 (N.D. Ill., August 8, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating Plaintiff's privacy rights guaranteed under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in a pattern or practice of asking employees and/or prospective employees to provide their family medical histories as a condition of employment, as part of Defendant's onboarding process. Moreover, the Defendant intentionally and/or recklessly captured, collected, and/or retained Plaintiff's genetic information in the form of his family medical history in violation of Illinois law, says the suit. City of Evanston is a unit of local government that directly or indirectly employs individuals within the State of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent M. Williams, Esq. Mason A. Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: kent.williams@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com - and - Mark R. Miller, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Suit Over Transfer Market Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julian Diaz-Rainey of Pinsent Masons reports that a new class action lawsuit against football's governing body over transfer restrictions shows that class action laws are increasingly being used beyond traditional 'consumer' claims, experts have said. The Justice for Players group has brought a court action against FIFA, claiming that previous transfer market rules represented an unlawful restriction on players' ability to move between different football clubs. Sports law expert Trevor Watkins of Pinsent Masons said: "This is another example of where the actions of sports governing bodies are being called into question and brought under scrutiny, both in terms of how far their judicial authority can bind and testing the legitimate extent of their regulatory function. Given the huge importance of the transfer market to the global football economy, claims of this nature have the potential to significantly undermine the stability of the industry -- and to further erode the independent regulatory function if it is deemed to be unlawful." Justice for Players, which is being funded in its lawsuit by Deminor, claims as many as 100,000 players could have been affected since 2001, and is looking to argue that affected players have lost around 8% of their career earnings as a result. Julian Diaz-Rainey, a sports disputes expert with Pinsent Masons, said: "This is an example of the broadening scope of potential class actions from the typical 'consumer' type claims into actions brought by sporting professionals. It also shows how third party funders are broadening the scope of the type of claim they are prepared to fund." The action comes on the back of former Real Madrid and France international midfielder Lassana Diarra's successful court case last year. Diarra was frozen out at Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014, less than a year after joining the club, and when he refused to train or take a salary cut, the club terminated his contract and sought compensation. He was also denied a move to Belgian side Charleroi after FIFA refused to exempt it from any shared liability for the costs, and did not issue him with the certificate needed to complete the move. A subsequent ruling by the Court of Arbitration in Sport saw Diarra banned from playing for a year and ordered to pay Lokomotiv €10 million in compensation. Diarra eventually joined Marseille, having missed the whole of the 2014-15 season, and launched a legal action against football's governing body that was finally resolved last year when the CJEU ruled against FIFA over the joint costs restrictions and the transfer certification rules, having found that those rules infringed both EU freedom of movement laws and EU competition law. FIFA made an interim change to its rules over transfers in the wake of the court's decision, but now faces this new challenge which could significantly impact the nature of the football transfer market and player contracts. Paul Williams, competition law expert at Pinsent Masons said: "Competition law is increasingly being used by clubs, players or sponsors to challenge the legal validity of rules imposed by sport governing bodies in various sports, not just football. This growing trend is particularly pronounced within the EU, where high profile court rulings have on several occasions struck down certain rules of sporting bodies. The consequences of finding that a particular sporting rule or provision breaches competition law can be serious, with the risk of fines being imposed by competition regulators. A sporting rule which breaches competition law will be legally unenforceable, and could also lead to damages claims by affected third parties -- as in this case." Earlier this month the CJEU also found against the Court of Arbitration for Sport, opening the door for players and teams to seek challenges to court rulings within their own jurisdictions rather than being forced to accept the CAS decision with no appeal. [GN] FINE FLATS: Alexandria Sues Over Website Inaccessibility -------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINE FLATS FOOTWEAR, INC., D/B/A PRETTY BALLERINAS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06550 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build its website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fine Flats Footwear, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.prettyballerinas.us, which offers flat footwear for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com FIRST ELEMENT: Overcharges Hydrogen Fuel Consumers, Harasis Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MOOSA HARASIS, STACY ROSS, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST ELEMENT FUEL, INC., a California Stock Corporation, dba TRUE ZERO; SHELL USA, INC., dba SHELL OIL COMPANY, a Texas corporation; AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., IWATANI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07355 (C.D. Cal., August 8, 2025) arises from the Defendants' systematic overcharging consumers purchasing hydrogen fuel at hydrogen refueling stations throughout California. Allegedly, the Defendants have access to real-time hydrogen vehicle sales data and production forecasts via their membership in the California Fuel Cell Partnership. In a coordinated scheme, the Defendants waited until the peak hydrogen vehicle sales in 2022 before executing their plan to hike up prices for fuel. In 2023, after the highest number of consumers had purchased vehicles and committed to hydrogen fuel, the Defendants tripled prices from approximately $13 per kilogram to $36 per kilogram. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action, asserting claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. First Element Fuel, Inc. owns and operates hydrogen refueling stations throughout California. The company has contractual relationships with Toyota to provide hydrogen fuel to Toyota vehicle owners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. Serach B. Shafa, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 805-8373 E-mail: ji@jasoningber.com FIVE STAR BANK: $29.5MM Deal in Repossession Suit Gets Prelim. OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $29.5 million class action settlement will end litigation that alleged Five Star Bank repossessed and resold vehicles for which consumers had taken out a loan without giving the individuals proper notice of their rights as required by Pennsylvania and New York law. The Five Star Bank class action settlement received preliminary court approval on July 29, 2025 and covers the approximately 6,358 people who, between May 16, 2011 and September 30, 2021, had their vehicle repossessed by Five Star Bank and were thereafter sent one or more specific forms of notice. The court-approved website for the Five Star Bank settlement can be found at FiveStarBankRepoClassAction.com. Through the deal, Five Star Bank settlement class members will be able to receive a cash payment, credit reporting relief and the elimination of remaining deficiencies on the loans for their eligible vehicle or vehicles. The cash payment, according to the settlement website, will be an equal share of the remainder of the $29.5 million settlement fund after the payment of settlement administration fees, lawyers' fees and lead plaintiff awards, and will be in the form of a check mailed to all settlement members. The website stipulates that if more than $100,000 remains after all settlement payments are distributed, which may be likely due to undistributable or uncashed checks, a second cash distribution will be made to class members. The credit reporting relief aspect of the settlement will remove any reference to the relevant auto loan or loans with Five Star Bank from class members' credit reports, court documents state. Any deficiency that Five Star Bank had initially claimed on a class member's vehicle after its resale will be eliminated, and class members will not be charged for any remaining balance on the deficiency, according to the site. No action is required on the part of settlement class members to claim Five Star Bank class action settlement benefits. Should a class member need to update their mailing address in order to receive the check for their cash payment, they can visit this page and log in with the unique notice ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. The settlement website also mentions that the administrator will issue to class members IRS 1099-series forms for payments over $600. A hearing is set for November 4, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Payments and compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Five Star Bank class action lawsuit claimed that the bank did not give consumers proper notice of their rights after the repossession and sale of vehicles for which they had taken out loans. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Court Stays Pacheco Class Suit ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY PACHECO, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-11927-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and staying case. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mz5Lmh at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL STORE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL STORE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06549 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.shop-generalstore.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's website is not compatible with screen access programs. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the handcrafted spoon that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. General Store, LLC. Owns and operates the commercial website which sells clothing, home goods, and artisan products from local designers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GILBERT, AZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Armitage Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY ARMITAGE; JUSTIN ASHTON; BRENT BANDURA; JACOB FLETCHER; JUSTIN HAWLEY; LEO HESS; MATTHEW KENNEDY; ROBERT MARTINEZ; SHAWN WILLHITE; and MAXIMILIAN WULF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02935-GMS (D. Ariz., Aug. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as staffs. Gilbert is a town in Maricopa County, Arizona, United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Napier, Esq. Kathryn R. E. Baillie, Esq. NAPIER, BAILLIE, WILSON, BACON & TALLONE, P.C. 2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, Suite 135 Phoenix, AZ 85016-0001 Telephone: (602) 248-9107 Facsimile: (602) 248-0971 Email: Mike@napierlawfirm.com Kathryn@napierlawfirm.com - and - Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq. MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C. 1620 Eye Street, NW, STE 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 783-0010 Facsimile: (202) 7883-6088 Email: ssugiura@mooneygreen.com GLEN COVE: Hernandez Sues Over Website's ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLEN COVE FURNITURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04421 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or New York City Human Rights Law by failing to update or remove access barriers on the website so it can be independently accessible to the Class. Glen Cove Furniture, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, www.furnituretogosi.com, which offers furniture for sale, no interest financing and white glove delivery service. [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 GLOBAL INSPECTION: Rainey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICKY RAINEY, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-00221 (E.D. Tex., August 7, 2025) is a collective action to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. GIS' per diem pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving the hourly employees of premium overtime wages at rates of at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff Rainey worked for GIS as a welding inspector from approximately October 2023 until December 2023. Global Inspection Group, LLC is a staffing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GOD BLESS AMERICA: Fernandez Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOD BLESS AMERICA, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04435 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of placing an online order, says the suit. God Bless America, Ltd. owns and operates a restaurant in New York City and its website, www.oconeediner.com. [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 GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 17, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02431-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered a case scheduling order as follows: Case Event Deadline Deadline to file Motion for Class Sept. 17, 2026 Certification and Supporting Expert Reports: Deadline for Opposition to Class Nov. 12, 2026 Certification, Rebuttal Expert Reports: Deadline for Reply in Support of Class Dec. 17, 2026 Certification, Reply Expert Reports: Hearing on Class Certification: Jan. 28, 2027 Close of Fact Discovery: March 11, 2027 Close of Expert Discovery: June 3, 2027 Deadline to file Dispositive Motions: July 1, 2027 Google is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ZRilH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. An Truong, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law ramirezjones@kiesel.law - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Melissa Gardner, Esq. Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq. Jalle H. Dafa, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery St 29th floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com jdafa@lchb.com dcuthbertson@lchb.com - and - Hal D. Cunningham, Esq. Sean Russell, Esq. Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan Binder, Esq. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 E-mail: hcunningham@scott-scott.com srussell@scott-scott.com jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com The Defendant is represented by: Benedict Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Eduardo Santacana, Esq. Joshua D. Anderson, Esq. Tiffany Lin, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP One Front Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 Facsimile: (415) 858-7599 E-mail: bhur@willkie.com sagnolucci@willkie.com esantacana@willkie.com tlin@willkie.com joshua.anderson@cooley.com GOOGLE LLC: Reaches $30MM Settlement in Children's Privacy Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Washenko, writing for engadget, reports that Google has reached a settlement over a lawsuit that claimed it illegally collected data from child users without parental consent through its YouTube video platform and then sent them targeted ads. The tech giant will shell out $30 million to settle the proposed class-action suit. According to Reuters, the plaintiffs' lawyers said there could be 35 million to 45 million class members. Children aged 13 or younger who watched YouTube between July 1, 2013 and April 1, 2020 could be covered. The proposed settlement was filed and awaits judge approval. This settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist compared to the $170 million fine Google faced in 2019 following a similar suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission for alleged violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Under the terms of that case, YouTube had agreed to stop collecting data on videos aimed at children, and both YouTube and Google were prohibited from future COPPA violations. [GN] GRANDMA DIM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Casarrubias Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- CIRO CASARRUBIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANDMA DIM SUM INC.; and KWOK KIN WU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04539 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Casarrubias was employed by the Defendants as a busboy. Grandma Dim Sum Inc. operates as a restaurant in New York, offering traditional dim sum and Chinese dishes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 GRINDR INC: Israeli Class Action Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------ Grindr Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Israeli class action remains pending. In December 2020, Grindr LLC was named in a statement of claim and petition for certification of a class action in Israel (Israeli Central District Court). The statement of claims generally alleges that Grindr LLC violated users’ privacy by sharing information with third parties without their explicit consent. The petitioner asserts several causes of action under Israeli law, including privacy breaches, unlawful enrichment, and negligence, as well as causes of action under California law, including privacy violations under the California Constitution and California common law, negligence, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The statement of claims seeks various forms of monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, in addition to certification as a class action. On December 22, 2022, Grindr LLC filed its opposition to class certification. Following a case management conference on October 7, 2024, the court directed the plaintiff to file its reply to Grindr's opposition by November 11, 2024. The parties have reached a settlement, which has been approved by the court, to which the class or the Israeli Attorney General have 45 days to object (subject to extensions). HATTS OFF: Court Rejects Pre-Certification Discovery in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that in Morrison v. Hatts Off Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 4320, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to order pre-certification discovery of sensitive Children's Aid Society records in a proposed class action alleging systemic negligence and fiduciary breaches in children's group homes. The decision reinforces the principle that there is no right to "pre-certification" discovery, particularly when that discovery would result in the disclosure of highly sensitive records involving a minor. The Plaintiff, a former resident of one of the group homes, filed a certification record that included, among other things, selected documents from his Children's Aid Society file. The defendants sought production of the full Children's Aid Society files of the plaintiff and others, arguing that proceeding to cross-examinations for the certification motion without contemporaneous records would be unfair. Justice Valente dismissed the motion, emphasizing that the plaintiff's burden at certification is limited to adducing limited evidence that the common issues exist. The court relied upon the fact that the test for pre-certification production is whether the requested documents are "necessary and relevant to the issues on certification," not whether production is required as a matter of basic fairness. The court found that the defendants' request for full Children's Aid Society files amounted to a "fishing trip", unsupported by a showing of necessity or relevance to the certification issues. Time to read more? The decision emphasized the importance of protecting the privacy of young people's records. Citing A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., R v. Jarvis and R v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the court reaffirmed that the protection of children's privacy is a core societal value and cannot be overridden merely by participation in legal proceedings. The ruling clarified that Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits third-party production of non-privileged documents, must be interpreted in light of the procedural stage of the class proceeding. The court found that the Children's Aid Society records were neither relevant to the certification issues nor necessary to avoid unfairness, particularly given the absence of pleadings and the lack of prejudice from delayed disclosure. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit in Illinois Over BIPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ID TECH reports that Home Depot is facing a class action lawsuit in Illinois over allegations that it secretly used facial recognition technology at self-checkout kiosks without informing customers or seeking their consent. The case, filed on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, centers on alleged violations of the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Plaintiff Allegations and Evidence The lead plaintiff, Chicago resident Benjamin Jankowski, claims he discovered the system while using a self-checkout kiosk at a local Home Depot. According to the complaint, a camera above the kiosk displayed a green box around his face, suggesting facial scanning was taking place. Court filings state that no signage was posted to notify customers of biometric data collection and no staffed checkout alternatives were available at the time. The lawsuit alleges that Home Depot began deploying "computer vision" technology in 2024 for loss prevention. Jankowski's complaint includes photographic evidence of the green box on the kiosk screen and argues that the system amounted to undisclosed biometric surveillance. "There were no signs or warnings to let customers know about any facial scanning," the filing states. BIPA Requirements and Potential Damages Illinois' BIPA, enacted in 2008, is among the strictest biometric privacy laws in the United States. It requires companies to obtain written, informed consent before collecting biometric identifiers such as facial data, and to publicly disclose policies on data retention and destruction. Failure to comply can result in penalties of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per reckless or intentional violation. Jankowski is seeking damages under these provisions and has asked the court to certify a class action representing all Illinois customers whose biometric information may have been captured at Home Depot self-checkouts. If approved, the case could expose the company to significant financial liability depending on the number of affected individuals and the court's findings on whether violations were negligent or willful. Growing Scrutiny of Retail Biometrics The lawsuit highlights mounting legal and public scrutiny over biometric surveillance in retail environments. Retailers have increasingly turned to AI-driven computer vision systems for loss prevention and store security, but privacy advocates argue that these technologies risk overstepping legal boundaries when deployed without clear notice or consent. BIPA has become a key enforcement tool in such cases, prompting numerous lawsuits across industries ranging from social media platforms to staffing agencies. Home Depot has not yet issued a public response to the lawsuit. The case underscores the ongoing tension between retailers' interest in preventing theft and consumers' rights to transparency and control over sensitive biometric data. [GN] HUNTER WARFIELD: Blizzard Suit Seeks to Certify 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. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4zHy0F 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 IDEAL CLAMP: Rutherford Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kejuan Rutherford, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ideal Clamp Products, Inc. d/b/a ZSi Foster, a Foreign For-Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-12459-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., August 7, 2025) is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff asserts that he regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek but Defendant failed to pay him and other employees for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at his actual hourly rate. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a machine operator from early 2023 until November 8, 2024, at Defendant's Auburn Hills location. Ideal Clamp Products, Inc. d/b/a ZSi Foster, is a foreign for profit corporation that regularly conducts business in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150 West Jefferson, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 739-1953 E-mail: etereziu@forthepeople.com IZAKAYA SEVEN: Wills Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance of ADA -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IZAKAYA SEVEN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04428 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Wills alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.izakayanana.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's website contains numerous access barriers and is not compatible with screen access programs. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of making a reservation, says the suit. Izakaya Seven, LLC owns and operates a Japanese restaurant in New York and the website which offers users the ability to peruse the restaurant's services and to make a reservation. [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 JOHN PAUL: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06544 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on August 29, 2024 to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's shampoo. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website. Moreover, due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, says the suit. John Paul Mitchell Systems owns and operates the website, www.paulmitchell.com, which offers professional hair care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The appeal from the order granting Edward Jones' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot in the class action styled Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., remains pending, Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit originally was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. In 2019, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety but permitted plaintiffs to amend their claims. The court subsequently granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended claims. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain of their state law claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of those claims. In early 2022, following remand by the Court of Appeals, the district court granted defendants' renewed motion to dismiss related to plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, but permitted plaintiffs to amend their claims. Defendants filed two motions to dismiss the amended claims, both of which were denied. In September 2023, plaintiffs moved for class certification and Edward Jones moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' individual claims. On September 9, 2024, the district court ultimately granted Edward Jones' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. Plaintiffs have appealed and the parties have filed their respective briefs with the Court of Appeals. Edward Jones denies the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Suit ------------------------------------------------ Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the home office gender discrimination class action styled Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al. Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by a former employee (Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al.) in the Northern District of Illinois. The initial complaint filed on September 1, 2022 alleged putative class and collective claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Illinois state laws of gender-based wage discrimination against a subset of female home office associates whom the plaintiff described as “home office financial advisor[s]." The plaintiff amended the complaint on November 29, 2022, seeking to expand the putative collective and class definitions to include all female home office associates in any role. Edward Jones and JFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 6, 2023. In June 2023, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, permitting the plaintiff's EPA claim and related state-law claim to proceed in connection with only one of the roles she held during her employment by the firm, limiting the plaintiff's Title VII claim and related state-law claim to a disparate treatment theory of liability as opposed to a disparate impact theory, and accepting the plaintiff's agreement to dismiss JFC from the case without prejudice. In May 2025, the district court granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to reallege pay discrimination with regard to both roles plaintiff held during her employment with the firm, as well as the previously dismissed Title VII disparate impact claim. Plaintiff’s amended complaint maintains similar putative collective and class definitions to include all female home office associates in any role. On May 27, 2025, Edward Jones filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint. Edward Jones also filed a motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds, and that motion remains pending. Phase I fact discovery closed on May 28, 2025. In June 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, alleging a failure to produce ordered documents. Edward Jones filed its opposition on July 14, 2025, and plaintiff filed her reply on July 18, 2025. On July 23, 2025, the district court granted plaintiff's motion and a hearing to determine the sanctions is scheduled for September 9, 2025. Edward Jones denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. JONES FINANCIAL: Expert Discovery Phase Ongoing in Dixon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The expert discovery phase closes in February 2026 in the gender and race discrimination class action styled Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 9, 2022, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit (Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit was brought by a then current financial advisor as a putative collective action alleging gender discrimination under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and by a former financial advisor as a putative class action alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint reasserting the original claims with modified allegations and adding claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging race/national origin, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination on behalf of putative classes of financial advisors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2022, and on September 15, 2022, the court stayed further proceedings in the case pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2023, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and lifted the stay of proceedings. Edward Jones and JFC filed an answer to the amended complaint on April 17, 2023. Discovery related to collective and class certification closed on June 20, 2025. The expert discovery phase closes in February 2026. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. KAISER FOUNDATION: Agrees to Settle Mental Health Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Kaiser Permanente agreed to a settlement to resolve claims it failed to reimburse members for out-of-network mental health and substance use disorder services. The Kaiser Permanente class action settlement benefits Kaiser Permanente members who live in California, tried to obtain timely in-network mental health and substance use disorder services but were unable to do so and paid out of pocket for out-of-network mental health and substance use disorder services after Jan. 1, 2021. Kaiser Permanente is a health insurance company that offers a range of plans to consumers. The company offers in-network services to its members. According to the Kaiser Permanente mental health class action lawsuit, Kaiser Permanente failed to reimburse its members for out-of-network mental health and substance use disorder services. Plaintiffs in the case say they were forced to seek out-of-network services because Kaiser Permanente was unable to provide timely in-network services. Despite this, Kaiser Permanente allegedly refused to reimburse the plaintiffs for their out-of-pocket expenses. Kaiser Permanente has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Kaiser Permanente settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for out-of-network mental health and substance use disorder services. Reimbursement will vary depending on the services received and the amount paid out of pocket. Class members can receive reimbursement for these services in whole or in part. Class members who received a settlement notice may have already been identified by Kaiser Permanente as eligible for reimbursement. Class members who did not receive a notice but are eligible for reimbursement can submit a claim on the settlement website. All information and documentation must be received by Kaiser Permanente within 180 days after you learned of the opportunity to submit a claim. Who's Eligible Kaiser Permanente members and former members in California who sought but were unable to obtain timely in-network mental health and substance use disorder services and who paid out of pocket for such services after Jan. 1, 2021. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Kaiser Permanente membership number, names and phone numbers of out-of-network providers, bills or invoices from out-of-network providers, proof of payments made to out-of-network providers, preferred contact information. 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 Within 180 days of receiving notice. Case Name In the Matter of the Investigation of: Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Enforcement Matter Number: 22-469, before the Department of Managed Health Care of the State of California. Final Hearing N/A Settlement Website OutOfNetworkHealthClaims.com Claims Administrator Kaiser Permanente Notice Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (877) 684-4129 Class Counsel Sonia R. Fernandes CHIEF COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CARE Defense Counsel Moe Keshavarzi SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP [GN] KATI ROLL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jones Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KATI ROLL COMPANY FRANCHISING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06555 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thekatirollcompany.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's website allegedly contains numerous access barriers that make it not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Kati Roll Company Franchising Corporation owns and operates an Indian restaurant in New York City. The company maintains the website that offers users the ability to peruse the restaurants menus and to place an online order. [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 KENDALL HEALTHCARE: Pardo Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. KENDALL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD., COLUMBIA LAGRANGE HOSPITAL, LLC and HCA INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23568-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the Defendants' commercial property. The barriers to access at the commercial property 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. Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd. owns and operates a commercial property located at 11750-11890 SW 40th St., Miami, FL. [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 jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com KRAFT HEINZ: Danzy Sues Over Juice Products' Deceptive Labels ------------------------------------------------------------- TYISHA DANZY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY d/b/a. CAPRISUN, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-06792 (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2025) asserts claims against Defendant for violations of (1) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) Violation of California's False Advertising Law; and (4) Breach of Express Warranty. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated who purchased Defendant's Capri-Sun 100% Juice Fruit Punch drink represented as being "100% Juice" and "flavored with 100% juice blend from concentrate". These representations together signal to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, that the said juice product is comprised of solely fruit and fruit-derived ingredients. Instead, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the product is made with synthetic, non-natural citric acid; a human-made preservative and flavor additive, says the suit. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures, markets, and sells food and beverage products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Suit Over Capri-Sun Synthetic Ingredients ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Tyisha Danzy filed a class action lawsuit against The Kraft Heinz Company, doing business as Capri-Sun. Why: Danzy alleges the company misrepresented its Capri-Sun 100% Juice Fruit Punch drink as containing only juice when it also contains synthetic, non-natural citric acid. Where: The Capri-Sun class action was filed in a California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Kraft Heinz misled consumers by labeling its Capri-Sun 100% Juice Fruit Punch as containing only juice when it contains synthetic, non-natural citric acid. Plaintiff Tyisha Danzy filed the class action complaint against Kraft Heinz in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. Danzy claims that Kraft Heinz's Capri-Sun 100% Juice Fruit Punch drink is falsely advertised as being made entirely from juice. She claims that the product contains synthetic citric acid, a non-natural preservative and flavor additive. The lawsuit argues that the labeling misleads consumers into thinking the product is composed solely of fruit and fruit-derived ingredients. Capri-Sun class action claims consumers pay premium for '100% juice' label Danzy says she purchased the Capri-Sun drink from Costco in February 2025, relying on the label's claim that it was "100% Juice." She argues she paid a premium for the product, believing it was made exclusively from juice. "Had Plaintiff known that Defendant’s representations and warranties about the Product were false and misleading, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product or would have paid substantially less for it," the Capri-Sun class action says. The lawsuit claims that Kraft Heinz’s labeling violates several California laws, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. Danzy also alleges breach of express warranty. Danzy seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the Capri-Sun drink as well as a California subclass. The lawsuit is seeking class certification, damages, restitution and an injunction to prevent Kraft Heinz from continuing to market the product as "100% Juice." In January, another consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Kraft Heinz, alleging it falsely advertised that its Capri-Sun juice pouches contain all-natural ingredients. The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Daniel S. Guerra and Joshua B. Glatt of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Capri-Sun class action lawsuit is Danzy v. The Kraft Heinz Company d/b/a. Capri-Sun, Case No. 4:25-cv-06792, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] KRISPY KREME: Bid to Name Lead Plaintiff Pending in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Krispy Kreme, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that motions to appoint lead plaintiff for the federal securities class actions are pending. On May 16, 2025, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative federal securities class action in the Western District of North Carolina against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), and its former Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). On June 30, 2025, a shareholder of the Company filed a similar putative federal securities class action in the Western District of North Carolina against the Company, its CEO, and its former CFO. Both actions allege that, throughout the proposed putative class periods, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose materially adverse facts concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects related to the Business Relationship Agreement with McDonald's USA. Motions to appoint lead plaintiff for both actions were filed on June 15, 2025. LEE ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Enterprises, Incorporated disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the lawsuits stemming from the cybersecurity incident during the second quarter of 2025. The Company experienced a cybersecurity incident during the second quarter of 2025, which involved unauthorized access to certain systems and data. Following public disclosure of the incident, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in or around June 2025, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on behalf of all individuals affected by the cybersecurity incident, including those who received notice of the incident. These lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Company failed to adequately protect personal or sensitive information and seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company is vigorously defending against these claims. Given the early stage of these proceedings, the outcome of these matters is uncertain, and the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss at this time. The Company maintains cyber liability and other applicable insurance coverage and believes that any potential losses associated with these claims, if adverse outcomes were to occur, would be covered, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits. LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed in Charles -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles et al., v. Limetree Bay Refining, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00260 (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=UMUtkB at no extra charge.[CC] LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed in Shirley -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELEN SHIRLEY, et al., v. LIMETREE BAY VENTURES, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-0259-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=z1CNDV at no extra charge.[CC] LOANDEPOT INC: Awaits Final Court OK of Data Breach Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- loanDepot, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in the data breach litigation. The Company has been named as a defendant in 23 putative class action cases alleging harm from the Cybersecurity Incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. The cases have been consolidated into a single action, In re loanDepot Data Breach Litigation, pending in the Central District of California. On January 13, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement agreement between the parties. A hearing regarding final approval of the settlement is scheduled for August 18, 2025. "We have received inquiries and requests from various states and other regulators, and we are cooperating with such inquiries and requests. The Company does not believe that the amount of loss in excess of the amounts accrued is reasonably estimable in this matter at this time," the Company stated. MENTOR TECHNICAL: Court Stays Ortiz Pending Resolution of Pappoe ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. MENTOR TECHNICAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-01198-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting Gilead's unopposed motion for a stay. -- The action in stayed pending the earlier of (1) the resolution of Pappoe v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Case No. 24STCV02259 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.), or (2) the grant or denial of a motion for class certification in that case. Within seven days of the occurrence of either event, the Parties shall file a joint status report with this Court, and in any case, the Parties shall file a joint status report no later than Feb. 9, 2026. The Court concludes that a temporary stay is warranted. Gilead requests that the proceedings be stayed pending resolution of Pappoe. The Complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code by Defendants, and seeks to certify a class of: "All current and former California employees of the Defendants since the date four (4) years prior to the filing of this complaint." On May 9, 2025, Gilead removed the action to this Court. On May 15, 2025, Mentor joined in the removal. Mentor provides clinical laboratory testing services. A copy of the Court's order ated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uUFjl7 at no extra charge.[CC] MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Hernandez Sues Over Sex Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO G. HERNANDEZ III and similarly, situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-23607-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 11, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act for national origin and sex discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff Hernandez works for the Police Department for Miami-Dade County as a Police Helicopter Pilot in the aviation unit. He was supervised by sergeant Christian Robina and his relief supervisor was Jason Breijo. According to the complaint, Breijo perceived that Plaintiff was homosexual and subjected Plaintiff to comments and conduct that were derogatory of homosexuals and his perception that Plaintiff is homosexual. Miami-Dade County is a political and administrative division of the state of Florida. It provides local governmental services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1533 Sunset Drive, Suite 150 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (786) 448-7288 (786) 446-7298 Facsimile: (786) 323-7274 MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barron et al v. micromobility.com Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04703-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered an order that the Defendants shall respond to the motion for class certification by Oct. 29, 2025. The Plaintiffs may reply by Nov. 14, 2025. The Plaintiffs fail to show why the sanction of preclusion is not appropriate and warranted under the applicable Rule 37 factors and authorities, the Court says. Micromobility.com provides dockless intra urban transportation solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BNrnuB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Robert G. Heim, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 - and - Benjamin Galdston, Esq. OMNUM LAW APC 4350 Executive Drive, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92121 MISSION CEVICHE: Class Cert Oral Argument in Flores Set for Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniela Flores, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. Mission Ceviche, LLC, Mission Ceviche UES Inc, Mission Ceviche Canal LLC, Mission Ceviche Nomad LLC, Jose Luis Chavez, Brice Mastroluca, Miguel Yarrow, Case No. 1:24-cv-03626-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order scheduling oral argument. An oral argument in this matter on the Motion for Class Certification and Summary Judgment is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 02, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17-A, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Mission is a Peruvian restaurant and seafood restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z4eVsr at no extra charge.[CC] MOUNT SINAI: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $5.25-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a more than $5.25 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged Mount Sinai Health System collected patients' personal health information and shared the data with Facebook without consent. The Mount Sinai settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 16, 2025 and covers all Mount Sinai MyChart account holders who logged into their account through https://MyChart.MountSinai.org . . . between October 27, 2020 and October 27, 2023. The court-approved website for the Mount Sinai class action lawsuit settlement can be found at MountSinaiSettlement.com. Mount Sinai settlement class members -- approximately 1,314,147 people -- who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a pro-rata, or equal share, portion of the $5,256,588 settlement fund after the payment of legal fees, administration costs and lead plaintiff awards. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page on the Mount Sinai settlement website and log in with the unique ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 14, 2025. A hearing is set for October 24, 2025 to determine whether the Mount Sinai settlement will receive final court approval. Payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Mount Sinai class action lawsuit alleged that Mount Sinai Health System collected consumers' personal health data via third-party tracking software, including the Meta Pixel, on its MyChart website and distributed that data to Facebook without patients' consent or knowledge. [GN] MOUNTAIN CREST: Class Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- On July 10, 2025, the parties in the action Solak v. Mountain Crest Capital LLC, et al. ("MCAD Class Action"), C.A. No. 2023-0469-BWD, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the "Settlement"), which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed Settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the Court. The Class in the Action consists of all record and beneficial holders of MCAD common stock who held shares as of the Record Date of September 7, 2021, through the closing of the de-SPAC Transaction on October 28, 2021, including any and all successors, transferees, or assigns of such stockholders ("Class Members"). Excluded from the Class are Defendants, members of the immediate family of any Defendant, any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person. On July 25, 2025, Vice Chancellor Bonnie David of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") granted preliminary approval of the class Settlement and entered the Scheduling Order, which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the "Settlement Hearing") for October 24, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. ET at the Court of Chancery Courthouse, The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as Class representatives for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel should be finally appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Settlement should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Plaintiff's Counsel out of the Settlement Fund; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, notice is hereby provided regarding the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action"). Class Members with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com. Jeffrey M. Norton (212) 619-5400 jnorton@nfllp.com [GN] MOUNTAIN VIEW: Reaches Settlement in Class Suit Over Medical Debts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Natalie Venegas, writing for KFOX14, reports that a class action settlement was reached on Wednesday, August 20, against Mountain View Regional Medical Center, involving more than 200 low-income patients who were allegedly unlawfully sued for medical debt. As part of the settlement, the hospital will repay affected patients and provide an additional $625 per person. Additionally, Mountain View Regional Medical Center is required to overhaul its billing and collection practices. The settlement was announced at a press conference, with community members, advocates, and lawmakers highlighting the importance of this victory for patient protections. The event called on all hospitals statewide to comply with the law, especially in light of potential federal Medicaid cuts and changes to the Marketplace, which could leave over 100,000 New Mexicans without health coverage, increasing the risk of medical debt. "We know that this wasn't the only hospital that was suing patients or selling their debt, which is prohibited under the law unless you determine those patients are not low income, so we know this is continuing to happen in the community and we want families and hospitals to know the law and families to know their rights," Sovereign Hager, Legal Director of New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, told KFOX14/CBS4. The settlement comes years after the lawsuit was first filed in 2022 by non-profit legal group, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, which claimed that the hospital's actions violated New Mexico's Patients' Debt Collection Protection Act. The New Mexico's Patients' Debt Collection Protection Act, signed into law in 2021, shields people with incomes less than two times the federal poverty level from debt collection action, including lawsuits. According to the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, which led the class action lawsuit, the hospital has taken more than 200 low-income patients to court in 2021. In a previous statement to the Las Cruces Sun, Mountain View Regional Medical Center said, "Mountain View Regional Medical Center is aware of the requirements of the state law regarding medical debt collection and previously implemented policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the law. We are not aware of any departure from those policies and procedures. We will review the allegations in the lawsuit and work with the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty if the review identifies mistakes or departures from the hospital's policies and procedures.” Ruby Kirker, the lead plaintiff in the case, explained that Mountain View sued her for more than $6,000 after she was rushed to the hospital in 2021 while she was pregnant. She says the hospital did not check her income before taking her to court and that she qualifies for protection under the act. Speaking to KFOX14/CBS4, Kirker said she felt like she was taken advantage of, but that she wasn't alone, stating, "I felt like if the second the bill comes, they don't give you enough time to pay for it, and they take advantage of that." "I hope that this lets them know that the law is there and they have to follow it. It's amazing that there are people out there willing to help us, and I hope this gives them the message to look at that and to help other people," Kirker added. [GN] NASCAR ENTERPRISES: Hargett Sues Over Unprotected Private Info -------------------------------------------------------------- KEATON HARGETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NASCAR ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01523-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla., August 11, 2025) arises from National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing's (NASCAR) failure to protect highly sensitive data of its customers' and current and former employees. From on or about March 31, 2025 to on or about April 3, 2025, the Defendant was hacked by a cybercriminal group. Cybercriminals were able to breach NASCAR'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 personally identifiable information. In addition, NASCAR waited until July 24, 2025, before it began notifying some victims about the Data Breach--more than three months after the data breach began and a month after Defendant's investigation came to an end, says the suit. Headquartered in Daytona Beach, FL, NASCAR is a sanctioning body for stock car motorsports entertainment racing. The company owns 14 of the nation's major motorsports facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Founds Sues Over Unsafe Beverages ---------------------------------------------------- JAMES FOUNDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP., Defendant, Case No. _______ (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cty., August 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its marketing and sale of its Faygo brand of food products. According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively represents the said product as authorized for sale and safe for consumption. However, it is not authorized for sale because it contains the unsafe and prohibited ingredient brominated vegetable oil. Moreover, the Plaintiff and Class Members relied on these representations and omissions and were injured both in the price paid for the product as well as the premium paid for the product over a similar product not bearing these deceptive representations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, and for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. National Beverage Corp. produces, markets, distributes, and sells its consumer food products in retail stores throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste. 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com NATIONAL GENERAL: Custis Sues to Recover Insurance Deductibles -------------------------------------------------------------- Ni'ONNA K. CUSTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. K25C-08-013 JJC (Del. Sup., Aug. 12, 2025) seeks to compel the Defendant to engage in a good-faith assessment, on a case-by-case basis, of the Plaintiff's right to recover some or all of their Personal Injury Protection (or "PIP") deductibles. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that National General currently observes a blanket or near-blanket refusal to pursue recovery of its insureds' PIP deductibles. The Plaintiff seeks to compel the Defendant to engage in a good-faith assessment, on a case-by-case basis, of each such insured's right to recover some or all of their PIP deductibles. National General Insurance Co provides brokerage services. The Company offers auto, home, motorcycle, health, and other related insurance products. The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Spadaro, Esq. JOHN S. SPADARO, LLC 1011 Centre Road, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19805 Telephone: (484) 667-6884 NATIONAL GRID: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Constantine v. National Grid USA Service Company Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10500 (D. Mass., Filed March 03, 2025), the Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered an order granting assented to motion for extension of time to Aug. 28, 2025, to file response to motion to Certify Class Responses: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). National distributes electricity and gas energy.[CC] NATIONAL GRID: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA CONSTANTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10500-AK (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, up to and including Aug. 28, 2025. On July 29, 2025, the Plaintiff Laura Constantine filed a motion for class certification. The Defendant's responsive pleading is due Aug. 12, 205. The Defendant requests an extension to Aug. 28, 2025, to investigate, evaluate, and respond to the arguments and finalize its response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. National distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UXgAyq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq. Alexa M. Esposito, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: ckaczmarek@littler.com aesposito@littler.com NORDIK SPA: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault -------------------------------------------------------- Ted Raymond, writing for CTV News, reports that a woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Nordik Spa in Chelsea, Que. on behalf of victims of sexual assault at the popular resort. The claim comes following a visit to the spa on Dec. 2, 2024, during which the plaintiff alleges she was sexually assaulted by a male massage therapist. Lambert Avocats, the law firm representing the class action says Nordik Spa did not take the necessary measures to prevent or put an end to sexual abuse committed at its institution, and that it was therefore liable. The class action includes anyone who was sexually assaulted during a massage at Nordik Spa Village Chelsea. The class action, which was filed Aug. 13 in Montreal, is awaiting authorization by a judge, Lambert Avocats says. The suit notes that there have been previous reports of sexual assault at the spa involving massage therapists, including at least one that led to a conviction and a six-month prison sentence in 2021. Following charges against a massage therapist at Spa Nordik in 2023, a general manager for the spa told CTV News Ottawa that all subcontractors who provide massage therapy services must provide criminal record checks and proof of certification annually. The lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of members of the class action, including the cost of the massage, plus taxes and interest, legal fees, and compensation for all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered by the plaintiffs. "Our client felt that the massage therapists' behaviour and Le Nordik's response to the different cases of sexual abuse that took place at its establishment had to be denounced," said Lambert Avocats lawyer Philippe Brault in a statement to CTV News Ottawa. "In addition, a class action is an ideal tool for victims of sexual assault, as recognized by the courts. Indeed, it favours access to justice for victims of sexual violence, who already face enormous difficulties in pursuing individual remedies." In a statement to CTV News Ottawa, Nordik Spa said it wouldn't comment on the class action lawsuit at this time. "Nordik Spa Village Chelsea does not tolerate any misconduct or inappropriate behaviour on the part of the massage therapists practicing in our spa. All therapists are subject to rigorous screening at the onset, including a criminal background check. We also conduct audits throughout their time at the spa," Nordik Spa said in an email. "We will comment on the allegations contained in a class action lawsuit that has just been filed against us, with full transparency, at the appropriate time. It is our policy to cooperate fully with authorities whenever allegations are brought to our attention. For now, we would like to reassure the public about the rigour of our internal controls and our lack of tolerance for any behaviour that compromises the safety or trust of our guests." [GN] NORTH AMERICAN: Martinez Sues Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. North American Mining, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00865 (E.D. Tex., August 11, 2025) seeks all damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a driller in or about July 2022 through in or about September 2024. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees approximately two hours or more per shift to complete, including donning, doffing, traveling, obtaining tools, and storing clothing and personal protective equipment. However, the Defendant's policy and/or practice does not permit Plaintiff and similarly situated workers to record the time spent completing these compensable tasks. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each workweek, alleges the suit. Headquartered in Plano, TX, North American Mining, LLC provides mining services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in Lilien Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leslie Lilien v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08395-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Wilson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court preliminarily certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, the Settlement Class of: "all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Olaplex's publicly traded common stock on or before Nov. 12, 2021 pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement or Prospectus (together, the "Offering Documents") for Olaplex's IPO, and who were allegedly damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) the Defendants and the individual Defendants' immediate family members, (ii) the officers, directors, and subsidiaries of Olaplex, (iii) Olaplex's affiliates and employee retirement and/or benefit plan(s) and their participants and/or beneficiaries to the extent they purchased or acquired Olaplex's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents through any such plan(s); (iv) any person and entity that had or has a controlling interest in Olaplex; (v) the underwriters of Olaplex's IPO, provided, however, that any "investment vehicle" shall not be excluded from the settlement class; (vi) any entity in which any of the Defendants have or had a controlling or beneficial interest; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity, in their capacity as such. Excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons who or which timely and validly seek exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with the requirements set forth in the notice. The Plaintiff alleged that Olaplex's Offering Documents violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 because they failed to disclose the E.U. Ban. The Defendants agree to pay $47.5 million in cash, to be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit timely and valid claims in accordance with the agreed upon plan of allocation. Olaplex is a luxury haircare products manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9xtPVT at no extra charge.[CC] ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: "Alleman" Settlement Pending Final Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a settlement in the case captioned Alleman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank is pending final court approval. On March 25, 2022, a customer of the Bank filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in a case captioned Alleman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank breached its account agreements by charging certain overdraft fees. The complaint seeks a refund of all allegedly improper fees, damages in an amount to be proven at trial, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction against the Bank’s allegedly improper overdraft practices. This lawsuit is similar to lawsuits filed against other financial institutions pertaining to overdraft fee disclosures. On December 31, 2024, the Bank entered into a classwide settlement agreement. The Settlement Agreement provides for a payment by the Bank to the purported class in the amount of $478 thousand, in exchange for a mutual release of claims against all parties, and a stipulation that the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. The Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing by the Bank. The Bank has agreed to settle the case in order to avoid the cost, risks and distraction of continued litigation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the Settlement Agreement is subject to final court approval. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Pryde" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against the case captioned Pryde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 6, 2025, a customer of the Bank filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, in a case captioned Pryde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PUTPCPL) when charging certain overdraft fees. The complaint seeks a refund of all allegedly improper fees, damages in an amount to be proven at trial, treble damages for violations of the PUTPCPL, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction against the Bank’s allegedly improper overdraft practices. On April 14, 2025, the Bank removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Based on information available at present, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability associated with this action. OWLET INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Awaiting Prelim Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Owlet, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the consolidated securities class suit is awaiting preliminary court approval. In November 2021, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the first captioned Butala v. Owlet, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-09016, and the second captioned Cherian v. Owlet, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-09293. Both complaints alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who: (a) purchased the Company's common stock between March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021 ("Section 10(b) Claims"); or (b) held common stock in Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation ("SBG") as of June 1, 2021, and were eligible to vote at SBG's special meeting held on July 14, 2021 ("Section 14(a) Claims"). Both complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the FDA's likely classification of Smart Sock as a medical device requiring marketing authorization. On September 8, 2023, the Court ruled that while the Butala and Cherian cases were consolidated, there would be two distinct and separate classes to represent the Section 10(b) Claims and Section 14(a) Claims, respectively, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for each class. Amended complaints were filed for each class on November 21, 2023, and then further amended in consolidated filings on December 22, 2023. The Company filed motions to dismiss the complaints on February 9, 2024 on behalf of itself and the named officers and directors. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss on March 24, 2024, and the Company filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on May 10, 2024. On August 5, 2024, the Court denied Owlet's and its officers' motions to dismiss the Section 10(b) Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims. On September 24, 2024, the Court entered a scheduling order in the case, setting trial to begin on February 17, 2026. On September 26, 2024, the Court granted Owlet's and its officers' motion for reconsideration regarding the Section 10(b) Claims and dismissed all claims arising out of statements made prior to the merger. Following mediation, the parties to the Butala action reached agreements in principle to settle both the Section 10(b) Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims. The Section 10(b) Claims would be resolved for $3,500 and the Section 14(a) Claims would be resolved for $1,750. On January 31, 2025, the plaintiffs filed motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements of the Section 10(b) Claims and Section 14(a) Claims. Those motions remain pending. In accordance with ASC 450, as these amounts have become probable and estimable, the Company recognized $5,250 of general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2024. The related liability is recorded in accrued and other expenses on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2025. Further, on August 26, 2024 and October 3, 2024, investors filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, derivatively on behalf of the Company, complaints asserting claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. One complaint (captioned Janet Vargas, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Owlet, Inc., Case No. 2:24 cv-07258-FLA-PVC) asserts claims against twelve of the Company's current or former directors and officers and six current or former directors and officers of Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation. The other (captioned Nathan Capleton, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Owlet, Inc., Case No. 2:24 cv-08536-JAK-MAA) asserts claims against eleven of the Company's current or former directors. Both complaints leverage the allegations made in one of the securities class action complaints. Neither complaint specifies the damages claimed in the action. On December 13, 2024, these two complaints were consolidated into a single action captioned Vargas v. Workman, et al., No. 2:24-cv-07258-FLA (C.D. Cal.) On February 7, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint asserting the claims previously made in the two derivative complaints. The parties in the Vargas action reached agreements in principle to settle, and plaintiffs filed a joint Notice of Settlement with the Court on March 3, 2025. On March 6, 2025, the Court vacated deadlines in the Vargas action in light of the plaintiffs' settlement notice, and set April 2, 2025 as the deadline for plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On March 31, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation with the Court to extend that deadline to April 9, 2025. The Court so ordered the stipulation on April 2, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 9, 2025. PAYWARD INC: Filing for Conditional Cert Bid Due Sept. 23 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rose, v. Payward, Inc. dba Kraken, Case No. 3:25-cv-03524-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: 1. Trial date: Jan. 10, 2028 2. Final pretrial conference: Dec. 2, 2027 3. Expert discovery cut-off: March 27, 2027 4. Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 4, 2026 5. Motion for conditional certification Sept. 23, 2025 and appointment of collective counsel pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(B): Payward provides a digital currency exchange and trading platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m7VWka at no extra charge.[CC] PHIL SMITH: Gillis Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM GILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHIL SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a PHIL SMITH AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61610-MD (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including names, driver's license or state identification numbers, and Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's information technology systems and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about February 8, 2025. However, the Defendant did not inform victims of the data breach until July 31, 2025. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, and similar forms of criminal mischief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the data breach. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the private information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the data breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Phil Smith is an automotive dealership group headquartered in Lighthouse Point, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: nick@lcllp.com gary@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Settlement in "Felipe" Awaiting Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement agreement in the federal securities class action styled Christian A. Felipe et. al. v. PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc., is awaiting court approval. On April 6, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by a purported Company shareholder in connection with alleged federal securities law violations: Christian A. Felipe et. al. v. PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. (the "Felipe Complaint"). On July 15, 2022, the Felipe Complaint was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Southern Division. On October 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to the Felipe Complaint. The Felipe Complaint names the Company, several current and former board members of the Company, board members and officers of Acies Acquisition Corp., and Andrew Pascal, the Company's Chairman and CEO, as defendants. The Felipe Complaint alleges misrepresentations and omissions regarding the state of the Company's development of the Kingdom Boss game and its financial projections and future prospects in the S-4 Registration Statement filed by Acies that was declared effective on May 25, 2021, the Proxy Statement filed by Acies on May 25, 2021, and other public statements that touted Old PLAYSTUDIOS' and the Company's financial performance and operations, including statements made on earnings calls and the Amended S-1 Registration Statement filed by the Company that was declared effective on July 30, 2021. The Felipe Complaint alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions resulted in stock price drops of 13% on August 12, 2021, and 5% on February 25, 2022, following (i) the Company's release of financial results for the second quarter of 2021, ended on June 30, 2021, and (ii) the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and issuance of a press release summarizing financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2021, respectively. The Felipe Complaint seeks an award of damages for an unspecified amount. On January 20, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. The settlement is subject to the parties' negotiation of a formal stipulation of settlement and all related documentation, which is currently in process. The settlement also will be subject to preliminary and final approval by the federal district court in which the case is pending. The matter will not be fully resolved until such approvals are issued, the case is dismissed, and judgment is entered by the court. PNC BANK: Lyons Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM T. LYONS, JR. On behalf of himself individually and similarly situated persons, v. PNC BANK, NA, Case No. 1:20-cv-02234-SAG (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class representative and counsel. In Count I of his complaint, Lyons asserted, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, that PNC violated the Truth in Lending Act's ("TILA") by dipping into Lyon's deposit accounts and the deposit accounts of the class members to offset outstanding payments on HELOCS in violation of 15 U.S.C.A. section 1666h(a) and 12 CFR section1026.12(d)(1). The proposed class is defined as follows: "All persons who are residents of Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, from whom PNC made withdrawals from their deposit accounts for payment of a HELOC loan account in the one year preceding the filing of this Complaint to the date of certification." PNC offers saving and current account, investment, financial services, online banking, and mortgage services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gt7Jlz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip R. Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC 1220 Blair Mill Roadm Suite 1105 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 448-1304 E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM LLC 1400 S. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21230 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Lowry et al. Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MELISSA LOWRY, ADAM ALZALDI, DWIGHT CHORNOMUD, MELISSA CUEVAS, PAMELA GIARRIZZO, CAROLE GRANT, CYNTHIA MEUSE, and LATRONYA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00108, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on August 11, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00897-DRC-KAJ to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's unfair, unlawful, and deceptive conduct in manufacturing, marketing, and selling Charmin Toilet Paper as environmentally beneficial. Proctor & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, OH. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com catherineg@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 E-mail: RPeterson@4-Justice.com PRODRIVERS WEST: Ruling on Class Cert Bid Denial Deferred --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN CORTES, v. PRODRIVERS WEST, INC. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02451-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order deferring ruling on the Defendant's motion to deny class certification. The Court elects to exercise its discretion and defers ruling on the motion until Plaintiff has had an opportunity to conduct the limited discovery at issue. More specifically, the Defendant shall produce by August 14 the records its declarants (Bredehoft and Winch) relied on to prepare their declarations and shall make them available for deposition by August 25. The Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief by September 2, and Defendant may file a supplemental response by September 5. The Plaintiff Benjamin Cortes worked for Defendant ProDrivers West, Inc. as a commercial vehicle driver and filed this putative class action asserting several claims under the California Labor Code. He seeks to represent a class of "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of [the] complaint." The Defendant moves to deny class certification, arguing that Plaintiff cannot represent the class because he was only one of eight putative class members who declined to sign an arbitration agreement that included a class action waiver. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0jW8hs at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Seeks to File Unredacted Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order directing the Clerk to file under seal unredacted versions of: (1) the Opposition, (2) the Milgroom Declaration itself, (3) Exhibits A, B, and C to the Milgroom Declaration, and (4) Exhibit A to the Ellice Declaration, which are concurrently and separately attached as Proposed Sealed Items, for the duration of this action, including the exhaustion of any appeals. Redacted versions of the Confidential Documents were all concurrently filed by Progress on Aug. 8, 2025. The Confidential Documents contain sensitive and proprietary internal business policies and procedures. The contents of these materials in unredacted form are confidential and competitively significant, and public disclosure would cause substantial harm to Progress's business interests and operations. On May 7, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Progress improperly retained the security deposits of former tenants without first sending them a notice required by the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act ("FRLTA"). Progress is the property management subsidiary of Pretium Partners LLC and Progress Residential, LLC. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8fRSmb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ardith Bronson, Esq. Jose M. Espinosa, Esq. Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. Christine E. Ellice, Esq. Dustin A. Linden, Esq. DLA Piper LLP (US) 2200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 423-8562 Facsimile: (305) 503-9583 E-mail: ardith.bronson@us.dlapiper.com jose.espinosa@us.dlapiper.com angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com christine.ellice@us.dlapiper.com dustin.linden@us.dlapiper.com RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Patients Sue Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that patients have filed a class action lawsuit against one of America's oldest private radiology groups following a recent cyberattack. Plaintiffs have now submitted at least 10 complaints against Radiology Associates of Richmond, Virginia, after it notified them about the breach in July. They're seeking millions of dollars and have now consolidated the cases into a single proceeding to make the matter more efficient, Richmond Biz Sense reported. In the lawsuit, "Jane Doe," who is under 18, and legal representatives claim the radiology practice didn't safeguard private health information (PHI) nor notify individuals quickly enough. "In addition, [Radiology Associates of Richmond] failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the private information," the complaint, filed Aug. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claims. "Had defendant properly monitored its computer network and systems, it would have discovered the massive intrusion sooner rather than allowing cybercriminals almost a month of unimpeded access to the [personally identifiable information] and PHI of plaintiff and class members." Radiology Associates of Richmond declined to comment on the lawsuit. It first discovered the breach in May following an extensive forensic investigation, with an unauthorized third party gaining access to its systems sometime in April 2024. The practice has urged patients to monitor their credit reports and utilize fraud alerts to spot suspicious activity, Radiology Business reported previously. Possible compromised information may have included names, dates of birth, medical details and health insurance records. "The privacy and security of the personal information we maintain is of the utmost importance to Radiology Associates of Richmond," the practice said in a notice posted to its website. "RAR has no evidence that any personal information has been or will be misused as a direct result of this incident," it added later. "However, out of abundance of caution, commencing on July 1, 2025, RAR notified individuals whose information may have been included in the files accessed by the unauthorized party, to the extent it had contact information." Jane Doe et al. are seeking $5 million in damages, restitution and injunctive relief and want a jury trial to decide the matter. Nearly 1.42 million individuals may have been impacted by the cyberattack, according to the Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights Breach Portal. RAR joins several other radiology practices that have suffered data breaches including Northwest Radiologists and Pinehurst Radiology Associates. A recent report indicated that ransomware groups are increasingly targeting radiology practices and imaging centers -- which may lack the size of large hospitals but still hold a treasure trove of private health information. This can fetch large sums on the dark web. Last year, East River Medical Imaging PC, New York, was ordered to pay $1.85 million in a similar lawsuit stemming from a data breach. Radiology Associates of Richmond was founded in 1905, employs over 60 radiologists, and is a member of the Strategic Radiology coalition of independent imaging groups. [GN] RAINHAS LLC: Faces Alvarado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL TAVERAS ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAINHAS LLC. (d/b/a RAINHAS CHURRASCARIA), and DANIEL LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04309 (E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2025) is a class action for Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law. The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage accurate statements. Plaintiff Alvarado worked for the Defendants as a cook from approximately July 5, 2020 until December 31, 2024. Rainhas LLC owns, operates, and controls a churrascaria located in Queens, New York under the name of Rainhas Churrascaria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 RICOH USA: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Batten Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- CLEO BATTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICOH USA, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RICOH USA, INC.; THE RICOH RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04658 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 13, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, during the class period, the Defendants, as the "fiduciaries" of the Ricoh USA, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"), breached the duties owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and (2) failing to defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. Ricoh USA, Inc. produces and distributes printing equipment. The Company offers printers, copiers, interactive whiteboards, electronic devices, inks, and parts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Hong Set for April 23, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order extending class certification deadlines Event Deadline Reply in support of motion for class Jan. 23, 2026 Certification: Hearing on class certification: April 23, 2026 On July 14, 2025, the Parties submitted a Stipulation to extend class certification schedule. On July 15, 2025, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation. The proposed order submitted to the Court contained a clerical error due to multiple drafts being exchanged between the Parties. RugsUSA provides flooring products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=58nj9Z 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 S&P GLOBAL: Dinosaur Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC and SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. S&P GLOBAL, INC., AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3) and 23(g): -- certifying the Plaintiffs' damages and injunctive relief classes and -- appointing Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Competition Law Partners PLLC as class counsel, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. S&P offers information regarding ratings, benchmarks, and analytics. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Yd9dB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. Ryan A. Kane, Esq. Joshua M. Slocum, Esq. Lyndon M. Tretter, Esq. Grant J. Bercari, Esq. William Hagan, Esq. Reuben R. Bauer, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: raranoff@wmd-law.com rkane@wmd-law.com jslocum@wmd-law.com ltretter@wmd-law.com gbercari@wmd-law.com whagan@wmd-law.com rbauer@wmd-law.com - and - Leiv Blad, Esq. Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. Meg Slachetka, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 742-4300 E-mail: leiv@competitionlawpartners.com jeff@competitionlawpartners.com meg@competitionlawpartners.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Ave., 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com SELECTQUOTE INC: Lead Class Plaintiff Motions Due Oct. 10 --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Robert Pahlkotter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SelectQuote, Inc., Tim Danker, Ryan Clement, and Raffaele Sadun, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06620 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order regarding notice requirements for a putative class action complaint. Plaintiff on August 11, 2025, filed a putative class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SelectQuote securities between September 9, 2020 and May 1, 2025, inclusive. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Court noted that Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) requires that not later than 20 days after the date on which the complaint is filed, the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business--oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period. Accordingly, the Court ordered that no later than August 31, 2025, Plaintiff shall advise the Court in writing of the date and manner in which it published this notice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q9q7wz from Pacermonitor.com In a subsequent order, the Court ordered that the deadline to file motions for lead class plaintiff is October 10, 2025. Opposition to any motion for appointment of lead class plaintiff is due October 25, 2025. A conference will be held on November 5, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20B of the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. SINCLAIR INC: April 2026 Tentative Trial Date in Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair, Inc., and Sinclair Broadcast Group, LLC, disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an April 1, 2026, is set as the tentative trial date in the antitrust lawsuit. On November 6, 2018, the Company agreed to enter into a proposed consent decree with the DOJ. This consent decree resolves the DOJ's investigation into the sharing of pacing information among certain stations in some local markets. The DOJ filed the consent decree and related documents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 13, 2018. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered the consent decree on May 22, 2019. The consent decree is not an admission of any wrongdoing by the Company and does not subject the Company to any monetary damages or penalties. The Company believes that even if the pacing information was shared as alleged, it would not have impacted any pricing of advertisements or the competitive nature of the market. The consent decree requires the Company to adopt certain antitrust compliance measures, including the appointment of an Antitrust Compliance Officer, consistent with what the DOJ has required in previous consent decrees in other industries. The consent decree also requires the Company's stations not to exchange pacing and certain other information with other stations in their local markets, which the Company's management had already instructed them not to do. The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6, 2020. Discovery commenced shortly after that and is continuing. On December 8, 2023, the Court granted final approval of the settlements the plaintiffs had reached with four of the original defendants (CBS, Fox, Cox Media, and ShareBuilders), who agreed to pay a total of $48 million to settle the plaintiffs' claims against them. The plaintiffs are continuing to pursue their claims against the Company and the other non-settling defendants. Under the current schedule set by the Court, fact discovery is scheduled to close 90 days after a Special Master completes his review of the plaintiffs' objections to the defendants' privilege claims. On December 6, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking sanctions against the Company in connection with the loss of certain cell phone data. On February 4, 2025, following briefing on that motion, the Court heard arguments and took the motion under advisement. On February 20, 2025, the Special Master issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 addressing plaintiffs' challenges to certain of defendants' privilege log entries ("R&R No. 3"), which compelled disclosure of certain documents Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants withheld from discovery based on assertions of privilege. Sinclair and the other co-defendants filed objections to R&R No. 3 and appeared at a status conference on March 18, 2025 during which they argued in favor of their objections to R&R No. 3. The Court took the objections under advisement. At the March 18, 2025 status conference, the Court also set a tentative trial date of April 1, 2026, and stated its expectations that depositions will resume. Although a trial date has been tentatively set, the Court has not issued an amended Scheduling Order, and the Special Master's review of plaintiffs' challenges to the defendants' privilege claims remains ongoing. The Company continues to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims. SITECORE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Constantine Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Colin Constantine, Plaintiff v. Sitecore USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2025CP1004479 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., August 11, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who worked for Sitecore as exempt-classified sales employees nationwide from February 14, 2022, through February 14, 2025. The Plaintiff was employed by Sitecore as a sales employee from approximately October 2021 to June 2023. He regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Based in San Francisco, CA, Sitecore USA Inc. is a digital experience company that provides software products for business clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Scott Falls, Esq. Ashley L. Falls, Esq. FALLS LEGAL, LLC 125-E Wappoo Creek Dr., Suite 102 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 737-6040 Facsimile: (843) 737-6140 E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com ashley@falls-legal.com SOTERA HEALTH: Appeal from Stockholders' Suit Dismissal Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Sotera Health Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an appeal from the order dismissing with prejudice the stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio remains pending with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In January 2023, a stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court") against the Company, certain past and present directors and senior executives, the Company's private equity stockholders and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") in November 2020 and the Company's secondary public offering ("SPO") in March 2021 (the "Michigan Funds Litigation"). In April 2023, the Ohio District Court appointed the Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (the "Michigan Funds") to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company in connection with our IPO or SPO between November 20, 2020 and September 19, 2022 (the "Proposed Class"). The Michigan Funds allege that certain statements made regarding the safety of the Company's use of EO and/or the EO tort lawsuits and other risks of its EO operations violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (when made in the registration statements for the IPO and SPO) and Sections 10(b), Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (when made in subsequent securities filings and other contexts). On March 19, 2025, the Ohio District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and entered judgment dismissing the Michigan Funds Litigation with prejudice (the "Dismissal Order and Judgment"). The Michigan Funds have appealed the Dismissal Order and Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. TESLA INC: Drivers Can Pursue Class Suit Over Self-Driving Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Tesla (TSLA.O) must face a certified class action by California drivers who said Elon Musk misled them for eight years about the self-driving capabilities of his company's electric vehicles. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the common question of whether Tesla lacked sensors to achieve high-level autonomy plus its inability to "demonstrate a long-distance autonomous drive with any of its vehicles" justified group lawsuits by two sets of drivers who bought its Full Self-Driving technology package. In her decision on Monday, August 18, the San Francisco-based judge also said thousands of people likely saw Tesla's claim in the "Autopilot" section of its website from October 2016 to August 2024 that its vehicles contained hardware for full self-driving. Tesla made a similar claim in a blog post, newsletter and quarterly earnings call, as did Musk at a 2016 press conference. "While these channels alone may not ordinarily be enough to establish class-wide exposure for a traditional car manufacturer, Tesla's distinctive advertising strategy warrants a departure from the typical approach," Lin wrote. Tesla does not use mass advertising or independent dealers, and Lin said it was reasonable to infer that class members interested in Full Self-Driving technology went to Tesla's website to get information. Lawyers for Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Austin, Texas-based company had said it was unreasonable to assume all class members saw the challenged statements, and there was no common proof the statements were material. Class actions can allow larger recoveries at lower cost than if plaintiffs were forced to sue individually. The California classes include drivers who bought the Full Self-Driving package from May 19, 2017, to July 31, 2024, and opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement, and drivers who bought the package from October 20, 2016, to May 19, 2017. Lin refused to certify a class of drivers who bought Tesla's Enhanced Autopilot package because its "core product qualities" did not require full self-driving functionality, making Tesla's alleged false statements immaterial to purchasing decisions. Federal officials have examined whether Tesla's full self- driving software is safe. The software is also a key component of Tesla's robotaxis. The case is In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-05240. [GN] TWITTER INC: Parties Seek to Revise Briefing & Hearing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07739-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to revise briefing and hearing schedule. Event Current Date Proposed Change Opp./Experts re Motion for Aug. 22, 2025 +21 days from Class Cert.: order on Motion to Strike. Expert deadline re Class Sept. 5, 2025 +35 days from Cert.: order on Motion to Strike. Reply re Motion for Class Sept. 12, 2025 + 42 days from Cert.: order on Motion to Strike. Hearing re Motion for Class Oct. 16, 2025 First Thursday Cert.: that is at least +63 days from order on Motion to Strike, or other date that is convenient for the Court. On April 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. on May 14, 2025, the Court entered an Order revising the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4wwfuM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Roshni C. Kapoor, Esq. Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. Carolyn M. Corcoran, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com roshni.kapoor@morganlewis.com ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com carolyn.corcoran@morganlewis.com TYRONE OLIVER: Benjamin Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIS BENJAMIN; FANTASIA HORTON; NAEOMI MADISON; BRYNN WILSON; and JOHN DOE; on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, v. COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER, in his official capacity; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RANDY SAULS, in his official capacity; STATEWIDE MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. MARLAH MARDIS, in her official capacity; and CENTURION OF GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04470-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a provisional class for purposes entering a preliminary injunction of: "All individuals incarcerated in Georgia Department of Corrections ("GDC") who are seeking or receiving hormone therapy now proscribed by proscribed by Georgia Senate Bill 185 ("SB185")." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs are transgender people with gender dysphoria in GDC custody who are losing access to hormone therapy due to SB185. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vEeBPP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emily C. R. Early, Esq. A. Chinyere Ezie, Esq. Celine Zhu, Esq. D. Korbin Felder, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6464 E-mail: eearly@ccrjustice.org cezie@ccrjustice.org czhu@ccrjustice.org kfelder@ccrjustice.org - and - Amanda Kay Seals, Esq. Matthew R. Sellers, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W Peachtree St NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: seals@bmelaw.com sellers@bmelaw.com TYRONE OLIVER: Plaintiffs' Bid for Expedited Procedure OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIS BENJAMIN; FANTASIA HORTON; NAEOMI MADISON; BRYNN WILSON; and JOHN DOE; on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, v. COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER, in his official capacity; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RANDY SAULS, in his official capacity; STATEWIDE MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. MARLAH MARDIS, in her official capacity; and CENTURION OF GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04470-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Local Rule 7.2(B) motion for expedited procedure. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and motion for provisional class certification for Aug. 29, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiffs are ordered to serve the complaint, motion for preliminary injunction and motion for provisional class certification, and this order and notice on the Defendants via U.S. mail and using additional reasonably expedient means, and submit a notice indicating the means of service used no later than Aug. 11, 2025. If the Plaintiffs fail to do so, the hearing will be postponed until Defendants are notified. The Defendants are notified that any response to the motion for preliminary injunction and motion for provisional class certification must be filed no later than Aug. 18, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction and motion for provisional class certification by Aug. 25, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u3ee7F at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Barco Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO ALBERTO BARCO MERCADO, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06568-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All immigration detainees who are detained and those who will be detained in the future by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY." The Plaintiff also requests that the Plaintiff's counsel be appointed to represent the certified class pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Defendants include DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARCOS CHARLES, Acting Executive Associate Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, in his official capacity; LADEON FRANCIS, Acting Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=seYyyX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Gregorio, Esq. Mariann Meier Wang, Esq. Alice Reiter, Esq. Daniel Mullkoff, Esq. Lily Sawyer Kaplan, Esq. WANG HECKER LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1406 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 620-2600 E-mail: hgregorio@wanghecker.com mwang@wanghecker.com areiter@wanghecker.com dmullkoff@wanghecker.com lsawyerkaplan@wanghecker.com - and - Harold A. Solis, Esq. Paige Austin, Esq. MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK 301 Grove Street Brooklyn, NY 11237 Telephone: (718) 418-7690 Facsimile: (866) 420-9169 E-mail: harold.solis@maketheroadny.org paige.austin@maketheroadny.org - and - Eunice Cho, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6616 E-mail: echo@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org - and - Amy Belsher, Esq. Robert Hodgson, Esq. Claire Molholm, Esq. Molly K. Biklen, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 E-mail: abelsher@nyclu.org rhodgson@nyclu.org cmolholm@nyclu.org mbiklen@nyclu.org UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Nieto Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YADIRA MARLEN BERRONES NIETO, et al., v. DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), Case No. 1:24-cv-00286-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant USCIS's motion to dismiss or sever. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes is denied without prejudice to refiling. Because the Defendant's refusal to issue the BFD Plaintiffs carries with it the loss of eligibility for parole consideration, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a cognizable injury, at this stage. The Court finds that the BFD Plaintiffs' lost opportunity is traceable to the USCIS conduct and policies at issue in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that the BFD Plaintiffs have standing and the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of standing is denied. The Plaintiffs have met their burden. Accordingly, the Court finds that the BFD Plaintiffs have stated claims for unlawful withholding under the APA and Defendant's motion to dismiss those claims is denied. The case involves 196 Plaintiffs who are in the United States and have applied for "U Nonimmigrant Status," a temporary immigration status available for victims of certain crimes and their family members who aid in the investigation or prosecution of those crimes. The Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant USCIS on March 15, 2024. On Sept. 30, 2024, Defendant filed a renewed motion to dismiss or, alternatively, sever and dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify classes on Oct. 16, 2024. USCIS administers the country's naturalization and immigration system. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L8DnzU at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Parole Terminations ------------------------------------------------------------------- SILEIRI DOE, MERYEM DOE, and OLIVIA DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and VENEZUELAN ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, KRISTI NOEM, JOSEPH B. EDLOW, and RODNEY S. SCOTT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12245 (D. Mass., August 11, 2025) arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful parole terminations of Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, on behalf of its members, who waited at the U.S.-Mexico border for weeks and months at serious physical, emotional, and financial risk to themselves and their families for the opportunity to lawfully enter the United States. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs' parole was suddenly and arbitrarily terminated in April 2025 by mass emails from a "no reply" government address, and in some cases, without any notice whatsoever. Moreover, the Defendants provided no explanation at all for the mass parole terminations, abandoning their duty under the Administrative Procedure Act to make reasonable decisions and provide adequate explanations for those decisions. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to hold unlawful, vacate and/or set aside Defendants' decision to conduct an en masse parole termination and the parole terminations themselves. They also seek to restore the status quo ante, including by the restoration of their work authorizations, so that they may enjoy the full duration of their grants of parole. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the US federal executive department responsible for public security. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melanie M. Chaput, Esq. Heather Arroyo, Esq. Iris Gomez, Esq. MASSACHUSETTS LAW REFORM INSTITUTE 40 Court Street, Suite 700 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 357-0700 Facsimile: (617) 357-0777 E-mail: mchaput@mlri.org harroyo@mlri.org igomez@mlri.org - and - Brian D. Netter, Esq. Allyson R. Scher, Esq. Cortney Robinson Henderson, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: bnetter@democracyforward.org ascher@democracyforward.org crhenderson@democracyforward.org UNITED STATES: James Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germaine James v. United States of America, Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Donahue entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Because Plaintiff is not represented by counsel and is proceeding pro se, the Plaintiff may not properly represent a class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may not pursue this action as a class action, the Court says. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MT46n9 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: May Face Class Action Over USAID Mass Layoffs ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that US Agency for International Development employees who will lose their jobs when the agency shuts down may pursue their claims against Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency as a class action, a federal court said. After the US Supreme Court curbed the use of universal injunctions, advocates for federal workers subject to mass layoffs are turning to the use of class actions. The Trump Administration tasked Musk and DOGE with cutting the federal budget. As part of their mandate, they sought to merge USAID with the US State Department and terminate the 5,000 to 10,000 USAID employees. To that end, on March 28, DOGE Team Lead Jeremy Lewin sent an email notifying the employees that they would receive reduction-in-force notices, requiring separation by either July 1 or Sept. 2. DOGE's activities have been legally challenged at almost every turn. But the US Supreme Court ruled in June that DOGE can have access to Social Security data. Musk left DOGE in May. The plaintiffs here claimed that DOGE's actions violated the appointments clause and the separation of powers by subverting the powers of Congress. They were granted a preliminary injunction on March 18 and the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied Aug. 13—only claims against President Trump were dismissed. At the time of the proposed RIF, USAID had personnel classifications that included civil service employees, foreign service employees, foreign service limited and national employees, and personal services contractors. They also had cooperating country and third-country national personal service employees, who weren't US citizens and worked for USAID in foreign countries. But Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the US District Court for the District of Maryland pared from the class foreign nationals working abroad, saying that they don't possess any rights under the US Constitution. The class certified by Chuang was all USAID employees who were US citizens or working in the US between Jan. 27 and the present. It specifically excluded administrators and deputy administrators. Under his modifications, Chuang said that the class isn't overbroad. He added that the class is sufficiently large and the plaintiffs have common issues of law and fact. The common issues for the appointments clause claim are whether Musk made the initial decision to dismantle USAID and whether that decision should have been made by a duly appointed US officer. They also include whether Musk was the de facto DOGE administrator, and whether Musk's position was "continuing" for appointment clause purposes. For the separation of powers claim, the common issues are whether the defendants' actions eliminated USAID as an independent agency, and whether that elimination violated separation of powers, Chuang said. The plaintiffs' claims are also typical of the rest of the class, and the plaintiffs will adequately represent the class, Chuang said. He added that a single injunction or declaratory judgment will provide relief for the entire class. State Democracy Defenders Action, Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP represent the plaintiff. The US Department of Justice represents the defendants. The case is Does v. Musk, 2025 BL 291150, D. Md., No. 25-0462-TDC, 8/18/25. [GN] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Atlantic ERISA Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATLANTIC NEUROSURGICAL SPECIALISTS P.A., et al., individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-13834-MEF-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 21, 2025, will move the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All individuals in the United States who were participants in, or beneficiaries of, an ERISA-governed health benefit plan issued or administered by one of the Defendants, who designated an out-of network health care provider as an authorized representative to pursue an appeal of an adverse benefit determination, and whose appeal was not processed or was denied on or after Oct. 2, 2014 on the grounds that the Designated Authorized Representative ("DAR") form that was submitted was allegedly incomplete or insufficient." The Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order: -- Appointing the Plaintiffs Ronald P. Benitez, M.D. and Yaron A. Moshel, M.D. (as the attorneys-in-fact of their patients F.L. and P.T.), and Sean Bidic, M.D. (as the attorney-in-fact of his patient J.C.) as class representatives; and -- Appointing Berger Montague PC and Cohen Howard LLP as co-lead class counsel. The Defendants include UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICE LLC, OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, LLC, and OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC. UnitedHealth is a multinational health insurance and healthcare services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3GojQC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Julie S. Selesnick, Esq. Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: nlesser@bm.net apark@bm.net jselesnick@bm.net zseamangrant@bm.net - and - Leslie S. Howard, Esq. Michael F. Fried, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 Facsimile: (732) 747-5259 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com mfried@cohenhoward.com US CUSTOMS: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANCHEZ MORA, et al., v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03136 (D.D.C., Filed Nov. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order as follows: -- Plaintiffs Renewed Motion For Class Certification due by Sept. 12, 2025. -- Defendants Response To The Motion due by Sept. 26, 2025. -- Plaintiffs Reply due by Oct. 3, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The Defendant prevents people from entering the country illegally or bringing anything harmful or illegal into the United States.[CC] VECTOR SECURITY: Kocher Sues Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KOCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VECTOR SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00252 (W.D. Pa., August 11, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information and personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class members. On August 1, 2025, the Defendant began issuing notice letters to impacted individuals. Moreover, Defendant failed provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the data breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Headquartered in Warrendale, PA, Vector Security, Inc. 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: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Ave, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com VENZA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Armstead Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA ARMSTEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENZA CARE MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-14586 (D.N.J., Aug. 13, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a licensed practical nurse. Venza Care Management LLC provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4635 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: crodriguez@bergermontague.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com VERIZON WIRELESS: May Face Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org believe Verizon Wireless may have violated an Illinois privacy law through its Voice ID feature, and they're now gathering affected customers to take legal action. Specifically, the attorneys are looking into whether Verizon illegally collected and stored customers' unique voiceprints through its identity-verifying Voice ID program without proper notice and consent. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) prohibits companies from collecting, storing and using consumers' sensitive biometric data, such as voiceprints, without first obtaining consumers' consent and providing written disclosures about how the data will be used, stored and destroyed. The attorneys are now gathering affected Verizon customers to sign up for mass arbitration over the suspected BIPA violations. What Is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act? The Illinois BIPA was enacted in 2008 to protect residents' biometric data -- such as fingerprints, voiceprints, iris and retina scans, and hand and face geometry -- from unauthorized use. The law recognizes unique biometric privacy concerns, noting that biometrics are unlike other identifiers in that they cannot be changed if compromised. Thus, biometric-facilitated transactions, such as using a person's fingerprints or voiceprint to verify their identity, present a "heightened risk" of identity theft, according to the BIPA. The BIPA makes it illegal for a private company to collect, capture, purchase, receive or otherwise obtain a person's biometric data unless it first: -- Informs the person in writing that their biometric data is being collected or stored; -- Informs the person in writing of the purpose and length of time for which their biometric information will be collected, stored or used; -- Receives a written release from the person to collect, store or use their biometric information; and -- Publishes a publicly available retention policy outlining how and when consumers' biometric information will be permanently destroyed. Verizon Voice ID and Potential BIPA Violations According to the attorneys, Verizon's use of customers' voices for its Voice ID feature raises potential biometric privacy concerns. In fact, a lawsuit was filed against Verizon in September 2024 over alleged BIPA violations. The case claimed that the Verizon Voice ID program, which was represented as a means for customers to verify their identities using their voices when calling Verizon, illegally collected and stored customers' voiceprints. According to the case, at "no point during the enrollment process" for Voice ID were customers informed in writing about the collection and storage of their biometric data or the purpose or length of time for which their data would be collected and stored -- and Verizon allegedly failed to obtain written releases from customers to use their biometric information. Is This a Lawsuit? What Am I Signing Up For, Exactly? You are not signing up for a lawsuit, but rather a process known as mass arbitration. This is a relatively new legal technique that, like a class action lawsuit, allows a large group of people to take action and seek compensation from a company over an alleged wrongdoing. Here is a quick explanation of mass arbitration from our blog: -- [M]ass arbitration occurs when hundreds or thousands of consumers file individual arbitration claims against the same company over the same issue at the same time. The aim of a mass arbitration proceeding is to grant relief on a large scale (similar to a class action lawsuit) for those who sign up." Verizon Wireless's customer agreement contains both a class action waiver and an arbitration clause requiring customers to resolve most disputes via arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution that takes place outside of court before a neutral arbitrator, as opposed to a judge or jury. It's for this reason that attorneys working with ClassAction.org have decided to handle this matter as a mass arbitration rather than a class action lawsuit. How Much Does This Cost? It costs nothing to sign up, and you'll only need to pay if the attorneys win money on your behalf. Their payment will come as a percentage of your award. If they don't win your claim, you don't pay. How Much Money Could I Get? There are no guarantees as to how much money you could get or whether your claim will be successful. However, the BIPA provides that companies may be responsible for paying consumers $1,000 for negligent BIPA violations and as much as $5,000 for willful violations. [GN] ********* 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 ***