250827.mbx

250827.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 171 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Barton Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Beckett Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Beheler Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Boglivi Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Carlos Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Hall Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Jackson Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Jones Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Lamott Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Lauricella Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Nelson Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Ruiz Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Ryba Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Sherwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Toomey Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Toth Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Toward Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Young Files Suit in D. South Carolina ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery in Securities Suit Pending ADOBE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Practices AERO GROUNDTEK: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation AMAZON.COM INC: Must File Daubert Bids Reply by Dec. 22 ANALYTICAL INDUSTRIES: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANDREW DEFRANCESCO: Claim Form Submission Deadline Set for Oct. 29 ASCOT RESOURCES: Misrepresents Public Disclosure of Mining Business AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Breaches Plan Fiduciary Duties, Suit Says AVERY PRODUCTS: Lopez Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BITCOIN DEPOT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach BRAND ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Journeyman Painters, Reyes Says BURGER KING: Motion to Dismiss Misleading Ads' Class Suit Denied BURLINGTON STORES: Faces Bashiru Suit Over Illegal Background Check CAPITAL GROUP: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Nyotowidjojo Says CAPITAL ONE: $425MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 6 CARECENTRIX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Medical Devices' Charges CAREDX INC: $20.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2 CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Denning" CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Frost" CASCADES USA: Faces Adamberger ERISA Suit Over Tobacco Surcharges CASEY'S GENERAL: Filing for Class Certification Due May 1, 2026 CEI VISION: Faces Sharpe Suit Over Compromised Personal Info CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Lewis Claims CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Securities Suit CONNEX CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fleck Says CONSIGLI CONSTRUCTION: Faces Spofford Suit Over Hacked Private Info COOKUNITY INC: Douglass Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES: Mok Class Action Stayed CPAP MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Conners Says CROCS INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Mongalo Set for Oct. 20, 2026 CTO REALTY: O'Connor Sues Over Misleading Company Statements DANIEL BEERS: Seeks to Maintain Two Exhibits Under Seal DBM GLOBAL: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Morales Says DCC PROPANE: McKeel Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Logistics Manager DOORDASH INC: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Shafi Claims ELWOOD STAFFING: Nabors Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info EMORY HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mass Layoffs EMORY HEALTHCARE: Simmons Balks at Termination Without Notice EMPOWER ADVISORY: Misleads Retirement Plan Participants, Suit Says ENERGY TRANSFER: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 7 EYECARE PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Brown Says FARROW & BALL: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FOREST RIVER: Nelson Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 9th Circuit FULFILLMENT LAB: Agrees to Settle False Ads Suit for $200,000 FUTURE MOTION: Faces Gilley Class Suit Over Defective Skateboards GASKETS ACQUISITION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Says GP TECHNOLOGIES: Dintino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA HIGH 5: Faces Johnston Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Website HOLIDAY INN: Lingard Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 11th Circuit HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sakepa Says IMMUNITYBIO INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 4 ITHACA COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle COVID-19 Tuition Suit for $1.5MM KENTUCKY: Huston Appeals Ruling to Kentucky Court of Appeals KEVIN REALWORLDFARE: Standing Order Entered in Marinaj Suit KROLL LLC: Faces Class Suit on Negligent Behavior Over Data Breach LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lares Says LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed in Cotton LKQ PICK: Faces Short Suit Over Undisclosed Warranty Fees LPO ROYALTY VENUE: Fourcand Sues Over Unpaid Wages MANPOWER OF LANSING: Faces Poudrier Suit Over Compromised Info MOBILELINK LLC: Jordens Seeks Proper Pay Rates Under FLSA, WWPCL MOSAIC SALES: Phillips Suit Removed to C.D. California MOTHERSON SAS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Espinoza Alleges NATIONAL VETERINARY: Truempy Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info OSMOSE UTILITIES: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. California OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Failed to Protect Private Info, Smith Says PANACHE CRUISES: Pedersen Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida PENNSYLVANIA: Sunoco Appeals TRO & Injunction Order to 3rd Circuit PIQUE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Greenlights Tampons Class Action Lawsuit RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Data Access ROTI RESTAURANTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims S&P GLOBAL: Filing for Class Cert.in Dinosaur Suit Due Sept. 11 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Awards Class Counsel $427K SHOP AVARA: Walker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store SIX FLAGS: Plaintiffs' Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonyms Tossed SNAP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors SOCKSMITH DESIGN: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Wolters Sues Over Illegal Internet Casino TC HEARTLAND: Prescott Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Brenman Over "Window" Seat Premium Fees UNITED STATES: Crowe Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to D.D.C. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Hall Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA VECTOR SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Butkus Says VIEW INC: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 6 WALGREEN EASTERN: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Woods Suit Says WELLS FARGO: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Sept. 30 WOODSIDE AUTO: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ********* 3M COMPANY: Barton Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Scott Barton, 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-10553-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: Beckett Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Roy Beckett, 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-10572-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: Beheler Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Timothy David Beheler, 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-10647-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: 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: Boglivi Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as James Boglivi, 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-10669-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: Carlos Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Carlos, 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-10607-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: Hall Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Evan Blake Hall, 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-10500-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: Jackson Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Kendrick Jackson, 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-10455-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: Jones Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Kristen 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-10457-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: Lamott Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Andre Lamott, 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-10506-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: Lauricella Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Lauricella, 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-10461-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: Nelson Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Mchale Nelson, 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-10308-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN AND SASSER 4400 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 58 Pensacola, FL 32503 Phone: (850) 916-7450 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Ruiz Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Luis Alfonso Ruiz, 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-10312-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN AND SASSER 4400 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 58 Pensacola, FL 32503 Phone: (850) 916-7450 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Ryba Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Louis Ryba, 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-10337-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: Sherwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Sidney Sherwood, 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-10629-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: Toomey Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Kevin John Toomey, 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-10670-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: 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: Toth Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Daniel Toth, 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., Case No. 2:25-cv-10694-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: Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq. ASK LLP 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400 Saint Paul, MN 55121 Phone: (651) 289-3855 Fax: (651) 406-9676 Email: tcuneo@askllp.com 3M COMPANY: Toward Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Ronald Toward, 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-10649-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: Young Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Lynn Young, 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-10679-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 ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery in Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 parties in the securities lawsuit are currently engaged in expert discovery. On April 19, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action complaint (captioned City of Birmingham Relief Retirement Systems v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's then-current executive officers. On September 29, 2021, the Court issued an order designating lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to disclose that the materials submitted in support of its sNDA seeking approval of pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 11, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery. ADOBE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Adobe deceptively induces consumers into enrolling in automatically renewing, costly subscriptions, namely by obscuring key details during the enrollment process, making the cancellation process difficult, and tacking on a hefty early termination fee. According to the 32-page Adobe lawsuit, the company misleads consumers as to the duration of its subscriptions, renewal conditions and cancellation policies. The suit charges that Adobe's enrollment process is purposefully designed to "hide and limit the accessibility of" key subscription details, and that the company's cancellation procedures are "intentionally burdensome," trapping consumers into unwanted subscriptions. According to the complaint, Adobe's subscription terms and conditions, rather than being clearly and prominently displayed, are hidden in fine print "buried" at the bottom of the page and within hyperlinks that customers must affirmatively follow. The case says that for Adobe's annual, billed monthly (ABM) plan in particular, the terms and conditions are intentionally written in obscure and inconsistent language, with necessary details, including the fact that the plan is a year-long automatically renewing commitment that comes with an early cancellation fee, scattered across multiple different locations on the website. "In totality, the terms of the ABM plan lock unwitting consumers into year-long contracts that strongly deter consumers from cancelling, and automatically renew each year," the suit summarizes. Per the lawsuit, the only on-page indication that a cancellation fee exists for the ABM plan is faint, gray text below the price of the subscription that reads, "Fee applies if you cancel after [date]." Additional information must be intentionally accessed by the consumer by hovering over the icon beside the fine print, which reveals a pop-up box that reads, "If you cancel after 14 days [of your initial order], your service will continue until the end of that month's billing period, and you will be charged an early termination fee," the lawsuit says. The complaint notes that this disclosure still does not mention that the fee will be charged as a lump sum and will be worth 50 percent of the remaining, year-long subscription. There is also nothing on the sign-up or checkout page that explicitly discloses the year-long obligation tied to Adobe's ABM subscription plan, the filing relays. The complaint argues that consumers are largely unaware of the fees and terms of an Adobe ABM subscription until they wish to cancel and begin the process, at which point the full terms are revealed, and the price of cancellation often deters them from cancelling as they wish to do. Additionally, the lawsuit contends that the cancellation process itself is intentionally confusing and frustrating so as to discourage consumers from completing it and instead resign themselves to continue to pay for the service. The class action lawsuit also references a formal complaint against Adobe by the Federal Trade Commission over the unclear disclosure of the terms and conditions of Adobe's ABM plan. The Adobe class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who, within the past four years, incurred or paid an annual, billed monthly plan cancellation fee or paid the full-year contract of the ABM subscription, including those who attempted to cancel but ultimately did not or could not go through with it. [GN] AERO GROUNDTEK: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Chimere Brown, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. AERO GROUNDTEK LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, THOMAS GROVER BRACKETT, individually, and DEREK SIMON, individually, Case No. 6:25-cv-01550 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Plaintiff was a full-time employee and typically worked 50 hours or more per week. The Plaintiff was eligible to be paid overtime pay at time and one half of her regular hourly rate. However, Defendants did not calculate Plaintiff's overtime rate correctly. Specifically, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff her one and one half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 worked per week. Therefore, Defendants paid Plaintiff overtime pay incorrectly. The Plaintiff is owed overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a "Crew Member" for the Defendants in Florida. AERO GROUNDTEK LLC, conducts business in Orange County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 Email: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Must File Daubert Bids Reply by Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN FLOYD, JOLENE FURDEK, and JONATHAN RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting joint stipulated motion for leave to file overlength briefs and setting schedule for briefing motions to exclude expert testimony: The Defendants' Daubert motions: Aug. 14, 2025 The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' Nov. 14, 2025 Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Nov. 14, 2025 The Defendants' reply in support of their Dec. 22, 2025 Daubert motions: The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' Jan. 9, 2026 Daubert motion(s): The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Feb. 6, 2026 Daubert motion(s): Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lubZMq at no extra charge.[CC] ANALYTICAL INDUSTRIES: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Analytical Industries Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mayra Rodriguez, on behalf of all similarly situated v. Analytical Industries Inc. a Nevada corporation, Insperity Peo Services L.P. a Delaware limited partnership, Case No. 25STCV23618 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Analytical Industries Inc. -- https://aii1.com/ -- designs and manufactures innovative solutions for gas analysis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180 El Segundo, CA 90245-2656 Phone: 424-292-2350 Fax: 424-292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com ANDREW DEFRANCESCO: Claim Form Submission Deadline Set for Oct. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW DEFRANCESCO, MARLO MAURICIO DIAZ CARDONA, CARLOS FELIPE REZK, NIKOLA FAUKOVIC, AND CATHERINE DEFRANCESCO, Defendants. No. 1:23-CV-00131-JSR SEC V. ANDREW DEFRANCESCO FAIR FUND PLAN NOTICE TO POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE CLAIMANTS TO: Persons or entities who purchased or acquired Cool Holdings Inc. common stock (the "Security") during the period between September 16, 2018 and October 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Relevant Period"). If you purchased the Security during the Relevant Period, you must submit a completed Claim Form with the necessary documentation so that it is postmarked or, if not sent by U.S. Mail, received by October 29, 2025 (the "Claims Bar Date") to be eligible to recover from the Fair Fund. I. Purpose of this Notice. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that you may be entitled to share in the proceeds of the Fair Fund described herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the Fair Fund, you must file a Claim Form in accordance with the steps set forth in this Plan Notice and in the Distribution Plan (the "Plan") approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or the "Commission"). Claim Forms together with this Plan Notice are being mailed to Potential Preliminary Claimants who purchased the Security during the Relevant Period. Copies of the Plan, this Plan Notice and the Claim Form are also available on the Fair Fund's website at www.SECvAndrewDeFrancesco.com and through the Commission's website at You are excluded from applying for a distribution if you fall within one of the categories outlined in Section III below. Please Note: Receipt of this Notice does not mean you will be awarded a payment SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEE PURCHASERS: If you purchased or acquired shares of the Cool Holdings Inc. common stock during the Relevant Period as a nominee for a beneficial owner, then within fourteen (14) days after you receive this Plan Notice, you must either: (a) send a copy of this Plan Notice and the accompanying Claim Form by First-Class Mail to all such beneficial owners; or (b) provide a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Distribution Agent listed in Part VI of this Plan Notice. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU SATISFY THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA DESCRIBED BELOW, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A RECOVERY FROM THE FAIR FUND. THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR ABILITY TO SHARE IN THE FAIR FUND. II. Background. On January 6, 2023, the SEC filed a Complaint against Andrew DeFrancesco ("DeFrancesco"), Marlio Mauricio Diaz Cardona ("Diaz"), Carlos Felipe Rezk ("Rezk"), Nikola Faukovic ("Faukovic"), and Catherine DeFrancesco (collectively, the "Defendants"). In the Complaint, the SEC alleged that beginning in March of 2018, Defendants DeFrancesco, Diaz, and Rezk, officers and directors of Cool Holdings, Inc. ("Cool Holdings"), orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to deceive the investing public about the operations and prospects of their company through repeated, materially false and misleading misstatements and omissions in SEC filings and in a promotion campaign. From March 2018 through early June 2019, Cool Holdings made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in its SEC filings including about its critical business relationship with Apple Inc. Certain Defendants signed Cool Holdings' false and misleading quarterly reports, annual reports, and registration statement and amendments. The registration statement, which never became effective, sought to offer and sell up to $25,000,000 worth of securities. The Defendants also orchestrated a "pump and dump" of Cool Holdings' stock, which included secretly funding a series of fraudulent articles promoting Cool Holdings as a profitable and expanding company. The false news released during mid-September 2018 caused Cool Holdings' share price and trading volume to spike during the week the articles were published and to remain elevated for a period of weeks after. During the promotional campaign, DeFrancesco secretly sold, through accounts controlled by nominee entities and nominally controlled by his ex-wife Catherine DeFrancesco, millions of shares of Cool Holdings, generating proceeds of more than $11.5 million. Diaz, Faukovic, and Rezk also sold Cool Holdings stock while the company was disseminating false and misleading information in its SEC filings. Id. 8. As a result of the false information published during the promotional campaign, investors overpaid for shares of Cool Holdings and suffered losses when the share price collapsed. On June 15, 2023, the Court entered final judgments as to Catherine DeFrancesco and Faukovic. The Court found Catherine DeFrancesco liable for a civil penalty of $122,782.00 and found Faukovic liable for disgorgement of $11,779.43, prejudgment interest of $2,570.89, and a civil penalty of $111,614.00 for a total of $125,964.32. On July 5, 2023, the Court entered a final judgment as to Andrew DeFrancesco and ordered him liable for disgorgement of $1,034,051.52, prejudgment interest of $242,018.97, and a civil penalty of $1,737,224.52 for a total of $3,013,295.01. On November 21, 2023, the Court entered final judgments as to Diaz and Rezk and ordered them each liable for a civil penalty of $223,229. On July 22, 2024, the Court entered an order establishing a Fair Fund, including post-judgment interest and any future funds collected from the Defendants in the Fair Fund. The Commission holds $2,283,537.34 collected from the Defendants pursuant to the Final Judgments. As of January 28, 2025, the Fair Fund balance is $2,400,755.96. The Fair Fund has been deposited in an SEC-designated account at the United States Department of the Treasury, and any accrued interest will be added to the Fair Fund. The Court approved the Plan in its entirety on May 2, 2025. III. Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology. To qualify for a payment from the Fair Fund, you must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website at www.SECvAndrewDeFrancesco.com and on the Commission's public website at https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/distributions-harmed-investors/cool-holdings. You can also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Distribution Agent at 1-888-788-6473 or by emailing info@SECvAndrewDeFrancesco.com. The eligibility criteria include the following: • You must have purchased or acquired the Cool Holdings Inc. common stock during the Relevant Period. • Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated under the Plan and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $20.00. You are excluded from participation in the Fair Fund if you are: (a) the Defendants, (b) present or former officers or directors of Defendants or any assigns, creditors, heirs, distributees, spouses, parents, dependent children or controlled entities of any of the foregoing Persons or entities, (c) any employee or former employee of the Defendants or any of its affiliates who has been terminated for cause or has otherwise resigned, in connection with the conduct alleged in the Complaint, (d) any Person who, as of the Claims Bar Date, has been the subject of criminal charges related to the conduct alleged in the Complaint or any related Commission action, (e) any firm, trust, corporation, officer, or other entity in which Defendants has or had a controlling interest, (f) the Distribution Agent, its employees, and those Persons assisting the Distribution Agent in its role as the Distribution Agent; or (g) any purchaser or assignee of another Person's right to obtain a recovery from the Fair Fund for value; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed to exclude those Persons who obtained such a right by gift, inheritance or devise. The Recognized Loss incurred by an Eligible Claimant shall be determined as set forth in the Plan. The methodology used to determine eligibility and calculate Distribution Payments is set forth in the Plan of Allocation attached to the Plan as Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Order, all reasonable administrative costs and expenses of the distribution, including the fees and expenses of the Tax Administrator and Distribution Agent shall be paid from the Fund. IV. Claim Forms. A CLAIM FORM IS BEING MAILED TOGETHER WITH THIS PLAN NOTICE TO ALL POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE CLAIMANTS KNOWN TO THE DISTRIBUTION AGENT. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A FORM IN THE MAIL OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FORMS, SEE THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW UNDER "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION" FOR OBTAINING CLAIM FORMS. THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM AT THE ADDRESS OR EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW IS OCTOBER 29, 2025. IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY SUBMIT A COMPLETED CLAIM FORM, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM RECEIVING A PAYMENT FROM THE FAIR FUND. THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR EACH TRANSACTION LISTED IN THE CLAIM FORM. If you submit a Claim Form that fails to provide all required information, or is otherwise deficient, you may receive a Claim Deficiency Notice advising you of the reason(s) why the claim is deficient and of the opportunity to cure such deficiencies. V. Claim Determinations. The Distribution Agent will mail a notice advising each Potentially Eligible Claimant that submitted a Claim Form of the determination concerning such claim. If a claim is denied in whole or in part, the Distribution Agent will state the reason for such denial. All determinations of the Distribution Agent that are made in accordance with the Plan shall be final and not subject to appeal. VI. Instructions for Submitting a Claim Form. YOU MUST COMPLETE AND SIGN THE CLAIM FORM AND SUBMIT IT TO THE DISTIRBUTION AGENT BY OCTOBER 29, 2025, AT THE ADDRESS LISTED BELOW OR ONLINE AT WWW.SECVANDREWDEFRANCESCO.COM, IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECOVER FROM THE FAIR FUND: SEC v Andrew DeFrancesco Fair Fund P.O. Box 5654 Portland, OR 97228-5654 info@SECvAndrewDeFrancesco.com VII. Other Claims. Upon receipt and acceptance of a distribution from the Fair Fund, you shall be deemed to have released any claims you may have against the Distribution Agent and its agents. By participating in the distribution of the Fair Fund, you will not be releasing any rights or claims you may have against any other party, including, but not limited to, Defendants and Defendants' past or present directors, officers, employees, advisers and agents. VIII. Additional Information. Additional information regarding the Fair Fund may be found at www.SECvAndrewDeFrancesco.com. The Plan Notice and Claim Form may also be downloaded from the Fair Fund's website. You may obtain additional information or request copies of forms and notices by calling the SEC v Andrew DeFrancesco Fair Fund's toll-free hotline at 1-888-788-6473 in the United States, or by emailing info@SECvAndrewDeFrancesco.com. PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE WWW.SECVANDREWDEFRANCESCO.COM FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES. ASCOT RESOURCES: Misrepresents Public Disclosure of Mining Business ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mariaan Webb of Mining Weekly reports Canadian miner Ascot Resources has vowed to defend itself against a newly filed lawsuit in Ontario, which alleges misrepresentation in the company's public disclosure relating to its Premier gold mine. Ascot said on Wednesday, August 20, that it had learned of a statement of claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice naming the company and certain other parties as defendants. The plaintiff is seeking certification as a class action, unspecified damages, and declaratory relief. CEO and director Jim Currie stressed that Ascot believed the allegations were "unfounded and without merit". Ascot did not name the party filing the claim. Securities class action litigation firm Berger Montague last month said it was investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of shareholders of Ascot. The law firm stated that between January 22 and September 5, 2024, Ascot reported that after its February 22, 2024 offering of securities that it would be fully-funded to complete the construction of the Premier gold project, progress through the ramp-up phase to commercial production and steady state operations. The company also reported that commercial production was anticipated to happen during the third quarter of 2024, and as a result it would be self-funded for at least 12 months out. On September 6, 2024; however, the company reversed course on its plans for the Premier mine, reporting multiple operational issues and suspending all operations until additional capital was raised. Following these revelations, the price of Ascot securities suffered "substantial declines on abnormally high volume". Ascot placed the project on care and maintenance in June after failing to reach a satisfactory cost agreement with its mining contractor. The company also launched a strategic review process to explore potential alternatives. [GN] AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Breaches Plan Fiduciary Duties, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reid Gritsavage, as the Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, and on Behalf of the Auto-Owners Insurance Company Retirement Savings Plan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company and the Administrative Committee of the Auto-Owners Insurance Company Retirement Savings Plan, Case No. 1:25-cv-00973 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Plan in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), to the detriment of the Plan, its participants, and its beneficiaries. By sitting idly as Plan assets continued to collect in the Plan's proprietary fund, the Defendants have deprived the Plan's participants of millions of dollars in essential retirement savings while profiting from the significant amount of assets held within a proprietary investment fund, the Plaintiff contends. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties (Count One). The Plaintiff also asserts a claim against Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company for its failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two). The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy this unlawful conduct, recover losses to the Plan, and obtain other appropriate relief. The Plaintiff has been a participant in the Plan since 2014, and consequently assets in his account have been invested in the Auto-Owners Life Insurance Company Deposit Administration Group Annuity Contract and continuing to the present. The Defendant is an insurance company headquartered in Lansing, Michigan. Auto-Owners Insurance Company is one of several companies within the Auto-Owners Insurance Group and is the Group's largest insurer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com AVERY PRODUCTS: Lopez Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AVERY PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-06834 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.avery.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Avery operates the Avery online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BITCOIN DEPOT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Quincey Hall filed a class action lawsuit against Bitcoin Depot Inc. Why: Hall claims Bitcoin Depot failed to adequately safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of its customers. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Bitcoin Depot of failing to adequately safeguard the personally identifiable information of its customers, which was impacted in a data breach disclosed by the company in July 2025. Plaintiff Quincey Hall claims Bitcoin Depot failed to properly safeguard the PII of more than 26,000 U.S. residents, which, he argues, allowed cybercriminals to access and steal the information. Bitcoin Depot data breach exposed names, phone numbers, emails The Bitcoin Depot data breach exposed the names, phone numbers, addresses, emails and driver's license numbers of 26,732 individuals, according to a report by The Record. The report notes that despite learning of the breach in June 2024, Bitcoin Depot ultimately took a full year to notify affected individuals. Hall wants to represent a nationwide class and Georgia subclass of individuals residing in the United States whose PII was compromised by the Bitcoin Depot data breach. The plaintiff argues Bitcoin Depot is guilty of negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and violating the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. Hall demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, compensatory, consequential and nominal damages for himself and all class members. Meanwhile, a class action settlement with Byte Federal is open for claims. The company agreed last month to resolve allegations that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. The plaintiff is represented by MaryBeth Gibson of Gibson Consumer Law Group LLC and David S. Almeida and Elena Belov of Almeida Law Group LLC. The Bitcoin Depot class action lawsuit is Hall v. Bitcoin Depot Inc., Case No. 1:25-mi-99999, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. [GN] BRAND ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Journeyman Painters, Reyes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRAND ENERGY SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; BRAND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; BRAND SCAFFOLD SERVICES, INC.; BRAND INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS, INC.; BRAND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS, LLC; BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES LLC; BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES MGMT LLC; BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC; BRANDSAFWAY SOLUTIONS, LLC (DBA BRANDSAFWAY); and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06966 (N.D. Cal., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, and California Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize rest periods, failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a journeyman painter in San Francisco, California from approximately October 28, 2024 to December 2024. Brand Industrial Services, Inc. is a provider of access, specialized services, and forming and shoring solutions, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Brand Energy Services of California, Inc. is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc., headquartered in Fairfield, California. Brand Scaffold Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc. based in California. Brand Industrial Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc. based in Atlanta, Georgia. Brand Industrial Projects, LLC is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc. based in Atlanta, Georgia. BrandSafway Industries LLC is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc. based in Waukesha, Wisconsin. BrandSafway Industries MGMT LLC is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc. based in California. BrandSafway Services LLC is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc. based in Atlanta, Georgia. BrandSafway Solutions, LLC, doing business as BrandSafway, is a subsidiary of Brand Industrial Services, Inc., with its principal place of business in Laporte, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Danielle Fuschetti, Esq. Jannat Irshad, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com dfuschetti@schneiderwallace.com jirshad@schneiderwallace.com BURGER KING: Motion to Dismiss Misleading Ads' Class Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that In Walter Coleman, et al. v. Burger King Corp., No. 22-20925 (S.D. Fla.), a putative class of consumers from thirteen states alleges that Burger King's advertising for items such as the Whopper materially exaggerates portion sizes, making the burgers appear up to 35% larger than they actually are. Plaintiffs claim that since 2017, Burger King's marketing has depicted patties protruding beyond the buns—imagery they say misleads consumers into believing the product has increased in size when it has not. The second amended complaint asserts fourteen counts: violations of consumer-protection laws in eleven states (including Florida, California, and New York) plus Florida common-law claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees for a nationwide class and state subclasses. On May 5, 2025, Judge Roy K. Altman denied Burger King's motion to dismiss in its entirety. Applying the "reasonable consumer" standard under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (and equivalent standards in other states), the court held that the alleged depictions could plausibly mislead consumers, going beyond permissible "puffery." The breach of contract claim survived because in-store menu boards could be construed as contractual offers, negligent misrepresentation does not require a special relationship under Florida law, and unjust enrichment was a "close call" but adequately pleaded because plaintiffs alleged they purchased the products solely due to the challenged advertising. A Broader Litigation Trend Coleman is part of a broader trend of courts scrutinizing product depictions when measurable attributes are allegedly overstated. In Brodsky v. Coca-Cola Co., 2022 WL 3586095 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2022), claims over "slack-fill" in beverage bottles survived dismissal under New York's General Business Law. In contrast, Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016), involving partially filled lip balm tubes, was dismissed as immaterial to reasonable consumers. In Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018), the Second Circuit allowed claims about "whole grain" labeling on Cheez-Its to proceed, finding that the labeling could mislead consumers despite other disclosures on the packaging. The emerging pattern indicates that where plaintiffs allege a quantifiable misrepresentation central to the purchase decision, courts are more willing to let claims proceed past the pleading stage. The Regulatory Landscape Enforcement risk is not limited to private lawsuits. A second Trump administration could reshape the FTC's and DOJ's false advertising enforcement priorities under statutes such as Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45, and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a). While overall federal regulatory activity could contract in some sectors, political incentives may drive targeted consumer-protection actions, particularly in food labeling and marketing. For example, during the first Trump administration, the FTC pursued high-profile cases against supplement and weight-loss advertisers despite broader deregulation, signaling a willingness to act where consumer deception allegations were considered significant. Practical Takeaways for Advertisers Advertisers should ensure that product depictions match the physical goods in measurable ways and should account for how changes in marketing over time could be interpreted as misrepresentations. Industry norms for "puffery" generally will not shield depictions that imply factual changes in size, quantity, or other objective attributes. Aligning creative teams with compliance counsel early in the marketing process remains a cost-effective defense against both litigation and regulatory scrutiny. [GN] BURLINGTON STORES: Faces Bashiru Suit Over Illegal Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------------- KENBREIL BASHIRU on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. BURLINGTON STORES, INC., Case No. e 4:25-cv-03923 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant relies on similar information from Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding other prospective or current employees, including in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination. The Defendant took an adverse action based in whole or in part on the Consumer Report and failed to provide the Plaintiff with the report prior to the adverse action. In taking adverse action, without first providing a copy of the Consumer Report, the Defendant violated section 1681b(b)(3)(A) of the FCRA. The suit says that the Defendant obtained information concerning the Plaintiff from a consumer reporting agency named Sterling Infosystems. The Defendant paid a fee for the information it obtained concerning the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff applied online for employment with the Defendant's Houston, Texas store in or about Sept of 2023. She seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Burlington is an American national off-price department store retailer, and a division of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation with more than 1,100 stores in 47 states and Puerto Rico, with its corporate headquarters located in Burlington Township, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walker Drew Moller, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 Main: (888) SIRI-LAW E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com CAPITAL GROUP: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Nyotowidjojo Says --------------------------------------------------------------- IWAN NYOTOWIDJOJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01816 (C.D. Cal., August 15, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all Capital Group account holders who have accessed and used www.capitalgroup.com, to manage their retirement accounts. According to the complaint, through the website it maintains, the Defendant provides financial services to its account holders where they can manage their investment and retirement accounts. When consumers access their private financial accounts to make personalized decisions with their trusted financial institution, they expect that such confidential information and activity will be protected and not disclosed to unknown third parties. Such expectations are based, in part, on the legal protections afforded to such information. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and Defendant's legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, the Defendant discloses information about consumers' retirement account activity to Google, LLC, including the total value of the individual's assets, says the suit. Through the acts alleged herein, the Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act by disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff created his Capital Group account on the website through an employer sponsored retirement plan in September 2024. The Capital Group Companies, Inc. is a global investment management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com CAPITAL ONE: $425MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action settlement has been proposed that, if approved by the Court, would resolve the lawsuit titled In re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03111-DJN (E.D. Va.). The lawsuit concerns allegations that Capital One acted deceptively regarding the marketing and payment of interest - on its 360 Savings account product. Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Financial Corporation deny any wrongdoing, and the Court has not determined that Capital One did anything wrong. Who is included? You are receiving this notice because records show you are a member of the Settlement Class, i.e. all persons or entities who are or were 360 Savings accountholders from September 18, 2019, through June 16, 2025. What does the Settlement provide? The Settlement provides for $425 million consisting of: (1) a $300 million Settlement Fund to be used to make cash payments to 360 Savings accountholders in relation to their historical account balances; and (2) $125 million to be used to make increased interest payments going forward for customers who continue to maintain 360 Savings accounts. You do not need to file a claim to receive a cash payment; if you do nothing, a check will be mailed to your last known address, as long as your payment is $5 or more. You will not receive a mailed check if the amount of the check would be less than $5, but if you choose an electronic payment instead, you will receive your payment no matter the amount. You are therefore strongly encouraged to choose to receive your share of the Settlement Fund as an electronic payment (instead of a check) by visiting www.CapitalOne360SavingsAccountLitigation.com. The deadline to choose an electronic payment is October 2, 2025. The amount and timing of your Settlement benefits will differ depending on whether your 360 Savings account is open or closed as of October 2, 2025; please see the Long Form Notice at www.CapitalOne360SavingsAccountLitigation.com for more details regarding how the payment amounts will be calculated. Other options. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must submit a request to opt out postmarked no later than October 2, 2025. If you do not opt out, you will be legally bound by the Settlement, will give up the right to sue Capital One, and will release Capital One from the legal claims that were or could have been brought in this lawsuit. If you opt out, you will receive no benefits from the Settlement Fund. If you do not opt out, you may object to or comment on the Settlement and/or Plaintiffs'. Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards by October 2, 2025: The Long Form Notice at www.CapitalOne360SavingsAccountLitigation.com explains how to opt out or object. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on November 6, 2025, to consider whether to approve the Settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel's requested attorneys' fees of up to 20% of the settlement amount plus expenses, service awards for the settlement class representatives, and any objections. You or your lawyer, at your own expense, may attend the hearing if you object, but you are not required to do so. This notice is only a summary. More information is available at www.CapitalOne360SavingsAccountLitigation.com or by calling toll-free 1-888-832-2704. CARECENTRIX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Medical Devices' Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that CareCentrix and DJO Global have fraudulently abused the United States healthcare system by overcharging unsuspecting consumers for necessary medical devices. According to the 13-page lawsuit, medical device manufacturer DJO and provider CareCentrix have reaped millions per year by inflating patients' medical bills, concealing "kickback arrangements," and continuing to collect money from patients after a medical equipment supplier has already been paid in full. The complaint alleges that the scheme begins when a patient is prescribed a DJO-made piece of durable medical equipment, like a rollator or brace. In this process, the suit says, the patient agrees to pay out-of-pocket for whatever part of the expense their insurance does not cover. The consumer is not informed of CareCentrix's involvement in any capacity, the case mentions. The class action lawsuit notes that DJO's prices are already several times higher than the retail prices for comparable items and equipment produced by reputable competitors, which the suit claims is the first stage of DJO's money-draining scheme. The complaint goes on to allege that after DJO has been paid in full by a consumer's insurer and has officially closed its case file, the payment made by the patient's insurance company is not directly transferred to DJO. Instead, the filing says, it is first sent to CareCentrix, which keeps a portion of the payment before sending the rest to DJO. Despite the allegedly exorbitant payments already made to both parties, one of whom the lawsuit claims is never disclosed to the patient and with whom the patient often has no relationship, the complaint says that CareCentrix then goes on to bill the patient for various other amounts, including any deductibles. In this process of "manufactured confusion," the suit says, DJO and CareCentrix enable themselves to charge multiple of the retail cost of necessary medical devices for hundreds, if not thousands, of patients. "This conduct is not just dishonest—it is predatory," the class action lawsuit scathes. "It erodes public trust in our healthcare system, exploits consumers during vulnerable moments and weaponizes the complexities of insurance and medical billing to extract maximum profit under the guise of legitimate care." The CareCentrix and DJO class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in Florida who was billed by CareCentrix for equipment or services, including those who had no prior relationship or contact with CareCentrix, within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] CAREDX INC: $20.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #295 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. CAREDX, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:22-cv-03023-TLT (Securities Case) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE IF YOU PURCHASED CAREDX, INC. ("CAREDX") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN MAY 1, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 3, 2022, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT.1 THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that in the litigation (the "Action"), a settlement has been proposed for $20,250,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on December 2, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Trina L. Thompson, at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Philip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, Courtroom 9 – 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, for the purpose of determining whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; (iii) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, and awards to Lead Plaintiffs should be granted; and (iv) the judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice. The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing without further written notice of any kind to the Class. Class Members should check the Court's PACER site or the Settlement Website, www.CareDxSecuritiesLitigation.com. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person, telephonic, or video conference appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement Website. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. You may obtain a copy of the Stipulation, the long form Notice, and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim") at www.CareDxSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator: CareDx Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173096, Milwaukee, WI 53217; 1-877-423-0707. Copies of the Notice and the Claim Form are also available by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through PACER or by visiting the Office of the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Philip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 or any other location of the Northern District of California between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail received no later than November 12, 2025, or submit it online by that date.2 If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein). To exclude yourself from the Class, you must mail a written request for exclusion such that it is received by October 14, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you are a Class Member and have not excluded yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you submitted a valid request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court no later than October 14, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel at the following addresses or by calling 1-800-449-4900: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP JASON C. DAVIS Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com SAXENA WHITE P.A. LESTER R. HOOKER 7777 Glades Road Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 lhooker@saxenawhite.com DATED: AUGUST 14, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Denning" ------------------------------------------------ Carriage 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 it continues to defend itself in the class action styled Denning v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, Ventura County, Case No. 2024 CU OE 028098. "On July 29, 2024, a wage and hour class action was filed against the Company and several of its subsidiaries. Plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees as the putative class for the alleged failure to pay legally mandated compensation and reimbursement expenses. As of June 30, 2025, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any. The prospective class has not been certified by a court of competent jurisdiction and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects," the Company said. CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Frost" ---------------------------------------------- Carriage 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 it continues to defend itself in the class action styled Frost v. Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, Case No. C24-02653. "On October 4, 2024, a consumer class action was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Rolling Hills Memorial Park. Plaintiff, an owner of an interment right and purchaser of merchandise and services from Rolling Hills Memorial Park, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former consumers and owners of interment rights as the putative class for the alleged failure to properly set cemetery merchandise and maintain the perpetual care cemetery. As of June 30, 2025, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any. The prospective class has not been certified by a court of competent jurisdiction and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects," the Company said. CASCADES USA: Faces Adamberger ERISA Suit Over Tobacco Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARC T. ADAMBERGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CASCADES USA INC. Case No. 1:25-cv-01116-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2025) challenges Cascades' unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" without complying with the regulatory requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff contends that it is both unfair and unlawful for Cascades to impose discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products. Under the Cascades USA Health and Welfare Plan, Cascades imposes a discriminatory tobacco surcharge without providing participants with a reasonable alternative standard to avoid that surcharge and fails to provide notice of the availability of a reasonable alternative standard, violating federal regulations and depriving employees of benefits to which they are entitled under ERISA. Tobacco surcharges have become more prevalent in recent years but to be lawful plans can impose these surcharges only in connection with compliant "wellness programs," meaning they must adhere to strict rules set forth by ERISA and the implementing regulations established by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury over ten years ago in 2014. The Plaintiff is an employee of Cascades, who paid a tobacco surcharge of roughly $10 per week (roughly $520 annually) associated with the health insurance offered through Cascades. The Defendant operates as a manufacturer and distributor of packaging and recycled products, providing a range of paper-based and sustainable packaging solutions to customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marina Resciniti, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mresciniti@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com CASEY'S GENERAL: Filing for Class Certification Due May 1, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH D. BLALOCK and STACEY D. MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00113-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephen Jackson, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: The parties must exchange initial disclosures by Oct. 24, 2025. Motions to add parties must be filed by Nov. 26, 2025. Motions for leave to amend pleadings must be filed by Nov. 26, 2025. Discovery on issues regarding class certification must be completed by March 2, 2026. Motion for class certification must be filed by May 1, 2026. Response to motion for class certification must be filed by June 1, 2026. Reply must be filed by June 15, 2026. Additional scheduling deadlines and trial date will be set at a later date, as necessary. Casey's operates convenience stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jVMZ4i at no extra charge.[CC] CEI VISION: Faces Sharpe Suit Over Compromised Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ EMILY SHARPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEI VISION PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00591-DRC (S.D. Ohio, August 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information from unauthorized disclosure. On May 26, 2024, the Defendant discovered that an unknown, unauthorized third party gained temporary access to its computer network. Upon discovery, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. The Defendant's investigation determined that the unauthorized party accessed certain computer systems belonging to Defendant between May 24, 2024, and May 27, 2024. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the data breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' private information was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose private information was exposed as a result of the data breach. CEI Vision Partners, LLC is a network of ophthalmology practices based in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Lewis Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALYSON LEWIS, 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. 1:25-cv-23695 (S.D. Fla., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach that occurred as early as January 22, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Cerner Corporation, doing business as Oracle Health, Inc., is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. Baptist Health South Florida Inc. is a hospital organization, with its principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Citizens & Northern 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 lawsuits alleging violations of the Texas Securities Act. On March 27, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas by investors in a purported Ponzi scheme operated by two individuals, one of whom maintained accounts at C&N Bank. The plaintiffs have sued C&N Bank, along with another bank, an additional law firm and accounting firm defendants. The case is styled Goldovsky, et al. v. Rauld, et al. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against C&N Bank and the other bank for aiding and abetting alleged violations of the Texas Securities Act, and additional claims against the legal and accounting professionals for statutory fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty. C&N Bank has filed motions to dismiss the case for wont of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs have responded to those motions. Plaintiffs have filed an application for certification of the suit as a class action. The court has stayed the motions to dismiss pending consideration of the class action certification application. Following depositions of the four plaintiffs on issues germane to class action certification, C&N Bank and each of the other defendants have filed briefs in opposition to the plaintiffs' class certification motion. A hearing on the motion for class certification took place on February 18, 2025. By order of the District Court judge dated March 27, 2025, C&N Bank's motion to dismiss for wont of personal jurisdiction was granted. The Plaintiffs have no appeal of the District Court's decision as a matter of right. On May 23, 2025, C&N Bank was served with a complaint filed by Goldovsky, et al in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint is predicated upon Texas Securities law alleging substantially the same facts and asserting the same legal arguments. C&N Bank believes that it has substantial defenses against the action, and it intends to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations. Based on the information available to the Corporation, the Corporation does not believe at this time that a loss is probable in this matter, nor can a range of possible losses be determined. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded for this litigation matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The Corporation's estimate may change from time to time, and actual losses could vary. CONNEX CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fleck Says -------------------------------------------------------- PAUL FLECK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CONNEX CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:25-cv-01325 (D. Conn., Aug. 19, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack and data breach by the Defendant that compromised their personal identifiable information. According to the complaint, between June 2 and June 3, 2025, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor infiltrated Defendant's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, names, account numbers, social Security numbers, and other government identification information. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including actual compensatory, and nominal damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive and equitable relief to prevent future harm to himself and the putative class. Connex is a financial institution located in North Haven, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Craig A. Raabe, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6392 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com craabe@rizard@ikrlaw.com CONSIGLI CONSTRUCTION: Faces Spofford Suit Over Hacked Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SPOFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSIGLI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-40123 (D. Mass., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within the network systems of Alera Group, an insurance brokerage firm that contracts with Defendant for services, following a data breach between July 19, 2024 and August 4, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Consigli Construction Co., Inc. is a construction company, with its headquarters in Milford, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com COOKUNITY INC: Douglass Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------ BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COOKUNITY INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01270 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 19, 2025) arises from the Defendant's ongoing failure to effectively communicate with Douglass because the website, https://www.cookunity.com/, that is not sufficiently compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, thereby denying Plaintiff full and equal access to the goods and services available at Defendant's physical facilities pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, from its physical facilities, the Defendant makes various goods and services, like meal delivery services, as well as customer service, and technical support, available to consumers in Pennsylvania and across the country. Consumers may remotely access the goods and services at Defendant's physical facilities through its website. Plaintiff Douglass is legally blind. As a result of his blindness, Douglass uses screen reader auxiliary aids to remotely access the goods and services available at Defendant's physical facilities through the Website. The Defendant owns, leases, and/or operates physical facilities, including corporate offices, manufacturing facilities, shipping and distribution centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES: Mok Class Action Stayed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY MOK, for herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06104-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Pedro Castillo entered an order staying Mok action. 1. The action is stayed in its entirety for 90 calendar days from the date of entry of this Order. All proceedings and deadlines in this action are stayed and tolled, including Covercraft's deadline to file an Answer or other response to the Complaint and Ms. Mok's deadline to file a motion for class certification. 2. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report seven (7) calendar days before the expiration of this stay. IT IS SO ORDERED. Covercraft is a manufacturer of automotive, marine and recreational vehicle protection products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IgTe4i at no extra charge.[CC] CPAP MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Conners Says --------------------------------------------------------- BRETT CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00945 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 19, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in August 2025 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant recently learned that an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Through the investigation, Defendant learned that an unauthorized actor accessed its IT Network between December 13, 2024, and Dec. 21, 2024. Accordingly, the following types of Private Information were exposed as a result of the Data Breach: name, date of birth, Socia Security number, health insurance information, medical history, and diagnosis and treatment information. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that the Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access, suit says. The Defendant is a provider of sleep therapy treatment for those serving in the military and their families.[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: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: weekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Caroline Herter, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CROCS INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Mongalo Set for Oct. 20, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mongalo, et al., v. Crocs, Inc. Case No. 3:24-cv-09037-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows Trial date: Nov. 15, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Oct. 7, 2027 Last day to file dispositive motions: April 12, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: March 29, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 7, 2026 Class certification: Hearing: Oct. 20, 2026, 2:00 p.m. Reply: Sept. 24, 2026 Opposition: Aug. 30, 2026 Last day to amend pleading: Feb. 24, 2026 Crocs is an American footwear company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xxQZhK at no extra charge.[CC] CTO REALTY: O'Connor Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES J. O'CONNOR, JR. and JUDY A. O'CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CTO REALTY GROWTH, INC., JOHN P. ALBRIGHT, MATTHEW M. PARTRIDGE, LISA M. VORAKOUN, and PHILIP R. MAYS, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-01516-WWB-NWH (M.D. Fla., August 8, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired CTO securities between February 18, 2021 and June 24, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CTO's dividends were less sustainable than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) the Company used deceptive and unsustainable practices to artificially inflate its AFFO and overstate the true profitability of its Ashford Lane property; (iii) accordingly, CTO's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On this news, CTO's stock price fell $0.98 per share, or 5.42%, to close at $17.10 per share on June 25, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. CTO Realty Growth, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that owns and operates retail-based properties located primarily in higher growth markets in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 2103 N. Commerce Parkway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 E-mail: nczipperian@millershah.com jagoldstein@millershah.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com DANIEL BEERS: Seeks to Maintain Two Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCHELLE GLASGOW, et al., v. DANIEL J. BEERS, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to maintain under seal two exhibits to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: (1) 2018 Executive Employment Agreement; and (2) Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release. Alternatively, Mr. Bellis requests that the Court permit the compensation and benefits information in these two agreements to remain sealed. Versions of the two exhibits with Mr. Bellis's compensation and benefits information highlighted will be submitted with this motion for in camera review so the Court can evaluate this alternative request, if necessary. Daniel J. Beers is an ophthalmic surgeon. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aD4HHt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. David H. Thomas, Esq. Cary M. Snyder, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS &HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com dthomas@taftlaw.com csnyder@taftlaw.com DBM GLOBAL: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Morales Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AURELIO MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DBM GLOBAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02950-SMM (D. Ariz., August 15, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information including names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on August 11, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class and California Subclass of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. DBM Global Inc. is a national structural steel and industrial construction company that operates across commercial and industrial sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com DCC PROPANE: McKeel Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Logistics Manager --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MCKEEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCC PROPANE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01199 (W.D. Tenn., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. McKeel worked for the Defendant as a logistics manager from 2021 until she was terminated on April 15, 2025. DCC Propane, LLC is a supplier and distributor of propane, with its corporate offices located in Lisle, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Weinman, Esq. WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES 112 S. Liberty Street P.O. Box 266 Jackson, TN 38302 Telephone: (731) 423-5565 Facsimile: (731) 423-5372 Email: mike@weinmanthomas.com DOORDASH INC: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Shafi Claims ----------------------------------------------------- RONAK N. SHAFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC., a Delaware corporation; STRIPE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06773 (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations the California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the class action arises from Defendants' systematic scheme to deprive delivery drivers of their earned wages through a calculated pattern of payment system failures, false promises, and deliberate obstruction of drivers' attempts to recover their money. For over six months, Plaintiff Ronak Nouri Shafi has performed delivery services for DoorDash without receiving a single penny in compensation, while Defendants have engaged in a shell game of misdirection and blame-shifting that has left Plaintff in severe financial distress and on the brink of eviction, the suit alleges. This lawsuit seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their fraudulent scheme, their negligent payment systems, and their breach of the fundamental promise to pay workers for their labor. The Plaintiff brings this action not only on her own behalf but on behalf of the countless other United States drivers who have been similarly victimized by Defendants' alleged conduct. Plaintiff Ronak Nouri Shafi has been working as a delivery driver for DoorDash, Inc. for approximately four to five years. DoorDash, Inc. is an American company operating online food ordering and food delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 805-8373 E-mail: ji@jasoningber.com ELWOOD STAFFING: Nabors Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM NABORS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELWOOD STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01631-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and bailment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 29, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Elwood Staffing Services, Inc. is a staffing corporation, with its principal place of business in Columbus, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com EMORY HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mass Layoffs ----------------------------------------------------------- Akilah Winters, writing for ALIVE, reports that a former Emory Healthcare employee is leading a class action lawsuit accusing the hospital system of violating federal labor law by laying off hundreds of workers without the legally required 60-day notice. The lawsuit alleges it violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, also known as the WARN Act, by not letting the department know ahead of time. The woman in the suit, which was filed on Friday, August 22, is also alleging that Emory Healthcare laid off more than 500 employees. Still, Emory stated in a statement that the reduction in its workforce only impacted 232 people in the financial services/revenue cycle department. The woman's last day, as well as the other employees, was August 12. According to the court documents, the woman accuses Emory of trying to willfully bypass WARN Act requirements. However, Emory stated that because of its limited number of impacted employees, it did not need to activate its WARN Act because it wasn't 33% of its workforce. Its total workforce is 29,500 employees. "A mass layoff occurs if the employment losses at a single site of employment represent at least 33% of the total active workforce, excluding any part-time employees. Neither of these options came into play at Emory Healthcare," it said in a statement. According to the law, the WARN Act requires most employers with 100 or more employees to give 60 days' advance written notice before conducting a plant closing or mass layoff affecting a significant number of workers. A mass layoff is considered a reduction of 50 or more employees at a single site if it makes up at least 33% of the workforce, or any layoff of 500 or more employees regardless of percentage. The lawsuit also states that the amount of severance pay was not adequate for 60 days and did not comply with the WARN Act. "We remain committed to supporting the individuals who are leaving us with needed resources throughout this career transition. We express our sincere gratitude for the hard work and contributions these employees brought to our team," a spokesperson for Emory Healthcare said in a statement. The lawsuit seeks class certification, back pay and benefits for up to 60 days, and a declaration that Emory's severance agreements are unenforceable. [GN] EMORY HEALTHCARE: Simmons Balks at Termination Without Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- PAULETTE SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMORY HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04641-VMC (N.D. Ga., August 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, Defendant Emory terminated more than 500 full-time employees in its finance department or throughout the organization, including Plaintiff, without providing the statutorily required 60 days' advance written notice. Emory instead presented employees with severance agreements, including for employees age 40 and over, which attempted to condition receipt of severance pay upon a waiver of statutory rights, including WARN Act rights. The severance offered was inadequate and noncompliant with WARN, as it failed to provide employees with the equivalent of 60 days' wages and benefits, says the suit. Emory Healthcare, Inc. is a Georgia corporation headquartered in Atlanta, and is the largest healthcare system in the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Gordon, Esq. LAW FOR GEORGIA, LLC 6075 Barfield Road Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (470) 222-8406 Facsimile: (470) 232-1098 E-mail: Gordon@Law4GA.com EMPOWER ADVISORY: Misleads Retirement Plan Participants, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAKIRA WILLIAMS-LINZEY, JENNIFER PATTON, and KATHLEEN MCFARLAND, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. EMPOWER ADVISORY GROUP, LLC; EMPOWER RETIREMENT, LLC; EMPOWER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; and EMPOWER ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-14660 (D.N.J., August 15, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged scheme to significantly mislead retirement plan participants and greatly enhance corporate profits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, a critical component of this scheme involved Empower Retirement's egregious and wholly improper abuse of its position as a recordkeeper for employer-sponsored retirement plans. Empower Retirement abused its role as retirement plan recordkeeper as follows: First, Empower Retirement improperly and repeatedly leveraged its position as plan recordkeeper to harvest highly confidential, private financial data concerning retirement plan participants for its economic benefit. Second, Empower Retirement provided this highly confidential information to Empower, which used the data to identify and target certain categories of retirement plan participants, including participants with large account balances nearing retirement age. Third, Empower's sales representatives approached these targeted retirement plan participants, and falsely portrayed Defendants' high-cost Managed Account program as the superior -- and in fact the only -- recommended investment option, regardless of whether the Managed Account program was actually in the best interests of retirement plan participants. As a result of this misleading scheme, the Defendants have reaped massive and unlawful profits at the expense of Plaintiffs, who were charged unreasonably high fees for investments that underperformed those available to Plaintiffs through their employers' tax-favored plans, says the suit. Plaintiff Williams-Linzey was a director of Reproductive and Childhood Health and a participant in the ERISA-governed Central Jersey Family Health Consortium 403(b) Pension Plan. Empower Advisory Group, LLC is a limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Empower is a wholly owned subsidiary of Empower Annuity.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chen Kasher, Esq. Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Joel D. Rohlf, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: ckasher@uselaws.com aschlichter@uselaws.com jrohlf@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com - and - Forrest James IV, Esq. FOB JAMES LAW FIRM, LLC 2226 1st Ave South, Suite 105 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: (205) 407-6009 E-mail: Fob@fobjameslaw.com - and - James Z. Foster, Esq. FOSTER LAW LLC 1201 West Peachtree St, NW, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 800-0050 Facsimile: (404) 493-2322 E-mail: James@Foster-Law.com ENERGY TRANSFER: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, DENVER EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, and IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L. WARREN, THOMAS E. LONG, MARSHALL MCCREA, and MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, Defendants. Case No. 2:20-cv-00200-GAM SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common units of Energy Transfer LP ("Energy Transfer") between February 25, 2017, and November 11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that Lead Plaintiffs Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Denver Employees Retirement Plan, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers National Pension Fund, and Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (together, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") for $15,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that Energy Transfer and certain of its senior officers violated federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period about Energy Transfer's construction of a set of pipeline projects across Pennsylvania, consisting of the Mariner East 2, Mariner East 2X, and Revolution pipelines, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that the executive defendants controlled Energy Transfer when the misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants2 deny all allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws. A hearing will be held on October 7, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable Gerald A. McHugh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Courtroom 9B of the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Settlement Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of (I) Proposed Class Action Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice"). You may obtain copies of the Settlement Notice and the Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Energy Transfer Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. 91415, Seattle, WA 98111; (844) 717-0724; info@EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than November 28, 2025. To submit a claim online, visit EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than September 16, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Energy Transfer Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91415 Seattle, WA 98111 (844) 717-0724 info@EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Adam H. Wierzbowski Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com Jeffrey W. Golan Barrack, Rodos & Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 877-386-3304 ETsettlement@barrack.com EYECARE PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Brown Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EYECARE PARTNERS, LLC, and CEI VISION PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00598-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendants breached their duty to safely secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information and send timely notice of the Data Breach to affected members, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Accordingly, between May 24, 2024, and May 27, 2024, an unknown actor gained access to CVP's inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, have had their personal identifiable information (PII) and private health information (PHI) exposed (the Data Breach). CVP is a network of ophthalmology practices based in Ohio. Founded in 2015, CVP's network comprises more than 300 ophthalmologists and over 700 optometrists across 18 states, including Ohio. EyeCare Partners is a provider of clinically integrated eye care. As part of their business, Defendants obtained and stored the sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Spencer D. Campbell, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com scampbell@msdlegal.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com FARROW & BALL: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FARROW & BALL INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06835 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.farrow-ball.com/us/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant operates the Farrow-Ball online retail store, as well as the Farrow-Ball interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FOREST RIVER: Nelson Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAY NELSON is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jay Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Forest River, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM-JTJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The Plaintiff alleges that Forest River manufactures Subject Recreational Vehicles (RVs) with a wiring system that violates industry safety standards in several ways. The Plaintiff alleges that the defect caused his 2019 Puma RV to catch fire, that he had to repair the same defect in the 2020 Puma RV he purchased, and that the defect creates a safety hazard and misleads consumers of Subject RVs. On Feb. 11, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Brian Morris denied on Aug. 1, 2025. The Court deems it prudent to deny nationwide class certification in the absence of other alleged injuries similar to the one suffered by Nelson that was not addressed either by warranty or recall. The Court deems is appropriate and use its discretion to certify a limited class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) comprised of all persons in Montana who own a Forest River Cedar Creek Fifth Wheel RV and Puma Fifth Wheel RV other than for resale or distribution. The limited Montana class provides an efficient vehicle to address the adequacy of Forest River's recall in remedying alleged defects in the wiring of the Cedar Creek Fifth Wheel RVs and the Puma Fifth Wheel RVs. The appellate case is entitled Jay Nelson v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. 25-5199, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner JAY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: C. Tab Turner, Esq. TURNER & ASSOCIATES, PA 4705 Somers Avenue, Suite 100 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: (501) 791-2277 Email: tab@tturner.com - and - Daniel B. Bidegaray, Esq. BIDEGARAY LAW FIRM, LLC 1700 W. Koch, Suite 5 Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 522-7744 Email: daniel@bidegaraylawfirm.com - and - Dennis P. Conner, Esq. J.R. Conner, Esq. CONNER, MARR & PINSKI, PC P.O. Box 3028 Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 727-3550 Email: dennis@mttrials.com jr@mttrials.com Defendant-Respondent FOREST RIVER, INC. is represented by: Maxon R. Davis, Esq. DAVIS, HATLEY, HAFFEMAN & TIGHE, PC P.O. Box 2103 Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 761-5243 Email: max.davis@dhhtlaw.com - and - Mark T. Hayden, Esq. Spencer S. Cowan, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 357-9610 (513) 357-9464 Email: mhayden@taftlaw.com scowan@taftlaw.com - and - John D. Papageorge, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 3500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 713-3500 Email: jpapageorge@taftlaw.com FULFILLMENT LAB: Agrees to Settle False Ads Suit for $200,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimDepot reports that consumers whom The Fulfillment Lab billed for shipments of three or five bottles of Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto or InstaKeto between Aug. 6, 2016, and June 18, 2025, may be eligible for future relief from a class action settlement. The Fulfillment Lab Inc., along with Richard Nelson, David Flynn, Rickie Joe James, Bmor Global LLC, Brightree Holdings Corp. and Beyond Global Inc., agreed to pay $200,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely marketed Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto and InstaKeto diet products. Who are the class members? To qualify for as a class member, The Fulfillment Lab must have billed the individual for shipments of three or five bottles of Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto or InstaKeto between Aug. 6, 2016, and June 18, 2025. How much can class members get? This settlement does not provide direct monetary compensation to class members. Class members may be eligible for compensation from related litigation in Florida: Sihler et al. v. Global E-Trading, LLC (d/b/a Chargebacks911), et al., No. 8:23-cv-1450 (M.D. Fla.), but this is not guaranteed and depends on the outcome of that case. No action needed Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive any benefit from this settlement as there are no direct monetary payments. Those who wish to exclude themselves (opt out) must send a written request for exclusion including their name, address, telephone number and basis for class membership by Oct. 29, 2025, or submit the online exclusion form by Nov. 5, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Keto Products Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box 2437, Portland, OR 97208-2437 $200,000 settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of $200,000 will cover the following: -- Settlement administration costs -- Attorneys' fees and expenses -- Service awards to class representatives Important dates -- Deadline for exclusion: Postmarked by Oct. 29, 2025, or filed online by Nov. 5, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 19, 2025 Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged The Fulfillment Lab marketed Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto and InstaKeto products in a false or misleading manner. The settling defendants deny any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of further litigation. The settlement also secures cooperation from certain defendants for ongoing litigation in Florida, which may provide additional relief to class members in the future. [GN] FUTURE MOTION: Faces Gilley Class Suit Over Defective Skateboards ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARL BACKMAN GILLEY, an individual v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., a California Corporation (RE: FUTURE MOTION, INC. PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION), Case No. 5:25-cv-06990-BLF (N.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2025) is a class action alleging that Future Motion manufactured its Onewheels electric skateboard with a defect that made them inherently dangerous. The Onewheel is operated, controlled, and monitored, in part, by an application that users can download and install on their phones. The app allows users to customize their ride with what the company refers to as "Digital Shaping" and allows the user to monitor battery status, toggle the LED lights on the board, and track riding data. The Onewheel application was also developed and designed by Defendant Future Motion. On Aug. 29, 2023, Carl was riding his Onewheel Pint when the Onewheel suddenly and unexpectedly came to an abrupt halt, violently launching Carl off the device and onto the pavement. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff incurred significant and painful bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, wage loss, and diminished enjoyment of life. Consequently, the Plaintiff brings this case as a direct and proximate result of the strict products liability and negligence of Defendant Future Motion. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of punitive damages for Future Motion's deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others. Future Motion designs, develops, manufactures, produces, distributes, markets, and sells a line of personal "riding machines" commonly referred to as "Onewheel(s)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Johnson, Esq. Adam J. Kress, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: mjohnson@johnonsbecker.com akress@johnsonbecker.com GASKETS ACQUISITION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASKETS ACQUISITION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09788 (N.D. Ill., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.cuttingboard.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Gaskets Acquisition, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 GP TECHNOLOGIES: Dintino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES DINTINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Foreign Limited Company, and LOUIS BRUNO, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-00743 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 19, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as a claim for fraud. The Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, during their employment with the Defendants, worked more than 40 hours per week but were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff claims for fraud and breach of contract. Defendant Bruno owned, directed and controlled GP Technologies, LLC's operations in Lee and Collier Counties in Florida. GP Technologies, LLC is an international software development and IT services firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert H. Goodman, Esq. PARRISH & GOODMAN, PLLC 13031 McGregor Blvd., Suite 8 Fort Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (813) 643-4529 Facsimile: (813) 315-6535 E-mail: rgoodman@parrishgoodman.com kcumbee@parrishgoodman.com rwilliams@parrishgoodman.com HIGH 5: Faces Johnston Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Website --------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00652 (M.D. Ala., Aug. 18, 2025) seeks damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief individually on behalf of the other Class members, each of whom are Alabama residents who have paid and lost money or other things of value on High5casino.com. According to the complaint, gambling is constitutionally and statutorily prohibited in Alabama. Yet High5casino.com is accessible and operational in Alabama. High 5 does not operate to promote or market another product or service; High5casino.com is the product or service. High5casino.com operates indefinitely and not for a fixed period of time. On its website, users can play "over 1700+ (sic.) games", including "slots," (not bingo as is legal in some Alabama counties) and live virtual table games such as roulette and blackjack (the "Chance Games). The Chance Games are games of chance akin (if not identical) to games already declared unlawful and unconstitutional in Alabama, including slot machines, video poker, and other video-amusement games, asserts the suit. High 5 admits its games are chance-based by admitting its "primary games" use a random number generator. High 5 offers prizes, including cash-equivalent prizes, and admits on its website that it typically runs at a 96% return to player, the suit adds. The Plaintiff wagered and lost money on Defendant's illegal gambling website. As a result, she allegedly suffered an injury in fact resulting in the loss of money and/or property that is recoverable in Alabama. High5 owns and operates a popular, internet-based casino website called www.Highcasino.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Leon Hampton, Jr., Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. Dylan Martin, Esq. Trent Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 FAX E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com leon.hampton@beasleyallen.com paul.evans@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com Trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: joel@skclassactions.com HOLIDAY INN: Lingard Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 11th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELIQUE L. LINGARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Angelique L. Lingard, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00323-JSS-RMN, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought seeking to void timeshare loans that violate the Military Lending Act ("MLA"), which was enacted to protect members of the United States Military from an epidemic of predatory lending that endangers our Nation's military readiness and impacts servicemember retention. On Mar. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On Mar. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Julie S. Sneed granted on July 17, 2025. Count One and Count Two of the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing and for lack of jurisdiction, respectively. The Court agrees with the Defendants' argument that although diversity exists between the parties, the Plaintiffs never invoked diversity jurisdiction as a basis for their claims in the complaint and have not alleged damages sufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. The appellate case is entitled Angelique Lingard, et al. v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated, et al., Case No. 25-12823, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on August 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANGELIQUE L. LINGARD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey Lee Newsome, II, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA 400 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Defendants-Appellees HOLIDAY INN CLUB VACATIONS INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Grace Lee Mead, Esq. Andrea Naomi Nathan, Esq. Joseph J. Onorati, Esq. STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, PA 150 W. Flagler St., Ste. 2200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-3559 (305) 789-3419 (305) 789-3200 HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sakepa Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDE SAKEPA, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION d/b/a HUNTINGTON HOTEL GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02205-D (N.D. Tex., August 15, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff after Defendant lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. Following an internal investigation, the Defendant learned that, on or around December 12, 2024, cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to consumers' personally identifiable information, including but not limited to their names and Social Security numbers. However, HHFC did not identify the information stolen until July 18, 2025, an appalling seven months later, says the complaint . The complaint asserts that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. In failing to adequately protect its consumers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former consumers, as well as their dependents, says the suit. Huntington Hospitality Financial Corporation provides financial and accounting services specifically for the hospitality industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com IMMUNITYBIO INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE IMMUNITYBIO, INC SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel. Lo Magistrate Judge: Hon. Valerie E. Torres ms NOTICE OF PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT Lead Case No.: 3:24-cv-02014-GPC-VET (Consolidated with 3-25-cv-00416-GPC-VET 3:25-cv-00423-GPC-VET) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, HEARING THEREON, AND TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF IMMUNITYBIO, INC. ("IMMUNITYBIO" OR "THE COMPANY") AS OF JULY 31, 2025, (THE "RECORD DATE"). PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the consolidated derivative action and certain other Derivative Matters are being settled on the terms set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 19, 2025 (the "Stipulation") of the consolidated derivative lawsuit and certain other Derivative Matters. Under the terms of the Stipulation, as part of the proposed Settlement, and in consideration of the associated releases set forth herein, Defendants shall cause the Board, within thirty (30) days after the Court enters an Order granting final approval of the Settlement, to adopt, implement, an maintain the corporate governance, oversight, and internal controls reforms set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation consistent with the terms and timing set forth therein (the "Reforms"). The Reforms, which are detailed more fully in the Stipulation and Long Form Notice, are intended to address the claims asserted in the Derivative Matters. The Parties agree that: (i) the Settlement confers a substantial benefit upon ImmunityBio and its shareholders; and (ii) the Settlement, and each of its terms, is in all respects fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of ImmunityBio and its shareholders. Shareholders' Counsel intends to request approval of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount not to exceed $1,400,000, inclusive o requested Service Awards for the Shareholders, Defendants are permitted to respond and/or oppose the Fee and Expense Award application. The amount of attorneys' fees and expenses will be within the sole discretion of the Court. IF YOU WERE A RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNER OF IMMUNITYBIO COMMON STOCK AS OF JULY 31, 2025, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY AS YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-REFERENCED LITIGATION. On November 4, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing either in person at the James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse, Courtroom 12A, 333 West Broadway, San Diego California 92101, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court). At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and thus should be finally approved and whether the consolidated derivative action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation. The Court also will rule upon Shareholders' Counsel's request for approval of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Shareholders' Service Awards, Any Current ImmunityBio Shareholder may, but is not required to, appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. If you want to be heard at the Settlement Hearing in opposition to the Settlement, Shareholders' Counsel request for approval of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, or the Service Awards, then you must first comply with the following procedures for objecting. Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the following information: 1. Notice of intent to appear at the Settlement Hearing; 2. Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 3. Proof of being a Current ImmunityBio Shareholder as of the Record Date and representation that you will continue to own ImmunityBio common stock as of the date of the Settlement Hearing; 4. The date(s) you acquired your ImmunityBio shares and the number of ImmunityBio shares held; 5. A detailed statement of your specific position with respect to the matters to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, including a statement of each objection being made; and 6. The grounds for each objection or the reasons for your desire to appear and to be heard. Any counsel retained by a purported objector for the purpose of asserting an objection must make a notice of appearance on the Court at least fourteen (14) days before the Settlement Hearing. The Court will not consider any objection that does not substantially comply with these requirements. . Any written objections must be filed with the Court and sent by hand or by first class mail, postage pre-paid to to Shareholders' Counsel no later than twenty-eight (28) prior to the Settlement Hearing at the following address: Shareholders' Counsel: Justin A. Kuehn KUEHN LAW, PLLC 53 Hill Street, Suite 605 Southampton, NY 11968 Telephone: (833) 672-0814 Clerk of the Court: United States District Court Southern District of California 333 West Broadway, Suite 420 San Diego, CA 92101 justingkuehn.law The Court will not consider any objection that is not timely filed with the Shareholders' Counsel. Any person or entity who fails to object or otherwise requests to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding, but shall otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given. This Notice summarizes the Parties' Stipulation. It is not a complete statement of the events of the Derivative Matters or the Stipulation. You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers at https://ir.immunityBio.com/. PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Any questions you have about matters in this Notice should be directed by telephone or in writing to Shareholders' Counsel at the address set forth above. Dated July 29, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ITHACA COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle COVID-19 Tuition Suit for $1.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- WENY reports that people who were enrolled as students at Ithaca College in the Spring semester of 2020 may receive money back from the school. It's part of a class action settlement following a suit filed by a student, alleging breach of contract stemming from Ithaca's transition to remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020. The settlement is in the amount of $1.5 million. Eligible students will receive a financial payment, along with an $800 tuition credit if they attend graduate school at Ithaca College, as well as a complimentary ticket to Alumni Weekend. The terms of the settlement still need court approval. A hearing is scheduled for October 28 in Syracuse. Affected students don't need to do anything to take part in the settlement; checks will be sent to the last known mailing address maintained by Ithaca College. Those who would like to receive an electronic payment, or provide a different address should submit a consent form. Full details of the settlement and a link to the consent form can be found at https://ithacarefundlawsuit.com/. Ithaca College denies any wrongdoing. More than 70 other colleges and universities across the nation have faced similar lawsuits over the move to remote learning during the pandemic. In 2023, neighboring Cornell University agreed to pay $3 million in a settlement following legal action by a student. Other universities in similar suits include Penn State, Bucknell, Lehigh University, University of Washington, Temple University, American University, Pepperdine, University of Pittsburgh, Rutgers University, Harvard, University of Colorado, among many others. [GN] KENTUCKY: Huston Appeals Ruling to Kentucky Court of Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------ JILL STAHL HUSTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jill Stahl Huston, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Defendants, Case No. _______, in the Boone Circuit Court, Kentucky. The Plaintiffs brought this complaint against the Defendants, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated Kentucky taxpayers and precious metals dealers across America, for their alleged illegal sales tax collections in connection with retail purchases of physical gold and silver. The appellate case is entitled Jill Stahl Huston, et. al. vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et. al., Case No. 25-1034, in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, filed on August 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JILL STAHL HUSTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher David Wiest, Esq. Thomas Bernard Bruns, Esq. BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC 50 E. Rivercenter Blvd., Ste. 1280 Covington, KY 41011 Defendants-Appellees COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. are represented by: Adrian Lazaro Del Valle, Esq. Aaron John Silletto, Esq. Steven Travis Mayo, Esq. Taylor Allen Payne, Esq. OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL Frankfort, KY 40601 - and - Barbara K. Dickens, Esq. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION CABINET Frankfort, KY 40622 - and - Bethany Atkins Rice, Esq. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION CABINET Lexington, KY 40514 KEVIN REALWORLDFARE: Standing Order Entered in Marinaj Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARINAJ PROPERTIES LLC v. KEVIN REALWORLDFARE, et al. Case No. 5:25-cv-01918-AH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered a Standing Order For Civil Cases Assigned To Judge Anne Hwang. All counsel must immediately review and comply with the Court’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility−and−professionalism− guidelines. The plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the Court will issue an Order Setting Scheduling Conference. The parties are required to strictly comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26, as well as this Court's Orders. Magistrate Judge Referral for All Discovery Matters. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Wuogu at no extra charge.[CC] KROLL LLC: Faces Class Suit on Negligent Behavior Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tarang Khaitan of CoinTelegraph reports that financial and risk advisory firm Kroll is facing a class-action lawsuit for alleged negligent behavior over a data breach that impacted creditors of FTX, BlockFi and Genesis. The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, August 19, in a U.S. district court by Hall Attorneys on behalf of FTX customer Jacob Repko and other crypto creditors affected by Kroll's data breach. The suit claims that crypto creditors have been facing phishing attacks, a cybercrime where malicious actors try to gain sensitive information, due to a Kroll data breach in August 2023, in which malicious actors managed to obtain personal information of crypto creditors. The complaint pointed out that Kroll was solely reliant on email-only outreach. Further, the suit states that the claims verification process was compromised, which led to delays and even loss of funds. Apart from damages, the lawsuit intends to fix the issue that creditors have been facing due to Kroll's single point of communication. In an X post, Sunil Kavuri, a prominent FTX creditor, said that creditors have been getting phishing emails on a daily basis, showing he just received one recently with his name included in the scam email. In another screenshot, Kavuri shows that he has received multiple phishing emails from Aug. 14 to August 17.[GN] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lares Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER LARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., a Georgia corporation; GITHUB, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. e 2:25-cv-07703 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personal information including, without limitation, the Plaintiff's and class members' names, contact information (such as phone numbers, postal addresses, and/or email addresses), Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and/or dates of birth (PII). Defendant Lexisnexis does business with banks and financial institutions, insurance carriers, healthcare providers and government agencies, law enforcement agencies, and non-profits who use Lexisnexis' tools for example, verify identities in order to offer loans, quote insurance rates, and offer government assisted benefits. In order to offer its services, Lexisnexis acquires, possesses, analyzes, and otherwise utilizes PII from public record and publicly-available data sources as well as third-party data sources. On or around May 27, 2025, the Plaintiff received a notice of data breach in the mail from Lexisnexis informing PLAINTIFF that, on Dec. 25, 2024, an unauthorized third party acquired data from a third party platform used for software development (the Data Breach), says the suit. Lexisnexis provides technologies, information-based analytics, decisioning tools and data management services to its business customers to help them identify and manage risk. GITHUB is a developer platform that allows companies and developers to build, scale, and deliver software. Lexisnexis uses Github For software development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deanna S. Leifer, Esq. Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Ellie D. Goralnick, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dleifer@maternlawgroup.com egoralnick@maternlawgroup.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS, ANTHONY WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline by which they must file their reply in support of their motion for class certification to Sept. 19, 2025. The Defendants do not oppose the requested extension. This is Plaintiff' first motion for an extension of time to file their Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification, and Plaintiffs do not intend to request any further extension of time to file their Reply. On May 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On Aug. 4, 2025, the Defendants filed their opposition to class certification. On Aug. 4, 2025, in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order, Defendants produced the expert report of Dr. Erica Greulich, along with additional material, including but not limited to, claim notes for more than 100 claim files. Liberty provides personal insurance for home, auto, and property and casualty. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i9aCoH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shanon Carson, Esq. Y. Michael Twersky, Esq. Julie Selesnick, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net jselesnick@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net - and - Richard M. Ochroch, Esq. Brett N. Benton, Esq. Andrew R. Ochroch, Esq. OCHROCH BENTON, P.C. 318 S. 16th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 735-2707 E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com bbenton@ochroch-law.com aochroch@ochroch-law.com LIMETREE BAY: Bid to Stay May 16, 2025 Order Tossed in Cotton ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEECHER COTTON, et al., v. LIMETREE BAY VENTURES, LLC et al. Case No. 1:21-cv-00261 (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=Wy4Up4 at no extra charge.[CC] LKQ PICK: Faces Short Suit Over Undisclosed Warranty Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Short, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LKQ Pick Your Part Central, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01178 (D. Kan., August 15, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged bait-and-switch scheme to dupe consumers into unwittingly paying for a "warranty" or "guarantee" when they purchase goods from Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant operates self-service auto salvage yards where consumers are invited to remove used parts from vehicles for purchase. After a consumer selects and removes a part from a vehicle at Defendant's salvage yard, a sales associate informs the consumer of the total amount the consumer must pay for the part. The sales associate does not inform the consumer -- orally, by providing a written disclosure, or by referring to a written disclosure in the vicinity -- that the amount the consumer is told he or she must pay includes a charge for a purportedly optional 90-day "guarantee" (or warranty). If the consumer inquires about the "90-Day GU," the consumer is informed that the charge is for a 90-day warranty that was automatically charged because the consumer did not inform the sales associate before the sales associate rang up the sale that the consumer did not want the 90-day warranty. If, after the sale has been processed, the consumer informs the sales associate that he or she was not aware that he or she would be charged for the warranty, that he or she does not want the warranty, or that he or she would like a refund of the amount charged for the warranty, the consumer is told that it is too late and a refund will not be provided, asserts the suit. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant's business practices are particularly harmful because many of Defendant's customers are low-income individuals and rely on Defendant to obtain affordable used auto parts. These consumers may have limited education, limited English proficiency, and less experience navigating deceptive pricing practices -- making them especially vulnerable to being misled and less likely to challenge or seek redress for improper charges. Pick Your-Part Central, LLC is a Delaware corporation doing business and operating a salvage yard in the state of Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Anderson, Esq. THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C. 712 Broadway Blvd., #100 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 221-2288 Facsimile: (816) 221-3999 E-mail: paul@pophamlaw.com - and - Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq. KLAMANN & SCHERMERHORN, PA 4435 Main Street, Suite 150 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 421-2626 Facsimile: (816) 421-8686 E-mail: ajs@klamannlaw.com LPO ROYALTY VENUE: Fourcand Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Anika Fourcand, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LPO ROYALTY VENUE LLC d/b/a LE PALACE, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 6:25-cv-01549 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked in the State of Florida without being paid at least the full minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendant controlled and/or was responsible for the work of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did a specific job, i.e., dance for and entertain guests, which was/is an integral part of the business of the Defendant. As a result of these common policies, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive full minimum for each hour worked as repayment improperly unpaid/deducted from her wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an Entertainer for Defendant in Florida. AERO GROUNDTEK LLC, conducts business in Orange County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 Email: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com MANPOWER OF LANSING: Faces Poudrier Suit Over Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- GUILLAUME POUDRIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER OF LANSING, MI INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00956 (W.D. Mich., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about December 29, 2024, through January 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Manpower of Lansing, MI Inc. is a staffing and employment services company, with its principal executive office located in Lansing, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com MOBILELINK LLC: Jordens Seeks Proper Pay Rates Under FLSA, WWPCL ---------------------------------------------------------------- JODY JORDENS and STACI WILBER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MOBILELINK, LLC, MFK, LLC, and MFK MOBILELINK WISCONSIN, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-03905 (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendants' deliberately failed to compensate its salary-paid employees for hours worked at the proper and legal rates of pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiffs bring these FLSA and WWPCL claims and causes of action against Defendants on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated current and former salary-paid employees of Defendants for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendants operated (and continue to operate) an unlawful compensation system of having an actual practice of reducing, and/or making improper deductions from, Plaintiffs' and all other salary-paid employees' compensation each workweek, thus depriving said employees of their pre-determined weekly salary compensation and failing to pay said employees at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, asserts the suit. The Defendants are cricket wireless service providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com MOSAIC SALES: Phillips Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Maurise Phillips, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS US OPERATING CO., LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 25STCV20237 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07571. The Complaint alleges failure to pay wages for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; failure to pay all compensation due upon discharge; failure to reimburse for business expenses; and unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James D. Miller, Esq. Anthony Co, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7060 North Marks Ave., Suite 108 Fresno, CA 93711 Phone: 559-825-8510 Facsimile: 559-570-0323 Email: james.miller@ogletree.com anthony.co@ogletree.com MOTHERSON SAS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Espinoza Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL ESPINOZA and BENJAMIN PENARANDA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOTHERSON SAS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES USA INC.; STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV138048 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 19, 2025) is a class action suit against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statement. The Plaintiffs are California resident who worked for Defendants in the County of Alameda, State of California during the statutory period. During the statutory time period, the Defendants classified Plaintiffs as a non-exempt employee. Mr. Espinoza worked from 2023 to March 2025. Mr. Penaranda worked from May 2025 to July 2025. The proposed Class consists of and is defined as: "All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning four years before the filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to the Class is sent." Motherson manufactures components for automotive and transport industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. S. Phillip Song, Esq. Morgan W. Simpson, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com psong@moonlawgroup.com msimpson@moonlawgroup.com NATIONAL VETERINARY: Truempy Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH TRUEMPY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07715 (C.D. Cal., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within the network systems of Alera Group, an insurance brokerage firm that contracts with Defendant for services, following a data breach between July 19, 2024 and August 4, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. National Veterinary Associates, Inc. is a community of general practice veterinary hospitals, with its headquarters in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com OSMOSE UTILITIES: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angel Rivera, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES INC., a Delaware stock corporation; ADAN DURAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-25-102516 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06874. The Complaint purports to state causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com - and - Jason P. Brown, Esq. Jorge A. Flores, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 Email: jbrown@fisherphillips.com jaflores@fisherphillips.com OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Overstock.com, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03312-JRT-DLM (D. Minn., Aug. 19, 2025) arises because the Defendant's website, www.overstock.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers furniture, clothing and accessories for sale, including but not limited to, indoor furniture, outdoor furniture, rugs, bed and bath supplies, decor, lighting, kitchen appliances, cookware, clothing, and jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Failed to Protect Private Info, Smith Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS, LLC and LA PEROUSE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07686 (C.D. Cal., August 15, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants. In their capacity as management services providers, the Defendants store significant sensitive private information specifically personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to take basic security precautions that could have protected Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive data despite being on notice that it was storing sensitive private information that is valuable and vulnerable to cyber attackers. The data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect private information. Specifically, the Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by (a) failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure the security of their databases and IT systems; (b) concealing or otherwise omitting the material fact that they did not have systems in place to safeguard private information; (c) failing to take available steps to detect and prevent the Data Breach; (d) failing to monitor their databases and IT systems, and to timely detect the data breach; and (e) failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the data breach, says the suit. Pacific Healthworks, is a California based physician practice management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave. Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com aferich@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com PANACHE CRUISES: Pedersen Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panache Cruises, Inc. The case is styled as Keith Pedersen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panache Cruises, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01548 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Panache Cruises -- https://www.panachecruises.com/en-gb -- is the expert in luxury ocean, river and expedition cruises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com PENNSYLVANIA: Sunoco Appeals TRO & Injunction Order to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUNOCO PIPELINE LP is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Sunoco Pipeline LP, Plaintiff, v. Daniel La Hart, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03694, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the federal Pipeline Safety Act. On July 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for TRO and a motion for preliminary injunction, which Judge Mia Roberts Perez denied on July 21, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Sunoco Pipeline LP v. Daniel La Hart, et al., Case No. 25-2551, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on August 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SUNOCO PIPELINE LP is represented by: Cassidy Duckett Britt, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2201 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-3000 - and - Laura H. McNally, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 2222 Market Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5257 Defendants-Appellees DANIEL LA HART, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq. Yechiel M. Twersky, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 (215) 875-3036 (215) 875-3052 PIQUE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIQUE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06543 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.piquelife.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she 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 products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase Nandaka Adaptogenic Coffee. The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pique, Inc. operates the website that offers tea crystals, superfoods, and supplements.[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 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Greenlights Tampons Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California federal judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit alleging Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the safety of its tampons can proceed. Why: The judge rejected P&G's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs' claims are plausible and supported by sufficient facts. Where: The class action lawsuit is pending in California federal court. A class action lawsuit alleging Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the safety of its tampons can proceed, a California federal judge has ruled. Plaintiffs Allison Barton and Jana Moreno claim P&G's Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant tampons contain lead, a toxic heavy metal that can cause serious health problems. They also allege P&G falsely advertised its tampons as safe and free of harmful substances, leading consumers to believe they were using a safe product. P&G filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were not plausible and that they had not shown that the tampons posed a health risk. The company also challenged the plaintiffs' testing of the tampons, saying it was insufficient to prove the presence of lead. However, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied P&G's motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had alleged enough facts to support their claims and that their testing was adequate at this stage of the case. Judge: Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that P&G's tampons contain lead The judge said the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that P&G's tampons contain lead and that the company's advertising was misleading. He noted that the plaintiffs had provided details about the testing methodology and the qualifications of the laboratory that conducted the tests, and that they had alleged that the tampons exposed consumers to lead levels that exceed California's Proposition 65 limits. Curiel also rejected P&G's argument that the plaintiffs had not alleged a material misrepresentation, saying that the presence of lead in tampons could be a material concern for consumers. Determining what constitutes an "unsafe level" of lead or cadmium is a question of fact not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss, Curiel wrote. The judge did dismiss the plaintiffs' claim under the "unfair" prong of California's Unfair Competition Law, finding that their allegations were too conclusory. However, he allowed their claims under the law's "unlawful" and "fraudulent" prongs to proceed. The case will now move to the discovery phase, where the parties will exchange evidence and prepare for a possible trial. In 2024, P&G faced a similar class action lawsuit alleging it failed to disclose that its Tampax tampons contain unsafe levels of lead, violating New York's consumer protection laws and breaching implied product safety guarantees. The plaintiffs are represented by Naomi B. Spector of KamberLaw LLP. The P&G Tampax class action lawsuit is Barton, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01332-GPC-SBC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Data Access ------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of J.L., a minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00648 (E.D. Va., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 2, 2024 through April 6, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Radiology Associates of Richmond, Inc. is an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment, with a principal place of business located in North Chesterfield, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com ROTI RESTAURANTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Roti Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09804 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through Roti.com, the suit contends. Accordingly, Roti.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Roti Restaurants excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Ms. Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Roti.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Roti Restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law S&P GLOBAL: Filing for Class Cert.in Dinosaur Suit Due Sept. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order regarding redaction and sealing process for class certification briefing as follows: 1. The filing parties will file their papers under seal on an interim basis by the Filing Deadlines; 2. The filing parties will serve unredacted papers on the receiving parties by the Filing Deadlines; 3. Within three (3) weeks of the respective Filing Deadlines, the filing and receiving parties will exchange initial proposed redactions to their respective Confidential and Highly Confidential material included in the papers and exhibits. 4. The Redaction Deadlines are as follows: a. For the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Sept. 11, 2025 b. For the Defendants' opposition to class certification: Dec. 10, 2025 c. For the Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification: Feb. 9, 2026. 5. Within one (1) week of the Redaction Deadline, the filing parties will file a letter motion to seal, along with proposed redacted copies and highlighted copies, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Rule 9(B) of the Court's Individual Rules. The deadlines for the letter motions to seal shall be as follows: a. For the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Sept. 18, 2025 b. For the Defendants' opposition to class certification: Dec. 17, 2025 c. For the Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification: Feb. 16, 2026. S &P is an American publicly traded corporation headquartered in Manhattan, New York City. Its primary areas of business are financial information and analytics. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oUoKVK 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. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY York 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: raranoff@wmd-law.com ltretter@wmd-law.com rkane@wmd-law.com jslocum@wmd-law.com - and - Leiv Blad, Esq. Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. Meg Slachetka, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC 1101 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 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. Esther Lifshitz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com asouthwell@gibsondunn.com elifshitz@gibsondunn.com - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq. Amanda L. Dollinger, Esq. Craig E. Stewart, Esq. Caroline M. Mitchell, Esq. Paul C. Hines, Esq. Michelle K. Fischer, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com cestewart@jonesday.com mfischer@jonesday.com amaugeri@jonesday.com adollinger@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. Ellison A. Snider, Esq. 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com esnider@scl-llp.com - and - W. Stephen Cannon, Esq. Seth D. Greenstein, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1300 N Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 204-3500 Facsimile: (202) 204-3501 E-mail: scannon@constantinecannon.com sgreenstein@constantinecannon.com SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Awards Class Counsel $427K ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for interim attorneys' fees. i. Reduces RBGG's rates by 23% and the hours billed by RBGG by 10% and awards $1,335,993.60 in attorneys' fees for merits and fees work to RBGG; ii. Reduces the hours billed by Aaron Fischer by 10% and awards $170,905.95 in attorneys' fees. iii. Reduces DLA Piper's rates by 40% and the hours billed by DLA Piper by 10% and awards $81,987.66 in attorneys' fees for merits and fees work to DLA Piper; and iv. Grants in part Counsel's request for costs and awards Counsel a reduced amount of $427,496.18. The Court is unpersuaded by Ms. Grunfeld's statements. More affordable ride sharing or taxi services can be reserved ahead of departure. The Plaintiffs are current or former inmates of San Diego County Jail facilities, operated by Defendants San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and the County of San Diego. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of "themselves and the approximately 4,000 incarcerated people who are similarly situated on any given day" to "remedy the dangerous, discriminatory, and unconstitutional conditions in the Jail." San Diego provides public safety services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4RBtQH at no extra charge.[CC] SHOP AVARA: Walker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOP AVARA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09831 (N.D. Ill., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://shopavara.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate of alt-text on graphics, inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, changing of content without advance warning, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Shop Avara, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 SIX FLAGS: Plaintiffs' Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonyms Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as I.L., et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed under a pseudonym and the Defendants' motion to dismiss. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms is denied as to I.L. and J.M. but is granted as to C.T. 2. The motion to dismiss is granted as to I.L. and J.M. but is denied as to C.T. 3. The Plaintiffs may amend their complaint to include the true names of I.L. and J.M. within 14 days of the issuance of this order. If plaintiffs I.L. and J.M. choose not to file an amended complaint, they will be dismissed from this action without further order. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violates provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law. Six Flags moves to dismiss this action, arguing that plaintiffs do not have, and should not be granted, leave to proceed with this action under pseudonyms. Doc. 36. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal and move to proceed under pseudonyms. On March 28, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed under pseudonyms, which was stricken by the assigned magistrate judge based on the Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the local rules and the Court’s standing order. Six is an American amusement park company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gJu9z5 at no extra charge.[CC] SNAP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Snap Inc. (NYSE:SNAP) securities between April 29, 2025 to August 5, 2025 (Case No. 2:25-CV-07844). Snap is a technology company best known for Snapchat, a visual messaging application. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Snap Inc. (SNAP) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's expected advertising revenue and anticipated growth while emphasizing potential macroeconomic instability. In truth, Snap's optimistic reports of advertising growth and earnings potential fell short of reality as they relied far too heavily on Snap's ability to execute on its potential; Snap was already experiencing the ramifications of a significant execution error when defendants claimed a lack of visibility due to macroeconomic conditions. The Plaintiff alleges that on August 5, 2025, Snap announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2025, disclosing a deceleration in advertising revenue growth. The Company attributed the slowdown to "an issue related to our ad platform, the timing of Ramadan and the effects of the de minimis changes." On this news, the price of Snap's common stock declined from a closing market price of $9.39 per share on August 5, 2025, to $7.78 per share on August 6, 2025, a decline of over 17%. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Snap Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (800) 350-6003 E-mail: adumas@robbinsllp.com[GN] SOCKSMITH DESIGN: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOCKSMITH DESIGN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06751 (S.D.N.Y., August 15, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.socksmith.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on August 4, 2025, in an attempt to purchase socks from Defendant and to view the information on the website, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Socksmith Design, Inc. is a family-owned sock design company that operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Wolters Sues Over Illegal Internet Casino -------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Wolters, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sweepsteaks Limited d/b/a Stake.us, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03280 (D. Minn., August 15, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged engagement in illegal Internet casino business practices. The Plaintiff and Class members played cards, dice, and other games on Stake. Stake has games that simulate card games like poker and blackjack, dice games like craps and sic bo, and other games ranging from slot machines to arcade-style games. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class lost money or any goods by gambling on Stake because they lost Stake Cash, which they purchased with money or other things of value and could redeem for cryptocurrency, which is easily exchangeable for U.S. currency. Stake was unjustly enriched in the amount of Plaintiff's and the Class's gambling losses because (1) Plaintiff and the Class conferred a benefit upon Stake by purchasing and wagering Stake Cash; (2) Stake appreciates, knowingly accepts, and profits from this benefit; and (3) it would be inequitable for Stake to retain this benefit because it was enriched through its illegal operation of an internet casino in Minnesota, says the suit. Sweepsteaks Limited, d/b/a Stake.us, is a website that hosts Internet games that simulate traditional casino and other games of chance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Lee T. Owen, Esq. TESKE LAW PLLC 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 767-0521 E-mail: teske@teskelaw.com owen@teskelaw.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Joe E. Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com TC HEARTLAND: Prescott Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Prescott v. TC Heartland, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. TC Heartland files this administrative motion to consider whether the material on pages 55 and 56 of the transcript of the deposition of Plaintiff Samuel Garcia, which is attached as Exhibit 35 to the Declaration of Alexander M. Smith, should be sealed. TC Heartland has also redacted a single sentence on page 16 of its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, which references information in the transcript that the Plaintiff has designated as confidential. TC Heartland submits this motion solely because the Plaintiff has designated this material as confidential, and it takes no position on whether this material should remain under seal. TC provides packaged food products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zwyWHW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kelly M. Morrison, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: asmith@jenner.com kmorrison@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Brenman Over "Window" Seat Premium Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- MARC BRENMAN, and AVIVA COPAKEN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06995 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2025) seeks redress for United's intentional practice of charging passengers premium fees to upgrade to seats that United represents are "window" seats, but which are actually adjacent to a blank wall. The Plaintiffs and the proposed class members paid valuable consideration to obtain a window to improve their flying experiences. United specifically represented to the Plaintiffs and class members that the particular seats they chose had a "window," even though United knew full well they did not. Nevertheless, United solicited, accepted, and retained cash, points, or other airline benefits that consumers specifically paid to sit next to a window. By advertising and charging for "window" seats that do not have windows, United unlawfully caused Plaintiffs and the putative class members to expend valuable consideration for no value, alleges the suit For many years, United has knowingly and routinely sold windowless "window" seats to consumers. For instance, certain models of United's Boeing 737 and Airbus A321 aircraft are built with at least one seat that would traditionally have a window, but do not include one due to the placement of air conditioning ducts, electrical conduits, or other interior components, the suit says. United Airlines, Inc. is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carter E. Greenbaum, Esq. Casey Olbrantz, Esq. GREENBAUM OLBRANTZ, LLP 160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (332) 222-9119 E-mail: carter@greenbaumolbrantz.com casey@greenbaumolbrantz.com UNITED STATES: Crowe Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to D.D.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA CROWE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Vanessa Crowe, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03582-APM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs file this lawsuit to challenge the Bureau of Prisons' and BOP Director Colette Peters' failure to follow Congress's unequivocal directives about when eligible people must be moved out of prison so that they may work towards successful rehabilitation and reentry in a halfway house or home confinement. As alleged in the complaint, the Defendants are failing to comply with the requirements Congress imposed in the First Step Act of 2018. On Jan. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and motion for provisional class certification. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On June 9, 2025, Judge Amit P. Mehta denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is also granted. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits, and dismissal of their facial challenge to the regulation is warranted. The appellate case is entitled Vanessa Crowe, et al. v. BOP, et al., Case No. 25-5296, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on August 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants VANESSA CROWE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Elizabeth Henthorne, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 - and - Scott Matthew Michelman, Esq. Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 - and - Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Defendants-Appellees FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al. are represented by: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 Movants-Appellees ROGER ANCHUNDIA ESPINOZA and LUIS M. PEREZ appear pro se. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Hall Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNIE HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES LLC d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL, Case No. 1:25-cv-04673-MHC (N.D. Ga., Aug. 18, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act resulting from the Defendant's failure to pay its security professionals minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, including compensation for off-the-clock work. The Defendant automatically and unlawfully deducted lunch break time that it knew security professionals were unable to take, and subjected some employees to retaliation when they complained about Defendant's unfair labor practices. The Defendant also breached its agreements with Plaintiff in failing to compensate them as promised. These unlawful compensation practices resulted in the unjust enrichment of Defendant and prevented security professionals from earning a fair wage, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Joannie Hall worked for Defendant the as a Security Professional at a medical facility in Atlanta from April 12, 2018 to April 25, 2024. The Defendant operates a security and private investigation company under the name "Allied Universal," which provides services to both commercial and residential sites. Such sites include construction sites, schools and higher education, retail stores, grocers, and hospitality security throughout Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold J. Lizana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III GA 1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (470) 207-1559 Facsimile: (470) 231-0672 E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com VECTOR SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Butkus Says ----------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP BUTKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VECTOR SECURITY, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01273 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information of roughly 30,2082 individuals, including, but not limited to: names, dates of birth, and Social Security Numbers. According to the complaint, the Defendant collects personal data in connection with employment applications or as needed for human resources administration. Such information may include the following: date of birth; Social Security Number; ethnicity, nationality, gender, and other demographic information. According to its website, Vector Security collects the following personal information from its customers: name and/or business name, home and/or business address, street address of the secured premises, home, business, and/or mobile telephone number, email address, username and password for an online account, date of birth and Social Security number (when required for a credit report), personal identification code for security system access, names, contact information, and identification numbers of emergency contacts, information about the services subscribed for and special instructions, age and gender (for personal emergency response services only), credit, debit, EFT, and/or ACH information, or other payment account numbers and related transaction information, credit report information, and transaction history. Plaintiff Butkus was an employee of Vector Security in 2024. He worked remotely as a Business Development Manager serving national accounts for the Defendant. Vector Security is a provider of intelligent security and home automation solutions for both residential and business customers across North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael DeGrande, Esq. ZAFRAN LAW GROUP 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19102 E-mail:mdegrande@zafranlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (610) 834-6030 E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com VIEW INC: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 6 ------------------------------------------------------ RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, as Claims Administrator issued a release on View, Inc., et al. The release is as follows: ASIF MEHEDI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VIEW, INC. f/k/a CF FINANCE ACQUISITION CORP. II, RAO MULPURI, VIDUL PRAKASH, HOWARD W. LUTNICK, PAUL PION, ALICE CHAN, ANSHU JAIN, ROBERT J. HOCHBERG, CHARLOTTE S. BLECHMAN, CF FINANCE HOLDINGS II, LLC, CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P., AND CF GROUP MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants., Case No. 5:21-cv-06374-BLF, in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, San Jose Division TO: (1) ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED VIEW AND/OR CF II SECURITIES BETWEEN NOVEMBER 30, 2020 AND MAY 10, 2022, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"); (2) ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO WERE HOLDERS OF CF II CLASS A COMMON STOCK AS OF THE JANUARY 27, 2021 RECORD DATE (THE "RECORD DATE") THAT WERE ENTITLED TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE BUSINESS COMBINATION BETWEEN VIEW AND CF II AS SET FORTH IN THE FEBRUARY 16, 2021 PROXY STATEMENT; AND (3) ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED VIEW SECURITIES PURSUANT TO OR TRACEABLE TO THE DE-SPAC REGISTRATION STATEMENT. Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 25, 2025 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described below. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division ("Court"), that the action ("Action") has been provisionally certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only and that the parties to the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action ("Settlement"). A hearing will be held on November 6, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, by Zoom videoconference. Instructions for accessing the videoconference will be made available on the case website (www.viewsecuritieslitigation.com) and on the Court's website (https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/freeman-beth-l-blf/). At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider:: a) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims alleged in the Action for Eleven Million Dollars ($11,000,000.00), is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; b) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation; c) whether the Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of settlement; d) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; e) whether Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and service awards to named plaintiffs, should be approved by the Court; and f) any other relief the Court deems necessary to effectuate the terms of the Settlement. The date and time of the Settlement Hearing are subject to change without further notice to the Settlement Class. If you plan to attend the hearing, you should check the Settlement website, www.viewsecuritieslitigation.com to confirm that the date and time of the hearing have not changed. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received a detailed Notice of (i) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (ii) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (iii) Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and Claim Form, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at Mehedi v. View, Inc., et. al., c/o RG/2, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479, by email at info@rg2claims.com, by telephone toll-free at 1-866-742-4955 or by the website at www.viewsecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form by mail (postmarked no later than December 5, 2025), or electronically no later than December 5, 2025, establishing that you are entitled to recover. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the attorneys' fee and Litigation Expense applications, or otherwise request to be heard. To object, you must submit a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in the more detailed Notice, referred to above. Any written objection must be delivered to the following recipient so that it is received no later than October 16, 2025 by the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112, San Jose, CA 95113. Note that the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement, not change the terms of the Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 16, 2025, in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that allows you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Please note, however, if you decide to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed below: Laurence D. King KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 1-800-290-1952 lking@kaplanfox.com Jason A. Uris KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 1-800-290-1952 juris@kaplanfox.com Dated: August 11, 2025 By Order of the Clerk of Court United States District Court Northern District of California, San Jose Division WALGREEN EASTERN: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Woods Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MARK WOODS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01313 (D. Conn., August 15, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages pursuant to the Connecticut Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and other employees on a monthly basis rather than biweekly as required by law. It paid them on the twenty-sixth day of every month for all work they performed during the month. As a result, the wages due for the first 14 days of every month, which were due by the 22nd of the month, were paid on the 26th of the month -- four days late. Walgreen's policy of paying its employees later than the law requires resulted in it retaining and delaying the payment of millions of dollars in its employees' wages for its own use and benefit to the loss and detriment of its employees, says the suit. Plaintiff Woods was an employee of Defendant and worked as a Distribution Center Supervisor at its distribution center in Dayville, Connecticut from 1990 until June 24, 2024. Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc. owns and operates dozens of pharmacy and other locations in Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawlirm.com tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com WELLS FARGO: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, and WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, KLEBER R. SANTOS, and CARLY SANCHEZ, Defendants. Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED WELLS FARGO & COMPANY COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 24, 2021 AND JUNE 9, 2022, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23 and by Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that the action ("Action") against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo") and its executive officers Charles W. Scharf, Kleber R. Santos, and Carly Sanchez (together with Wells Fargo, "Defendants"), has been certified as a class action on behalf of the following Class: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo common stock between February 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The Court has appointed SEB Investment Management AB and West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund as Class Representatives and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class Counsel. The Action has not been adjudicated or settled. This notice is not an admission by Defendants or an expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of the Action, or a finding by the Court that the claims asserted by Class Representatives in the Action are valid. This notice is not a settlement notice and is intended only to inform members of the Class that the Action is currently in progress. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LAWSUIT. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed, long-form Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice from the case website, www.WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com, or by contacting the Administrator: SEB Investment Mgm't AB v. Wells Fargo & Company c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173025 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (866) 905-8128 info@WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com If you are a Class member, you should receive a Postcard Notice regarding the Action by mail. If you are a Class member and you do not receive a Postcard Notice by mail, please send your name and address to the Administrator so that you will receive any future notices disseminated in connection with the Action. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Sharan Nirmul, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 - or – Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 info@ktmc.com www.ktmc.com If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in Wells Fargo common stock. You will automatically be included in the Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable to you. If you are a Class member and do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself. If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion by mail or email by no later than September 30, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4), the Court has discretion as to whether a second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a settlement in the Action. Further information about the Action may be obtained by contacting the Administrator or by visiting the case website www.WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com. Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions. DATED: August 11, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WOODSIDE AUTO: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOODSIDE AUTO PARTS LLC and DAVID MYONES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04575 (E.D.N.Y., August 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, unlawful deductions, failure to furnish proper wage statements, and failure to furnish proper wage notice. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a mechanical laborer, manual worker, dispatcher, driver, and miscellaneous worker from June 2016 through January 2024. Woodside Auto Parts LLC is an automobile parts distributor based in St. Woodside, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Robert Kansao, Esq. Avraham Y. Scher, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave., Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 ********* 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 ***