---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 172

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Crandell Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Davis Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: League Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Lokey Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Martin Files Suit in D. South Carolina

3M COMPANY: Peppel Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Ritz Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Rivera Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Stanley Files Suit in D. South Carolina
AHAAA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chamul Alleges

AIRBNB INC: Appeals Court Denies Bid to Pause Class Proceedings
ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Zabriskie Says
AT&T MOBILITY: Arevalo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
BETTERHELP INC: C.M. Seeks to File Expert's Report Under Seal
BETTERHELP INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule in C.M.

CASINO FANDANGO: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit
CHOICE HOTELS: Molina Sues for Invasion of Privacy
CHRISTY SPORTS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY: Price Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DAVID SALINAS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taft Extended to Oct. 10

DECANTX LLC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DESIGNER BRANDS: Class Settlement in Laguardia Gets Final Nod
DUDE PRODUCTS: Insurers Move to Block Coverage in Class Action
HAMSKEA ARCHERY: Milby Sues Over Price Fixing of Archery Products
HELLO MOLLY: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind

HIGHGATE HOTELS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
HOPE PROGRAM: Guerrero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Battle Suit
INNER-CITY: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Flawed Computer Suit

INTERBOND OF AMERICA: Saavedra Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
IROBOT CORP: Continues to Defend "Savant"
IROBOT CORP: Sept. 8 Oral Argument in "Das"
J GILBERTS: Doner Bid for Class Certification Tossed
JOBBLE INC: Jones Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio

JOHN RIVERA: Weaver Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks to Extend Daubert Deadlines in Carefirst
JOSEPH STILWELL: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE: McMillan Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
KINDERCARE LEARNING: Disseminated False Statements, Gollapalli Says

LANGERS JUICE: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Concord Grape Juice
LOVINGLY LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
MARCHELLO'S GARDEN: Faces Pritt Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MARINAJ PROPERTIES: Civil Standing Order Entered in WG Lawsuit
MAXIMUS INC: Continues to Defend MOVEit Cybersecurity Suit

MAXMARA RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MCNAMARA CHIROPRACTIC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
MEILE INVESTMENT: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MENARD INC: Wallen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
META PLATFORMS: Funds for Class Settlement Under Legal Scrutiny

MICHELS CORP: Beyer Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
MORRIS HOUSER: Bid for Class Cert. in Hayes Suit Deemed Withdrawn
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in Florida
MURPHY REHAB: Court Extends Time to File Conditional Cert Bid
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Padilla Balks at Unwarranted Fees, Charges

NEW YORK: R.M. Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
NEW YORK: Sued Over Inadequate Competency Restoration Services
NUTEX HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D. Tex.
OILCREEK GENERAL: Hamel Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Deal in Former Employee's Suit

OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL: Reaches $4.75MM Settlement in Rexulti Suit
OTTER.AI INC: Brewer Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
PUBMATIC INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Suit Over Preservatives in Cereal Products
RADIANT LINEN: Arias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RECOLOGY INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $700,000
SALTGRASS INC: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers
SOUTHERN TIRE: Faces Mota Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pitsick-Perez Suit Removed to S.D. California
SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing Extended to Jan. 30, 2026
TJ INSPECTION: FLSA Class in Cox Gets Conditional Certification
TOLEDO PUBLIC: Seeks Leave to File Counterclaim Instanter
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Partly Wins Bid for Class Certification
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA: Babb Files Suit in S.D. New York

TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA: Nadeau Files Suit in S.D. New York
UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct. 14
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Valine ADA Suit Seeks Class Certification
USA DEBUSK: Filing for Class Cert. in Alexander Due July 2, 2026

VALLEY LIGHT CENTER: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VASSAR COLLEGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 18, 2026
VILLAGRANA LOGISTICS: Maalouf Suit Removed to C.D. California
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due Oct. 15
WASCO NURSERY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Says

WBY INC: Awards of Attorneys' Fees in FLSA Action Affirmed
WELLNOW URGENT: Underpays Clinic Shift Leads, Smith Suit Says
WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Antitrust Class Suit Stayed
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Appeals Denied Motion to Modify Class Definition
WILSON ELECTRIC: Andrews Seeks to Redefine Certified Class

X CORP: Agrees to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit Over 2022 Layoffs
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Trial in "Carlson" Set for Feb. 2026

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Crandell Files Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as John Crandell, 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-10565-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: Davis Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Russell Davis, and all others similarly
situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC Chemicals Amesricas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation;
Archroma U.S. Inc.; Arkema, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company;
Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard,
Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD;
Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du
Pont De Nemours and Company; Kiddie PLC; Nation Ford Chemical
Company; National Foam, Inc.; Raytheon Technologies Corporation;
The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products L.P.,
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies
Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:25-cv-10693-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13,
2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.

3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Grant Daniel, Esq.
          RUEB STOLLER DANIEL LLP
          225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
          Atlanta, GA 30324
          Phone: (404) 381-2888
          Fax: (833) 443-7529
          Email: buck@lawrsd.com

3M COMPANY: League Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Kelly League, 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-10463-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: Lokey Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Kirk Wayne Lokey, 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-10529-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: Martin Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Joshua Martin, 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-10472-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: Peppel Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Kevin Peppel, 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-10486-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: Ritz Files Suit in D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Richard Allen Ritz, 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-10492-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.

3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
          THEMIS LAW PLLC
          7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
          Austin, TX 78731
          Phone: (737) 208-1634
          Fax: (512) 727-3432
          Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com

3M COMPANY: Rivera Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Joshua Rivera, 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-10510-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: Stanley Files Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Kevin Stanley, 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-10514-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

AHAAA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chamul Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
JOSE CHAMUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AHAAA, LLC d/b/a HARRY'S BAR & RESTAURANT,
Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-81013-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2025)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Chamul was employed by the Defendant as a server.

AHAAA, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located in Palm Beach
County, Florida, known as Harry's Bar & Restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael V. Miller, Esq.
          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

AIRBNB INC: Appeals Court Denies Bid to Pause Class Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Mach of Canadian Lawyer reports that the British Columbia
Court of Appeal has declined to pause proceedings in a class action
lawsuit against Airbnb while the company appeals a lower court
decision to certify the case.

The lead plaintiff, Margot Ware, initiated the lawsuit in 2022 on
behalf of consumers who used and paid for Airbnb's rental services.
According to Ware's claim, Airbnb is not properly licensed to
operate in Canada under legislation that regulates real estate,
travel, and money services.

In December, the BC Supreme Court certified the class action suit
and dismissed an application by Airbnb and Airbnb Canada Inc. that
argued the BC courts lack jurisdiction over them.

The companies appealed both rulings and asked the appellate court
to stay the case proceedings until their appeal has been decided.
According to Airbnb and Airbnb Canada, allowing the class action to
proceed while the appeal is pending would require them to
participate in a costly discovery process that may prove
unnecessary if they win the appeal.

The companies also argued that proceeding with the case would give
the false impression that they have "attorned to the jurisdiction
of the British Columbia courts." The companies later adjusted this
argument to state that they would suffer irreparable harm if third
parties assumed that Airbnb and Airbnb Canada were subject to the
BC court's jurisdiction, since it could prompt those third parties
to also take legal action against them in BC.

In its July 31 decision, the appellate court dismissed this
argument, noting that there is a public record that Airbnb and
Airbnb Canada dispute the BC courts' jurisdiction. The appellate
court said it could not envision "how the refusal of a stay creates
any realistic risk that Airbnb Inc. and Airbnb Canada Inc. would be
subject to further claims they would not otherwise have faced
before judgment in this appeal is rendered."

The court added, "The appellants' hypothetical concern is entirely
speculative."

The court also tossed out the companies' argument that they would
suffer irreparable harm if they were forced to participate in the
discovery process. The court noted that their discovery obligations
before April 2026 –- when the court will likely issue a ruling on
the appeal -- "can reasonably be anticipated to consist, at most,
of the production of documents."

While the court admitted that participating in discovery steps
could inconvenience Airbnb and Airbnb Canada, that is outweighed by
the inconvenience Ware would experience if discovery were halted
entirely until the appeal was resolved.

Ware and other class members "are entitled to the fruits of their
judgment, including an entitlement to have this matter proceed to
trial as efficiently as possible," the court said.

"A forced delay of up to nine months would cause prejudice to the
presumptive entitlement of class members to proceed rather than to
wait for the end of an appeal process that may or may not change
the outcome."

Counsel for the parties did not respond to a request for comment.
[GN]

ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Zabriskie Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOEL ZABRISKIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03231-KMM-JFD (D. Minn.,
August 12, 2025) arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach
resulting from Allianz Life's failure to implement reasonable and
industry standard data security practices to protect its customers'
personal identifying information, including private information.

In providing services to individuals across the country, Allianz
Life collects a significant amount of data -- including customers'
personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, dates
of birth, and Social Security numbers. Allianz Life failed to
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. Because of Allianz
Life's failures, Plaintiff's and Class Members have been exposed to
actual harm consistent with the litany of injuries that data
breaches cause, says the suit.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings this action, seeking to recover damages and
non-monetary relief, as well as any other relief this Court may
deem just and proper, as a result of Defendant's actions and/or
nonactions that led and/or allowed the data breach to occur.

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America provides financial
and retirement solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Gudmundson, Esq.
          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          Madison M. DeMaris, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                  madison.demaris@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP  
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

AT&T MOBILITY: Arevalo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gerald Arevalo and Skylar Ruen, individual,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY
SERVICES LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NEW CINGULAR
WIRELESS PCS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; AT&T CORP.,
a foreign profit corporation; AT&T SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit
corporation; AT&T, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES
1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-20318-2 SEA
was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, King County, to
the United States District Court for Western District of Washington
on Aug. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01547.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege claims for Failure to Provide
Meal Periods and To Compensate for Violations of the IWA and MWA;
Failure To Provide Rest Periods in Violation of the Iwa and MWA;
Wage Theft Violation of Chapter 49.52 RCW; and Failure to Furnish
Accurate Wage Statements Violation of WAC 296-126-040.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer D. Bucher, Esq.
          JB LAW LLC
          PO Box 17542
          Seattle, WA 98127-1242
          Phone: 1 (206) 887-1950
          Email: jennifer@jblawseattle.com

               - and -

          Raymond W. Bertrand, Esq.
          James P. de Haan, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          4655 Executive Drive, Suite 350
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: 1(858) 458-3000
          Email: raymondbertrand@paulhastings.com
                 jamesdehaan@paulhastings.com

BETTERHELP INC: C.M. Seeks to File Expert's Report Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc.
(RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No.
3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting the Plaintiff's administrative motion to file
under seal the supplemental expert report of Professor Zubair
Shafiq in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Professor Shafiq's supplemental report refers to documents produced
by the Defendant during discovery in this matter that have been
designated as "confidential."

BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online
counseling and therapy services via web or phone text
communication.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLHNZe at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary. M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  gabramson@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com
                  rnelson@milberg.com

                - and -

          Christina Tusan, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: ctusan@hammondlawpc.com

                - and -

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY
          4006 Central Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010
          E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

                - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

BETTERHELP INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule in C.M.
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, etc. et al., v. BETTERHELP, INC.
and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting joint
stipulation to modify briefing schedule, hearing date on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

  BetterHelp will be permitted to depose Prof. Shafiq for an
  additional period of time of no more than 120 minutes on the
  record, with the deposition to occur by no later than Sept. 5,
  2025, on a date, method and location mutually agreeable to the
  Parties;

  BetterHelp's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion will be due on

  or before Sept. 15, 2025;

  The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Motion shall be due on

  or before Oct. 16, 2025;

  The hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion will be re-set for Nov.
  203, 2025, at 1:30 PM, Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco,
  California.

BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online
counseling and therapy services via web or phone text
communication.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Nf1Rx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary. M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  gabramson@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com
                  rnelson@milberg.com

                - and -

          Christina Tusan, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: ctusan@hammondlawpc.com

                - and -

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY
          4006 Central Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010
          E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

                - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          Jeffrey Hammer, Esq.
          Craig H. Bessenger, Esq.
          James A. Unger, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
                  jhammer@kslaw.com
                  cbessenger@kslaw.com
                  junger@kslaw.com

CASINO FANDANGO: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that Casino Fandango has agreed to a
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that an
unauthorized third party gained access to sensitive consumer
information during a data breach in June 2024.

The Casino Fandango settlement benefits anyone whose private
information was compromised in the Casino Fandango data breach in
June 2024.

According to the class action lawsuit, an unauthorized third party
gained access to sensitive consumer information during a data
breach in June 2024. Plaintiffs in the case claim that Casino
Fandango could have prevented the breach with reasonable
cybersecurity measures.

Casino Fandango is a casino and entertainment venue in Carson City,
Nevada.

Casino Fandango has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$2,000 for unreimbursed data breach losses. These losses may
include fraud, identity theft, professional fees, credit expenses
and other damages. Class members must provide documentation of
these losses in order to receive reimbursement.

Class members can also receive one year of free three-bureau credit
monitoring. This service includes credit monitoring, dark web
monitoring, up to $1 million in identity theft insurance and fully
managed identity recovery services.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 21, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the Casino Fandango data breach
settlement is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2025.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Oct. 28, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information was compromised as a result
of a data breach that affected Casino Fandango in June 2024 and who
were sent notice of the data incident.

Potential Award
Up to $2,000 in unreimbursed losses and one year of credit
monitoring services.

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of unreimbursed expenses, such as bank statements,
credit card statements, receipts, invoices, etc.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
10/28/2025

Case Name
Tipton, et al. v. Casino Fandango LLC, et al., Case No.
240C0018-1B, in the First Judicial District Court in and for Carson
City, Nevada

Final Hearing
11/20/2025

Settlement Website
CasinoDataIncident.com

Claims Administrator

     Casino Fandango Data Settlement
     c/o Atticus Administration
     P.O. Box 64053
     St. Paul, MN 55164
     CasinoDataIncident@atticusadmin.com
     (800) 206-4661

Class Counsel

     Kenneth Grunfeld
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.

     Nathan Ring
     STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC

Defense Counsel

     Jenn Hatcher
     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN]

CHOICE HOTELS: Molina Sues for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------
LUISINIO MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06827 (N.D. Cal., August 12, 2025) is a
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons in
California who have a Facebook account and booked travel
arrangements on www.choicehotels.com. The case is files against the
Defendant pursuant to the California Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant aided, agreed with, and
conspired with Meta to track and intercept Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Internet communications while accessing the Website. These
communications were intercepted without the authorization and
consent of Plaintiff and Class Members.

The private travel communication information that Defendant
transmitted using the Pixel, such as information regarding the
dates of the trip, number of guests, username, etc., constituted
guest records under California Civil Code. The Defendant violated
CIPA by aiding and permitting third parties to receive its guests'
online communications through the Website without their consent,
says the suit.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with
its corporate headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

CHRISTY SPORTS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTY SPORTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-50343 (N.D. Ill., August 12, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.christysports.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.

The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times most
recently on May 7, 2025 to access Defendant's website from her home
in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services.

Plaintiff Walsh asserts that website contains access barriers that
prevent free and full use by her 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 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.

Christy Sports, LLC operates the website that offers apparel
tailored to outdoor sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY: Price Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Artists
Agency Holdings LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shaunise Price,
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Creative Artists Agency Holdings LLC d/b/a Creative Artists Agency,
Anna Adao, Case No. 25STCV23833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 13, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Creative Artists Agency, LLC (CAA) -- https://www.caa.com/ -- is an
American talent and sports agency based in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Wilson, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1460 Westwood Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-438-5555
          Email: robert@tomorrowlaw.com

DAVID SALINAS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taft Extended to Oct. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taft, et al., v. Salinas,
et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00697 (S.D. Cal.. Filed May 16, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting motion for
Extension of Time to File Class Certification Motion and Raise
Discovery Dispute.

-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
    certification is extended from Aug. 8, 2025, to Oct. 10, 2025.

-- The Plaintiff's deadline to raise discovery disputes regarding

    the deposition of Yellow Store Enterprises, LLC is similarly
    extended from Aug. 5, 2025, to Aug. 25, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.[CC]



DECANTX LLC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DECANTX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09588 (N.D. Ill., August 12, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, www.decantx.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.

The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 20, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for products, but encountered barriers
that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to
purchase a fragrance (Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce Eau de Cologne for
Men).

Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the fragrance, he wished to
acquire from the website, says the suit.

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.

DECANTX, LLC operates the website that offers fragrance
decants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

DESIGNER BRANDS: Class Settlement in Laguardia Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LAGUARDIA, et al., v.
DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-SDM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order granting
motion for final approval of class settlement.

  The Settlement Agreement, including the appointment of the
  Plaintiffs as settlement class representatives, the appointment
  of Counsel for the Plaintiffs as settlement class counsel, the
  approval of Kroll Settlement Administration as the settlement
  Administrator, and the provision of a $70 cash payment to each
  settlement class member who submitted a valid and timely claim
  form, is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court does grant
  final approval and certify for settlement purposes, the
  following Class:

  "All persons in the United States who, between Sep. 1, 2018, and

  Sept. 1, 2024, 1) were sent a "marketing"* text message from
  The Defendants, 2) thereafter responded with the word "stop" or
  the equivalent, and 3) thereafter received a marketing text
  message from the Defendants."

  *marketing means offering or advertising the commercial
  availability or quality of any property, goods, products, or
  services.

  This Action is dismissed with prejudice; subject, however, to
  this Court retaining jurisdiction over compliance with and
  implementation of the settlement agreement and this order.

Designer is an American company that sells designer and name brand
shoes and fashion accessories.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6z2zcx
at no extra charge.[CC]
 


DUDE PRODUCTS: Insurers Move to Block Coverage in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business, reports that Insurers
Owners Insurance Company and Auto-Owners Insurance Company are
heading to federal court, aiming to sidestep defending Dude
Products, Inc. in a class action over "Assembled in USA" claims.

Filed on August 19, 2025, in Chicago, the case is a straightforward
dispute between insurers and their policyholder. The insurers are
asking the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to declare that they have no obligation to defend or
indemnify Dude Products, Inc. in a class action lawsuit pending in
California. That underlying lawsuit, brought by Benjamin Karter and
Diego Ornelas, alleges that Dude Products falsely represented its
personal hygiene products as "Assembled in USA."

Dude Products, a company incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business in Chicago, is at the center of the
dispute. The class action, filed March 20, 2025, in the Southern
District of California, claims that Dude Products labeled its
products, promoted them on its website, and advertised through
third-party retailers as being "Assembled in USA." According to the
complaint, these claims were important to consumers, who believed
they were buying higher-quality goods and supporting American jobs.
The plaintiffs allege that, in reality, the products were made with
ingredients and components -- such as tea tree oil and shea butter
-- sourced, grown, or manufactured outside the United States. The
complaint states that Dude Products "knew or should have known"
these representations were false.

The plaintiffs in the California case are seeking orders for Dude
Products to return all money, revenue, and profits obtained through
the alleged misrepresentations, pay restitution, actual and
punitive damages, and stop making the "Assembled in USA" claim.
Their claims are based on California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, as well as unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional
misrepresentation.

Owners Insurance Company and Auto-Owners Insurance Company issued a
tailored protection policy and a commercial umbrella policy to Dude
Products, covering the period from April 21, 2015, to April 21,
2021. The policies provide coverage for "Bodily Injury and Property
Damage Liability" and "Personal and Advertising Injury Liability."
Both policies define "bodily injury" as physical harm, "property
damage" as physical injury to tangible property or loss of use, and
"personal and advertising injury" as injury arising from offenses
such as slander, libel, or disparagement of goods. The policies
exclude coverage for knowing violations of rights, publication of
material with knowledge of falsity, and failure of goods to conform
to statements of quality or performance.

The insurers argue that the underlying lawsuit's allegations of
economic harm - specifically, that consumers overpaid for products
-- do not fall within the scope of bodily injury, property damage,
or personal and advertising injury as defined by the policies. They
also point out that, even if the claims could be considered covered
injuries, the exclusions for knowing violations, material published
with knowledge of falsity, and failure to conform to statements of
quality or performance would apply.

Dude Products tendered the defense of the underlying lawsuit to the
insurers on or about May 5, 2025. On July 2, 2025, the insurers
notified Dude Products that the policies do not entitle the company
to a defense or indemnity in connection with the underlying
lawsuit. Dude Products has not withdrawn its tender.

No decision has been made yet, and the case remains at the
complaint stage. The outcome will determine whether Owners
Insurance Company and Auto-Owners Insurance Company are required to
defend or indemnify Dude Products, Inc. in the class action over
"Assembled in USA" representations. All statements and allegations
described are as claimed by the parties in the complaint.

Insurers Owners Insurance Company and Auto-Owners Insurance Company
are heading to federal court, aiming to sidestep defending Dude
Products, Inc. in a class action over "Assembled in USA" claims.

Filed on August 19, 2025, in Chicago, the case is a straightforward
dispute between insurers and their policyholder. The insurers are
asking the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to declare that they have no obligation to defend or
indemnify Dude Products, Inc. in a class action lawsuit pending in
California. That underlying lawsuit, brought by Benjamin Karter and
Diego Ornelas, alleges that Dude Products falsely represented its
personal hygiene products as "Assembled in USA."

Dude Products, a company incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business in Chicago, is at the center of the
dispute. The class action, filed March 20, 2025, in the Southern
District of California, claims that Dude Products labeled its
products, promoted them on its website, and advertised through
third-party retailers as being "Assembled in USA." According to the
complaint, these claims were important to consumers, who believed
they were buying higher-quality goods and supporting American jobs.
The plaintiffs allege that, in reality, the products were made with
ingredients and components -- such as tea tree oil and shea butter
-- sourced, grown, or manufactured outside the United States. The
complaint states that Dude Products "knew or should have known"
these representations were false.

The plaintiffs in the California case are seeking orders for Dude
Products to return all money, revenue, and profits obtained through
the alleged misrepresentations, pay restitution, actual and
punitive damages, and stop making the "Assembled in USA" claim.
Their claims are based on California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, as well as unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional
misrepresentation.

Owners Insurance Company and Auto-Owners Insurance Company issued a
tailored protection policy and a commercial umbrella policy to Dude
Products, covering the period from April 21, 2015, to April 21,
2021. The policies provide coverage for "Bodily Injury and Property
Damage Liability" and "Personal and Advertising Injury Liability."
Both policies define "bodily injury" as physical harm, "property
damage" as physical injury to tangible property or loss of use, and
"personal and advertising injury" as injury arising from offenses
such as slander, libel, or disparagement of goods. The policies
exclude coverage for knowing violations of rights, publication of
material with knowledge of falsity, and failure of goods to conform
to statements of quality or performance.

The insurers argue that the underlying lawsuit's allegations of
economic harm -- specifically, that consumers overpaid for products
-- do not fall within the scope of bodily injury, property damage,
or personal and advertising injury as defined by the policies. They
also point out that, even if the claims could be considered covered
injuries, the exclusions for knowing violations, material published
with knowledge of falsity, and failure to conform to statements of
quality or performance would apply.

Dude Products tendered the defense of the underlying lawsuit to the
insurers on or about May 5, 2025. On July 2, 2025, the insurers
notified Dude Products that the policies do not entitle the company
to a defense or indemnity in connection with the underlying
lawsuit. Dude Products has not withdrawn its tender.

No decision has been made yet, and the case remains at the
complaint stage. The outcome will determine whether Owners
Insurance Company and Auto-Owners Insurance Company are required to
defend or indemnify Dude Products, Inc. in the class action over
"Assembled in USA" representations. All statements and allegations
described are as claimed by the parties in the complaint. [GN]

HAMSKEA ARCHERY: Milby Sues Over Price Fixing of Archery Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY MILBY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAMSKEA ARCHERY SOLUTIONS LLC; ARCHERY TRADE
ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO
SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY,
INC.; JAY'S SPORTS, INC. d/b/a/ JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S
OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY,
INC.; NEUINTEL LLC d/b/a PRICESPIDER f/k/a ORIS INTELLIGENCE;
PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; and TRACKSTREET, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02507 (D. Colo., August 12, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the federal
antitrust laws in connection with their conspiracy to fix the
prices in the market for Archery Products sold in the United States
from January 1, 2014 through present.

Starting as late as January 1, 2014 and continuing through the
present, the Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to
artificially fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of
archery products sold throughout the United States. This conspiracy
has been orchestrated by ATA, which enforces collective
implementation and enforcement of minimum advertised pricing
policies, which seek to prevent Manufacturer Defendants and
Retailer Defendants from competing on prices or otherwise
undercutting their horizontal competitors at points of sale.

Through Defendants' unlawful anticompetitive conduct, they
artificially fixed, raised, maintained and/or stabilized the prices
of archery products sold in the United States. Among the victims of
this conspiracy are U.S. consumers of archery products, such as
Plaintiff and Class members. In the absence of this conspiracy, the
Plaintiff and Class members would have paid less for their archery
products, says the suit.

Plaintiff Milby brings this proposed class action on behalf of
himself and a proposed Class of direct purchasers of archery
products to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief as appropriate, for the injury and damages they suffered and
continue to suffer by reason of Defendants' continued violations of
the federal antitrust law as well as to restore competition in the
Relevant Market.

Hamskea Archery Solutions LLC is an archery and bowhunting
accessory manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON LLC
          40 Exchange Place, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 880-8850
          Facsimile: (973) 232-0887
          E-mail: byagman@shnlegal.com
                  mclerkin@shnlegal.com

HELLO MOLLY: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HELLO MOLLY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09756 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.hellomolly.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Hello Molly, Inc. is an online women's clothing retailer. The
Company offers a range of dresses, playsuits, skirts, and clothing
accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (844) 7631-3343
          Email: Dreyes@ealg.law


HIGHGATE HOTELS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murthada v. Highgate
Hotels, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08615-VSB-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time to respond to the Plaintiff's pending motion for conditional
collective class certification filed on July 30, 2025.

On July 30, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a letter motion
seeking leave to file a second amended complaint.

Highgate operates as a real estate investment and hospitality
management company.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D87B1a at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Francis J. Giambalvo, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          275 Battery St
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          E-mail: fgiambalvo@grsm.com 


HOPE PROGRAM: Guerrero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hope Program, et al.
The case is styled as Blanca Guerrero, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Hope Program, a
California corporation, Does 1-50, Case No. 25CV135016 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 1, 2025).

HOPE Program -- https://www.hopeprogram.biz/ -- is a California
outpatient mental health agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          217 S. Kenwood St.
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Phone: (213) 325-3032
          Fax: (818) 561-3938
          Email: nazo@koullaw.com

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Battle Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEDIGHEH BATTLE; LONNIE
ASHTON; and HERMON MCCOY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR CO.; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA;
and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-02035-JWH-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order regarding the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended class
action complaint.

  1. The Defendants' instant motion to dismiss is granted in part
     and denied in part.

  2. Specifically, the Defendants' motion is granted in that the
     following claims are dismissed without leave to amend:

     a. breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Texas
        law (claim five);

     b. fraud by omission under Texas law (claim six); and

     c. injunctive relief; and

     The Defendants' motion is denied with respect to all other
     issues and arguments.

  3. The Defendants are directed to file their respective answers
     to the Plaintiffs' amended complaint no later than Aug. 29,
     2025.

The Defendants have not presented a compelling case to show that
the exercise of jurisdiction over HMC would be unreasonable.
Accordingly, Defendants' instant Motion is denied with respect to
their personal jurisdiction challenge.

Accordingly, the economic loss rule does not bar Plaintiffs’
California claim for fraud by omission. Defendants’ Motion is
DENIED with respect to this claim.

However, Plaintiffs’ implied warranty claim under Texas law is
time barred. McCoy purchased his vehicle in 2013, more than four
years before Plaintiffs filed their claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ implied warranty claim under Texas law
must be DISMISSED with prejudice.

In October 2023, Plaintiffs commenced this action in this Court.
Three months later, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint,4
and Defendants responded with a motion to dismiss.5 The Court
denied that motion without prejudice and granted Plaintiffs leave
to amend their pleading.


Hyundai is a South Korean multinational automotive manufacturer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KROJy0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

INNER-CITY: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Na'ari Taylor, and other similarly situated persons v. INNER-CITY
COMPUTER STARS FOUNDATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-09666 (N.D. Ill., Aug.
13, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 ("ADA") seeking redress for Defendant's failure to accommodate
Plaintiff's disability and under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the
"FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendant's
failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons.

The Plaintiff suffers from physical and neurological impairments as
well as post-stroke symptoms consequent a long-term head and neck
injury. The Plaintiff also suffers from heart defect. The
Plaintiff's disability substantially limits major life activities
regarding mobility, attention, lifting, walking, running, verbal
processing, oral communication, and memory. Regardless of
Plaintiff's disability, she was able to perform the essential
functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodations. The
Defendant's disability-based discrimination, Defendant's
disability-based harassment, and Defendant's retaliation against
Plaintiff for engaging in a protected activity under the ADA.

The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40
hours per week but Defendants' did not pay them overtime wages at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Not only
did Defendant fail to pay Plaintiff time and one-half her regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a
work week during one or more weeks of employment, but Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff any sum at all for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours within a work week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a software development
"intern" from May 12, 2025 until Plaintiff's unlawful termination
on May 27, 2025.

Inner-City Computer Stars Foundation is a corporation specializing
in technological training services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis P. Lampert, Esq.
          Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone (630) 575-8181
          Fax (630) 575-8188
          Email: tlampert@sulaimanlaw.com
                 nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Flawed Computer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the flawed computerized
systems class suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the Company's Executive Vice President and
former Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged that a purported
class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the
computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions
in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The
complaint sought, among other things, undefined compensatory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety,
without leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and
commercially unreasonable liquidation but remanded plaintiff's
claims for negligence back to the District Court. The Company's
motion to dismiss plaintiff's subsequent second amended complaint
was denied on September 30, 2019. On July 14, 2022, after obtaining
leave to amend his complaint, the plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint. The Company's answer and counterclaim were filed on July
26, 2022.

On August 25, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification, certifying a class that consists of IB LLC account
holders who are U.S. residents (with some exclusions) who had
positions liquidated from December 18, 2013 to the date of trial at
prices outside of a "pricing corridor" defined in the Court's
decision. On September 8, 2023, the Company filed a petition for
permission to appeal the District Court’s class certification
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which denied the Company's petition on December 19, 2023.
On July 11, 2025, the District Court granted the parties' joint
motion to amend the definition of the certified class so that it
ends on July 14, 2025 (leaving all other aspects of the District
Court's initial class certification decision unchanged).

The Company continues to believe that a purported class action is
inappropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets
and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account. Pursuant to a
District Court scheduling order, trial is tentatively scheduled to
commence in 2026. IB LLC and the related defendants continue to
believe that the claims are deficient and intend to continue to
defend themselves vigorously.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.

INTERBOND OF AMERICA: Saavedra Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Saavedra, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Interbond of America, LLC,
Brandsmart USA of South Dade, LLC, d/b/a Brandsmart USA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23620 (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2025) is
an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of one and a half his regular
rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40 hours in
violation of the federal law.

The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with checks without paystubs
providing accurate information such as the number of days and hours
worked, wage rate, employee's taxes withheld, etc., notes the
complaint. On or about February 13, 2025, Defendant terminated the
Plaintiff's employment.

Plaintiff Saavedra was hire by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly employee from approximately October 18, 2010, to
February 13, 2025, spanning over 14 years.

Interbond of America, LLC, and Brandsmart USA of South Dade, LLC,
d/b/a Brandsmart USA are related companies. The Defendants are
Florida Profit Corporations conducting business in Dade
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

IROBOT CORP: Continues to Defend "Savant"
-----------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2025, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend
itself against the putative class action styled Vinayak Savant v.
iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:25-cv-05563.

On July 7, 2025, purported Company shareholder Vinayak Savant filed
a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers, captioned Vinayak Savant v. iRobot
Corporation, et al., No. 1:25-cv-05563. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the Company's financial performance and ability to operate on a
standalone basis following the termination of the Merger in January
2024. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and
costs, and unspecified other further relief. Given the uncertainty
of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this action.

IROBOT CORP: Sept. 8 Oral Argument in "Das"
-------------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2025, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that oral argument in the case
captioned Dylan Das v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No.
2:24-cv-02138, is scheduled for September 8, 2025.

On March 8, 2024, purported Company shareholder Dylan Das filed a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its officers,
captioned Dylan Das v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No.
2:24-cv-02138. The parties agreed to transfer the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. An amended
complaint was filed on July 19, 2024. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based
on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the likelihood of regulatory approval of the Merger and
its impact on the Company's financial performance. The complaint
seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly
inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief. On September 3, 2024, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss with the Court. On January 27, 2025, the
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and therefore
dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On February 24,
2025, the plaintiff in this matter appealed the Court's dismissal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and on April
21, 2025, the plaintiff filed its opening appeal brief with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On June 3, 2025, the
Company filed its response brief, and on July 3, 2025, the
plaintiff filed its reply brief. Oral argument is scheduled for
September 8, 2025.

J GILBERTS: Doner Bid for Class Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELANIE DONER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated; and MAGGY MATA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; v. J
GILBERTS NE, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and LANDRYS
PAYROLL, INC., a Texas Corporation; Case No. 8:24-cv-00325-JFB-MDN
(D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order
denying the motion for class certification, and is subject to
reassertion at a later date following the conclusion of
arbitration, if appropriate.

The Court ordered arbitration in this case. There is a pending
motion for a class action. The Court has stayed this case pending
the outcome of arbitration, and accordingly, the Court will not
address said motion. The Court will deny the motion, subject to
reassertion, if appropriate, following arbitration.

J. Gilbert's is an upscale casual steakhouse.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8NoTan
at no extra charge.[CC] 


JOBBLE INC: Jones Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jobble Inc. The case
is styled as Lawrence Jones, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Jobble Inc., Case No.
2:25-cv-00917-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 14, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Jobble -- https://jobble.com/ -- is the on-demand marketplace
connecting businesses with people looking for flexible work.[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

JOHN RIVERA: Weaver Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Rivera. The case
is styled as William Weaver, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. John Rivera, Case No. 6:25-cv-01557 (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 14, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks to Extend Daubert Deadlines in Carefirst
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND,
INC., GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and
CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order:

  (1) granting leave to permit the Parties to conduct the expert
      deposition of one of the Plaintiffs' class certification
      experts, Dr. Rena Conti, on Aug. 19, 2025;

  (2) extending the existing deadlines for any Daubert motion and
      response related to Dr. Conti; and

  (3) extending the existing deadlines for any Daubert motion and
      response relating to another one of Plaintiffs' class
      certification experts, Ms. Laura Craft.

On Aug. 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed J&J that Dr.
Conti's deposition needed to be postponed due to a medical
emergency.

The Parties' Daubert deadlines related to Dr. Malecki will not be
moved. J&J's reply deadlines for its Daubert motions will not be
altered.

Accordingly, even with the Parties' requested schedule changes, all
Daubert motions will still be fully briefed by the existing Oct.
13, 2025, deadline.

Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology,
and medical technologies corporation.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UezN7G at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
         Marc C. Greco, Esq.
         Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
         Michael A. Glasser , Esq.
         GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
         Crown Center, Suite 600
         580 East Main Street
         Norfolk, VA 23510
         Telephone: (757) 625-6787
         E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com
                 marcg@glasserlaw.com
                 kip@glasserlaw.com
                 michael@glasserlaw.com

               - and -

         Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
         Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
         Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
         Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq.
         Whitney E. Street, Esq.
         Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq.
         Audley Fuller, Esq.
         Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 482-3700
         E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                 hannahb@hbsslaw.com
                 abbyeo@hbsslaw.com
                 whitneyst@hbsslaw.com
                 rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com
                 audleyf@hbsslaw.com
                 kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                 hannahs@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

         Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
         Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
         Raymond Girnys, Esq.
         Noelle Ruggiero, Esq.
         Alexis Castillo, Esq.
         Thomas K. Griffith, Esq.
         Nicholas Alicata, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
                 URabinovitz@lowey.com
                 RGirnys@lowey.com
                 NRuggiero@lowey.com
                 ACastillo@lowey.com
                 TGriffith@lowey.com
                 nalicata@lowey.com

               - and -

         John Radice, Esq.
         April Lambert, Esq.
         Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
         Charles Kopel, Esq.
         RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
         475 Wall Street
         Princeton, NJ 08540
         Telephone: (646) 245-8502
         E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
                 alambert@radicelawfirm.com
                 kpickle@radicelawfirm.com
                 ckopel@radicelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq.
          George G. Gordon, Esq.
          Julia E. Chapman, Esq.
          Katherine Unger Davis, Esq.
          Forrest E. Lovett, Esq.
          Judah Bellin, Esq.
          David M. Costigan, Esq.
          Katherine A. Helm, Esq.
          Amanda K. Antons, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261-3300
          Facsimile: (202) 261-3333
          E-mail: christina.sarchio@dechert.com
                  george.gordon@dechert.com
                  julia.chapman@dechert.com
                  katherine.ungerdavis@dechert.com
                  forrest.lovett@dechert.com
                  judah.bellin@dechert.com
                  david.costigan@dechert.com
                  khelm@dechert.com
                  amanda.antons@dechert.com

JOSEPH STILWELL: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL KHOSHABA, v. JOSEPH
D. STILWELL, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00237-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to
seal portions of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X1iNtd at no extra
charge.[CC]


The Defendants are represented by:

          Hugh M. Fain, III, Esq.
          M. F. Connell Mullins, Jr., Esq.
          Nancy Y. Simpson, Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN PC
          411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2000
          Facsimile: (804) 697-2100
          E-mail: hfain@spottsfain.com  
                  cmullins@spottsfain.com  
                  nsimpson@spottsfain.com

                - and -

          Jerrold A. Thrope, Esq.
          GORDON FEINBLATT LLC
          1001 Fleet Street, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 576-4295
          Facsimile: (410) 576-4295
          E-mail: jthrope@gfrlaw.com  

                - and -

          Charles M. Sims, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC
          411 East Franklin Street, Suite 500    
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 403-7111
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0250
          E-mail:  CSims@ohaganmeyer.com

                - and -

          Richard L. Crisona, Esq.
          Alexander E. Ehrlich, Esq.
          ALLEGAERT BERGER & VOGEL LLP
          111 Broadway, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 571-0550
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0555
          E-mail:  rcrisona@abv.com  
                   AEhrlich@abv.com

KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE: McMillan Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Larry A. McMillan, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kansas City Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01100 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Aug. 14, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00640-BCW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Insurance
Contract.

Kansas City Life Insurance Company -- https://www.kclife.com/ -- is
a public insurance company established in 1895 and located in
Kansas City, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH GREENWALD AND LAAKE PA
          6404 Ivy Ln Ste 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Phone: (301) 220-2200
          Fax: (301) 220-1214
          Email: vnannis@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Hickey, Esq.
          4536 Jefferson Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: (913) 209-9070
          Email: hickey@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ethan M Lange, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP - KCMO
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Fax: (816) 714-7101
          Email: lange@stuevesiegel.com
                 perkins@stuevesiegel.com
                 stueve@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Joseph M Feierabend, Esq.
          Olivia Christine Bess-Rhodes, Esq.
          SCHIRGER FEIERABEND LLC
          6811 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 312
          Overland Park, KS 66202
          Phone: (816) 561-6504
          Email: schirger@SFlawyers.com
                 feierabend@SFlawyers.com
                 bess-rhodes@sflawyers.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          FRAWLEY LYTLE LLC
          1600 Gennessee Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Phone: (816) 800-5001
          Email: matt@frawley-lytle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam R. Fox, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          555 So. Flower Street, Ste 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 689-5166
          Fax: (213) 623-4581
          Email: adam.fox@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Amy Brown Doolittle, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP
          2550 M Street NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Phone: (202) 626-6707
          Fax: (202) 457-6315
          Email: amy.doolittle@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Angela Franceta Ramson, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          999 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 658-9726
          Fax: (404) 962-1200
          Email: angela.ramson@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Delnero, Esq.
          BGD LEGAL & CONSULTING LLC
          3017 Bolling Way NE, Suite 130
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (770) 864-7740
          Fax: (678) 272-3211
          Email: daniel.delnero@bgdlc.com

               - and -

          Francisco J. Rolon Vargas, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
          1201 W Peachtree Street NW Ste 3150, Suite 3150
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (904) 214-4510
          Email: francisco.rolon@squirepb.com

               - and -

          James Randolph Evans, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
          Unit 301
          2769 Tiburon Blvd E, Unit 301, Naples, Fla. 34109
          Naples, FL 34109
          Phone: (678) 438-2133
          Email: randy.evans@squirepb.com

               - and -

          John W. Shaw, Esq.
          Lauren Tallent, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP-KCMO
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 561-7007
          Fax: (816) 561-1888
          Email: jshaw@berkowitzoliver.com
                 ltallent@berkowitzoliver.com

               - and -

          Traci Martinez, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP
          41 South High St.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 365-2807
          Fax: (614) 365-2499
          Email: traci.martinez@squirepb.com

KINDERCARE LEARNING: Disseminated False Statements, Gollapalli Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VENKATA SURYA TEJA GOLLAPALLI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINDERCARE LEARNING
COMPANIES, INC., PAUL THOMPSON, ANTHONY AMANDI, JOHN T. WYATT, JEAN
DESRAVINES, CHRISTINE DEPUTY, MICHAEL NUZZO, BENJAMIN RUSSELL, JOEL
SCHWARTZ, ALYSSA WAXENBERG, PRESTON GRASTY, PARTNERS GROUP HOLDING
AG, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BARCLAYS
CAPITAL INC., and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-01424-AR (D. Ore., August 12, 2025) is a securities class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all purchasers of KinderCare
common stock in or traceable to the Company's October 2024 initial
public offering seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933 against KinderCare, the Company's senior officers and
directors, the Company's controlling shareholder, and the
underwriters of the IPO.

According to the complaint, the Registration statements made by the
Company were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose these adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO:
(a) KinderCare facilities; (b) that numerous incidents of child
abuse, neglect, and harm had occurred and that KinderCare did not
provide the "highest quality care possible" at its facilities, and,
indeed, in numerous instances had failed to provide even basic
care, meet minimum standards in the child care industry, or comply
with the laws and regulations governing the care of children; and
(c) that, as a result, KinderCare was exposed to a material,
undisclosed risk of lawsuits, adverse regulatory action, negative
publicity, reputational damage, and business loss.

Allegedly, prior to the IPO KinderCare provided substandard care,
including numerous incidents of child endangerment, for example,
instances where toddlers escaped facilities and roamed into
traffic, children were left locked in facilities or buses, and kids
were subject to intentional acts of physical, verbal, and sexual
abuse, the suit alleges.

Since the IPO, which occurred less than one year before the filing
of this complaint, the price of KinderCare stock has fallen to lows
near $9 per share -- a fraction of the $24 per share IPO price. The
price of KinderCare stock has remained substantially below the IPO
price at the time of filing this complaint.

KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. is a provider of early
childhood and school-age education in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keil M. Mueller, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1900
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (971) 253-4600
          E-mail: kmueller@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900  
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 432-5100
          E-mail: rgonello@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, PLLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064  
          Telephone: (470) 632-6000
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com

LANGERS JUICE: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Concord Grape Juice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Anastassia Georgopoulos
filed a class action lawsuit against Langers Juice Company Inc.

Why: Georgopoulos claims Langers misleads consumers into believing
its Concord Grape 100% Juice is made from only juice and juice
products.

Where: The Langers class action lawsuit was filed in California
federal court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Langers misleads consumers into
believing its Concord Grape 100% Juice is made from only juice and
juice products.

Plaintiff Anastassia Georgopoulos claims Langers' Concord Grape
100% Juice includes synthetic, non-natural additives, including
ascorbic acid and citric acid, despite being advertised as being
made from only juice and juice products.

"Plaintiff will be unable to make informed decisions about whether
to purchase the Product in the future and will be unable to
evaluate the different prices between Defendant's Product and
competitors' products," the Langers class action states.

Georgopoulos claims Langers is guilty of breach of express warranty
and of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Langers Concord Grape 100% Juice is misbranded, plaintiff claims

Georgopoulos argues Langers fails to properly identify on the
principal display panel that the juice contains ascorbic acid and
citric acid, which she claims are considered food additives by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"Defendant fails to 'accurately identify or describe, in as simple
and direct terms as possible, the basic nature of the food or its
characterizing properties or ingredients,'" the Langers class
action states.

Georgopoulos wants to represent a nationwide class and California
subclass of consumers who purchased Langers Concord Grape 100%
Juice during the maximum period of time permitted by law.

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages for herself and all class members.

Another consumer recently filed a class action lawsuit against
Langers, alleging the company markets its products as "100% juice"
or "100% pure juice" when they actually contain additives.

The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Daniel S. Guerra
and Joshua B. Glatt of Bursor & Fisher P.A.

The Langers class action lawsuit is Georgopoulos v. Langers Juice
Company Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-06514, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. [GN]

LOVINGLY LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOVINGLY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09578 (N.D. Ill., August 12, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.lovingly.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.

The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 20, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for products, but encountered barriers
that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to
purchase a floral arrangement, specifically the Joyful Thanks
Arrangement, from the Defendant's online store.

Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the floral arrangement, he wished
to acquire from the website, says the suit.

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.

Lovingly, LLC operates the website that offers a selection of
floral arrangements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

MARCHELLO'S GARDEN: Faces Pritt Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA PRITT, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARCHELLO'S GARDEN GRILL, INC.,
GLORIA MARSILIO and FREDERICK MARSILIO, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-04498-ARL (E.D.N.Y., August 12, 2025) is an action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated current and former
employees to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the
action.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide proper spread of hours
compensation, unlawful deductions from wages, and failure to
furnish with accurate written notice and statement of wages.

The Plaintiff also seeks redress for Defendants' discrimination
against her on the basis of sex and pregnancy under the New York
State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server and
bartender from in or about October 2023 until June 29, 2025.

Marchello's Garden Grill, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

MARINAJ PROPERTIES: Civil Standing Order Entered in WG Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WG PRIVATE IRREVOCABLE
TRUST, et al., v. MARINAJ PROPERTIES LLC, et al., Case No.
5:25-cv-01900-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes
entered a civil standing order as follows:

The plaintiff must promptly serve the complaint in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and must comply with Local Rule
5-3 with respect to all proofs of service.

Electronic Filings and Proposed Orders Counsel must file all civil
and criminal filings pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
5(d)(3) and Local Rule 5-4.

The Court hears scheduling conferences on Fridays beginning at 1:00
p.m.5 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f),
the Court will issue an Order Setting a Scheduling Conference.

Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties
confer in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for
perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can
be corrected by amendment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=02G59p at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


MAXIMUS INC: Continues to Defend MOVEit Cybersecurity Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Maximus, 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 against the
MOVEit cybersecurity lawsuit.

As the Company has previously disclosed, on May 31, 2023, Progress
Software Corporation, the developer of MOVEit, a file transfer
application used by many organizations to transfer data, announced
a critical zero-day vulnerability in the application that allowed
unauthorized third parties to access its customers' MOVEit
environments. Maximus uses MOVEit for internal and external file
sharing purposes, including to share data with government customers
related to Maximus's services in support of certain government
programs. Based on its review of the impacted files to date, the
Company has provided notices to individuals whose personal
information, including social security numbers, protected health
information, and/or other personal information, may have been
included in the impacted files.

On August 1, 2023, a purported class action was filed against
Maximus Federal Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Maximus, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia arising out of the MOVEit cybersecurity incident -
Bishop v. Maximus Federal Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 (U.S.
Dist. Ct. E. D. VA). The plaintiff, who purports to represent a
nationwide class of individuals, alleges, among other things, that
the Company's negligence resulted in the compromise of the
plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected
health information. The plaintiff seeks damages to be proved at
trial. Since then, thirteen similar cases have been filed in
federal courts across the country (inclusive of one case filed in
state court and removed to federal court by the Company).

On October 4, 2023, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation granted a Motion to Transfer creating a
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the District of Massachusetts for
all cases related to the MOVEit cybersecurity incident. Each of the
actions pending in federal courts are centralized in the MDL.

On December 12, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendants' omnibus
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1),
challenging Plaintiffs' standing to bring this suit, dismissing
claims brought by four of the Plaintiffs in the MOVEit MDL. None of
the dismissed claims were asserted against the Company.

The Court has also named the Company as a bellwether defendant in
the MDL. The Company and the other bellwether defendants submitted
motions to dismiss the pending actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
which the Court granted in part and denied in part on July 31,
2025. Approximately half of the claims asserted against the Company
remain, and the Company is proceeding to discovery regarding those
claims.

MAXMARA RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MaxMara Retail, Ltd. Case No. 0:25-cv-03249 (D. Minn.,
Aug. 13, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.us.maxmara.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is
not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.

Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.

The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jumpsuits, jackets,
blazers, shoes, handbags and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

MCNAMARA CHIROPRACTIC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. McNamara
Chiropractic LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00201-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for
the plaintiff to file a motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a
national class.

The Defendant has not yet responded to the complaint and the
Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert
testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed.

McNamara offers specialized chiropractic care.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NDe6OG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.  
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
 


MEILE INVESTMENT: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meile Investment LLC.
The case is styled as Claudia Perez, individually, and on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Meile Investment LLC, Case
No. 25STCV24073 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14,
2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Meile Investment LLC is a business entity based in Monrovia,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY APLC
          249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802-4899
          Phone: 949-208-3400
          Fax: 562-590-8400
          Email: jose@garaylaw.com

MENARD INC: Wallen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallen, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MENARD, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Case No.
2:25-cv-12528-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Aug. 13, 2025), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $25.60.
addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various
types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation
structure. For example, Defendant paid employees weekly incentive
bonus pay ("Incentive Pay").

Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not
earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that
included Incentive Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in
the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As non-exempt
employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full
compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times
their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly assistant
manager then an hourly department manager from March 2006 through
February 2025.

The Defendant is a home improvement chain that operates facilities
in multiple states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Phone: (269) 250-7500
          Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com

META PLATFORMS: Funds for Class Settlement Under Legal Scrutiny
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Kauflin of Forbes reports that three years ago, Facebook
parent company Meta agreed to pay a whopping $725 million to settle
a class action lawsuit accusing it of making users' data available
without their consent (Meta denied wrongdoing). Payments were
finally scheduled to start hitting consumers' wallets this August,
but court filings show that the portion of the funds slated to be
sent through digital prepaid cards are now under intense legal
scrutiny. Forbes estimates those digital payments would total $150
million.

The controversy stems from secret rebates that Blackhawk Network,
the fintech that issues the digital cards, agreed to make to
Angeion, the claims administration firm in charge of doling out the
class action funds to harmed consumers. The plaintiffs' attorneys
in the Meta case that hired Angeion only discovered these rebates
over the past few months, after another lawsuit tipped them off
about their possible existence. Since then, the lawyers have asked
Angeion to forgo the payments from Blackhawk or hand them over to
the consumers in the class. So far, Angeion has refused to give up
the rebates or to disclose its contract with Blackhawk.

A few months ago, Forbes chronicled the industry practice of such
back-room dealings in our investigation into how private
equity-owned firms were quietly pocketing class action payouts.

Class action lawsuits often let consumers choose from different
payout options such as a paper check, direct deposit into a bank
account, PayPal or a digital prepaid card. Digital cards arrive in
emails and have their benefits, such as being cheaper to administer
and potentially easier to use for unbanked Americans. But a big
chunk of the funds deposited on them goes unspent, just as it does
for gift cards, resulting in what industry professionals call
"breakage."

Card issuers like Blackhawk typically claw back the lion's share of
unused funds through monthly fees that pop up after six or twelve
months of inactivity on a prepaid card. The breakage total can vary
based on factors like when the inactivity fees kick in and how high
they are, but even for the most consumer-friendly programs, it can
easily add up to millions of dollars for large class action
settlements. Yet the breakage amounts are never disclosed in court
filings. And until recently, plaintiffs' attorneys and judges were
largely unaware of how the digital prepaid cards work, or who
collects the breakage they generate.

Blackhawk, which is owned by private equity firms Silverlake and P2
Capital Partners, has historically offered claims administrators
"rebates" in return for them inserting digital prepaid cards as a
payout option into a class action. (The rebates were discovered by
whistleblower Todd Hilsee years ago, and he published a research
paper on them in October 2024.) This past April, a class action
suit was filed over the rebates in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against three big claims administrators, including
Angeion. The suit, which accuses them of fraud and various other
breaches, asserts that the rebates "are nothing more than
kickbacks" and that administrators have kept these agreements
secret from attorneys, judges and class members.


Angeion has called the lawsuit "baseless." Blackhawk has been added
as a defendant in the case, with the plaintiffs accusing it of
conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting fraud. A
Blackhawk spokesperson didn't respond to our requests for comment,
but the company has previously told us in a statement that its
programs "are in full compliance with applicable federal and state
laws and regulations."

So far, in the Meta privacy case, Angeion has agreed to share its
Blackhawk contract only with Northern District of California Judge
Vince Chhabria for his private review. Judge Chhabria can then
decide whether it should be filed in the public record.

A spokesperson for Angeion told Forbes in an emailed statement that
the company administers settlements "according to the terms and
conditions of the relevant settlement agreement and court orders."
He added, "Although Angeion has not yet received any revenue from
Blackhawk with regard to the Meta settlement, its agreement with
Blackhawk contemplates financial benefit to Angeion. That benefit
does not in any way reduce the funds available to class members or
impose an additional cost to the settlement fund."

One obvious question remains: How much did Blackhawk agree to pay
Angeion? Based on a 2020 email obtained by Todd Hilsee combined
with our own reporting, a Blackhawk executive offered a "discount"
or rebate of up to 3.5% to a claims administrator in exchange for
running a class payout through digital debit cards. Using that
assumption, a $150 million digital payout would result in a $5
million payment from Blackhawk to Angeion. And if the rebate were
higher–say, 7%—the payment would be $10 million.

The attorneys in the Meta case filed a joint status report
proposing changes to make the digital prepaid cards more
consumer-friendly. For example, when the cards are emailed out,
Blackhawk can require that people click on a link to activate it
first before the money leaves the settlement fund. That would help
prevent email payouts that go unnoticed by consumers in their
inboxes from leaving the settlement fund and eventually getting
gobbled up by Blackhawk's inactivity fees.

The attorneys also proposed sending multiple email reminders to
consumers to activate their cards and use their balances, as
opposed to the original email-reminder plan, which appeared to
consist of just one reminder sent to a digital card recipient after
11 months of inactivity. Another proposal presented the option of
completely replacing digital prepaid cards with other payout
methods in the settlement distribution.

Scrutiny of the dubious practices of class action payouts continues
to grow. Earlier this week, in a big class action case that accuses
realtors of colluding to inflate real estate agent commissions,
Judge Stephen Bough of the Western District of Missouri filed an
order asking the plaintiffs' attorneys to complete a list of new
disclosures. The inquiry asks the attorneys whether they have
financial relationships with companies involved in the suit, such
as litigation financing firms, banks, private equity funds, hedge
funds, settlement administrators, vendors or similar institutions.
The order aims to prevent any lawyers from having undisclosed
conflicts of interest. [GN]


MICHELS CORP: Beyer Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BEYER, v. MICHELS
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-00514-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge
Pamela Pepper entered an order:

-- granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the third
    amended complaint, and

-- denying as moot motion for class certification.

The court orders that the defendant must answer Count IV of the
third amended complaint by the end of the day on Sept. 2, 2025. By
the end of the day on Sept. 11, 2025, the parties must submit a
joint proposed amended Rule 26(f) report containing their proposed
schedule for the remainder of this case.

Because the plaintiff has had several opportunities to draft a
proper complaint, the court will dismiss Counts I, II and III of
the third amended complaint with prejudice. And because the court
is dismissing the class and collective action claims, the court
also will deny as moot the pending motion for class certification.

The plaintiff filed this case in April 2021, alleging that the
defendant failed to compensate employees for time worked before
their scheduled shift, failed to count as hours worked the time
during which their lunch breaks were interrupted and failed to
include annual bonuses in computing their regular rate for overtime
pay.

On May 31, 2024, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in
this wage and hour class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and Wisconsin law.

Michels is an American family-owned and operated energy and
infrastructure construction company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wUFBfk at no extra
charge.[CC]

MORRIS HOUSER: Bid for Class Cert. in Hayes Suit Deemed Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYES, et al., v. MORRIS
HOUSER et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-01939-MWB-MP (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order that Plaintiff's July 16,
2025 "Motion to appoint counsel / Motion for class certification,"
is deemed withdrawn.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkxSP7 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Mosaic Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Cruz class suit in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Hillsborough County, Florida.

On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
Hillsborough County, Florida against its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated co-defendants. The
complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of radiation at
two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining
land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly due to phosphate
mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.

On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to
dismiss that it filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs
to amend their complaint.

On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and, in
response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with
prejudice on November 15, 2021.

On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic
replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022.

On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to
dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant.

In late March 2023, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter.

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.

MURPHY REHAB: Court Extends Time to File Conditional Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fleming v. Murphy
Rehabilitation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00206 (W.D.N.C., Filed Aug.
8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order
granting motion for extension of time to file conditional class
certification:

-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Conditional
    Certification is extended through and including Sept. 29,
    2025.

-- All other provisions of the Pretrial Order and Case Management

    Plan remain in effect.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Murphy provides long-term care and rehabilitation services.[CC]

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Padilla Balks at Unwarranted Fees, Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR PADILLA and LILYSABEL PADILLA, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC
d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61630 (S.D. Fla.,
August 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, as well as 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.35(e)
of its implementing regulations.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover fees and charges improperly imposed
and collected by Defendant from them and other Florida homeowners
with mortgage loans serviced by Defendant; for unwarranted fees and
charges for the alleged expediting of payoff statements when such
statements were not requested to be expedited or sent via specific
means and when the mortgage loan agreements do not authorize such
charges.

These fees are added onto the payoff amount a homeowner must remit
to Defendant to satisfy the mortgage lien on their property and
otherwise avoid foreclosure and/or clear title. The fees are
intentionally disguised as being for necessary or otherwise
reasonable expenses in order to deceive homeowners and otherwise
enrich Defendant at the expense of Florida homeowners, asserts the
suit.

The Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to
provide Plaintiffs and members of the putative Class with accurate
payoff statements and instead demanding unwarranted amounts through
unauthorized fees, the suit alleges.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC is the servicer of the residential mortgage
loans which encumber Plaintiffs' home and the homes of the members
of the putative Class, and, as such, regularly acts as a debt
collector.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Smith, Jr.  
          DANNLAW FL
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: msmith@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
          SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP
          6810 N. State Road 7
          Coconut Creek, FL 33073
          Telephone: (561) 569-6283
          E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com

NEW YORK: R.M. Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.M., by and through next
friend Elfego Maldonado Estrada, and A.B., by and through next
friend Kadijah Hutchinson-McLean, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL
HEALTH, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06667-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order

  1. Certifying this action to proceed as a class action on behalf

     of the following class (the "Delays Class"):

     a. "All persons who have been, or will be in the future,
        charged with a felony in New York City and: (a) who
        receive a CPL 730 court order to receive competency
        restoration services by OMH, and (b) who remain confined
        in a New York City Department of Correction jail pending
        competency restoration services";

  2. Appointing Plaintiffs R.M and A.B to serve as Class
     Representatives of the Delays Class; and

  3. Appointing The Legal Aid Society; Washington Square Legal
     Services, Civil Rights in the Criminal Legal System Clinic;
     and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP to serve as Joint Class Counsel

     for Plaintiffs.

The Defendant promotes the mental health and well-being of all New
Yorkers.

The Defendants include ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, in her official
capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental
Health; the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE;
MICHELLE MORSE, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; and NEW YORK
C ITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=29ncWb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          Shona Hemmady, Esq.
          Philip Desgranges, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          49 Thomas Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 577-3398
          E-mail: elandriscina@legal-aid.org
                  shemmady@legal-aid.org
                  pdesgranges@legal-aid.org

                - and -

          Alexis Karteron, Esq.
          WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL
          SERVICES  
          CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE CRIMINAL
          LEGAL SYSTEM CLINIC
          245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 998-6430
          E-mail: alexis.karteron@nyu.edu

                - and -

          James P. Rouhandeh, Esq.
          James I. McClammy, Esq.
          Diane O. Lucas, Esq.
          Chui-Lai Cheung, Esq.
          Marie Killmond, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP  
          450 Lexington Avenue  
          New York, NY 10017  
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000  
          E-mail: rouhandeh@davispolk.com
                  james.mcclammy@davispolk.com
                  diane.lucas@davispolk.com
                  chui-lai.cheung@davispolk.com
                  marie.killmond@davispolk.com

NEW YORK: Sued Over Inadequate Competency Restoration Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
R.M., by and through next friend Elfego Maldonado Estrada, and
A.B., by and through next friend Kadijah Hutchinson-McLean, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH; ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN,
in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State
Office of Mental Health; the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
MENTAL HYGIENE; MICHELLE MORSE, in her official capacity as the
Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene; and NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION;
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06667 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2025) is a
class action civil rights lawsuit challenging the state of New
York's failure to administer a mental health system that provides
timely and adequate competency restoration services to people who
are accused of crimes and found unfit to stand trial in New York
City.

According to the complaint, the alleged widespread failures of the
state mental health agency, the New York Office of Mental Health,
and its city partners cause hundreds of people each year to
languish for months in the brutal jails on Rikers Island while they
wait for services that restore their competence to stand trial. The
dysfunction also causes individuals to be denied the opportunity,
when appropriate, to be placed in the community, with
community-based treatment services that restore them to fitness and
keep them and their communities safe.

Neither OMH nor its city partners -- the New York City Department
of Health & Mental Hygiene and New York City Health + Hospitals --
have implemented standards, procedures, or policies to assess
individuals who are unfit to stand trial for treatment in a setting
that is more community integrated than a secure hospital, such as
with an outpatient provider of competency restoration services,
notes the suit.

As a result of OMH's policies and practices, people receive
competency restoration services in unnecessarily segregated
settings and risk losing their housing, connection to family,
services, and any stability they had prior to their commitment,
says the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end
Defendants' extended delays in providing appropriate competency
restoration services, their failure to provide reasonable
accommodations, and their failure to provide competency restoration
services in the most integrated setting appropriate to people's
needs.

New York State Office of Mental Health is a department of the state
responsible for overseeing a mental health system.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elena Landriscina, Esq.
          Shona Hemmady, Esq.
          Philip Desgranges, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          49 Thomas Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 577-3398
          E-mail: elandriscina@legal-aid.org
                  shemmady@legal-aid.org
                  pdesgranges@legal-aid.org

               - and -

          Alexis Karteron, Esq.
          WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES CIVIL
           RIGHTS IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM CLINIC
          245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 998-6430
          E-mail: alexis.karteron@nyu.edu
  
               - and -

          James P. Rouhandeh, Esq.
          James I. McClammy, Esq.
          Diane O. Lucas, Esq.
          Chui-Lai Cheung, Esq.
          Marie Killmond, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: rouhandeh@davispolk.com
                  james.mcclammy@davispolk.com
                  diane.lucas@davispolk.com
                  chui-lai.cheung@davispolk.com
                  marie.killmond@davispolk.com

NUTEX HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nutex Health Inc. ("Nutex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NUTX)
and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and docketed
under 25-cv-03999, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Nutex securities between August 8, 2024 and
August 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Nutex
securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2025
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Nutex is a physician-led, healthcare services and operations
company that began publicly trading via a reverse merger in April
2022. The Company operates through three divisions: a hospital
division comprised of 24 hospital facilities in 11 states, a
population health management division, and real estate. Nutex
generally operates as an out-of-‎network provider and generates
revenue, in part, from contracts with patients and, in most cases,
a third-party payor such as commercial insurance, workers
compensation insurance or, in limited cases, Medicare or Medicaid.
According to Nutex, on average, greater than 90% of its net patient
service revenue is paid by third-party payors.

Prior to 2022, if a patient with health insurance received care
from an out-of-network provider, even unknowingly, the patient's
health plan might not have covered the entire out-of-network cost,
leaving the patient with higher costs than if the care had come
from an in-network provider. In addition to any out-of-network cost
sharing the patient might have owed, the out-of-network provider
could bill the patient for the difference between the billed charge
and the amount the patient's health plan paid, unless banned by
state law-a practice called "balance billing". An unexpected
balance bill from an out-of-network provider is frequently referred
to as a "surprise bill".

In December 2020, to curb surprise out-of-network billing, Congress
enacted the No Surprises Act ("NSA"). The NSA, which took effect
January 1, 2022, requires private health plans to cover
out-of-network claims and apply in-network cost sharing, and
prohibits doctors, hospitals, and other covered providers from
billing patients more than the in-network cost sharing amount for
surprise medical bills. In addition, the NSA established an
independent dispute resolution ("IDR") process to determine
out-of-network payment amounts between health plans and providers
when open negotiations fail to result in an agreed-upon payment
amount.

In the IDR process, the provider and health plan each submit a
proposed payment amount and ‎‎additional information supporting
their payment offers to an arbitrator, a certified IDR entity. The
arbitrator must select one of the two proposed payment amounts,
taking into ‎account the ‎‎"qualifying payment amount"
("QPA")-the median contract rate for like specialties in the same
geographical market-and additional circumstances including, among
other things, the level of training, outcomes ‎‎measurements of
the facility, the acuity of the individual treated, and the case
mix and scope of services of the ‎facility ‎providing the
service.

Initially, as an out-of-network provider, Nutex's business suffered
after the NSA went into effect. Specifically, because cost sharing
under the statute is generally based on the median in-network rate
a health plan pays for a service, the NSA prevented Nutex from
charging patients higher prices for its services through
out-of-network billing. Indeed, in March 2023, Nutex reported that
"since the NSA became effective [. . .] our average payment by
insurers of patient claims for emergency services has declined by
approximately 30% including as much as a 37% reduction for
physician services." The Company stated that, "[i]n our experience,
insurers often initially pay amounts lower than the QPA without
regard for other information relevant to the claim. This requires
us to make appeals using the IDR process."

In response, in July 2024, the Company engaged with HaloMD, a
"third-party IDR vendor," to "assist in the recovery of certain out
of network claims" in the IDR process. While Nutex did not disclose
the identity of its third-party IDR vendor to investors at that
time, the Company shortly thereafter began to tout the success of
its "arbitration strategy" in increasing its revenues. For example,
in August 2024, Nutex stated that it "believe[s] [] there is a lot
of potential incremental value and revenue to be gained from
arbitration" and "[i]n recent articles and public data, we are
seeing that providers are prevailing 70% to 80% of the time in
arbitration." Then, in March 2025, announcing its fourth quarter
and full year 2024 results, Nutex reported that "total revenue
increased $232.3 million to $479.9 million for the year ended
December 31, 2024" and that "[t]he arbitration process resulted in
approximately $169.7 million more in revenue in 2024 than in 2023,
which amounted to approximately 73.1% of the $232.3 million revenue
increase."

At all relevant times, the Company has identified material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting.
Specifically, Nutex has acknowledged that it had "ineffective
design, implementation, and operation controls over logical access,
program change management, and vendor management controls," that
"business process controls across all financial reporting processes
were not effectively designed and implemented to properly address
the risk of material misstatement, including controls without
proper segregation of duties between preparer and reviewer and key
management review controls," and "ineffective design and
implementation of controls over the completeness and accuracy of
information included in key spreadsheets supporting the financial
statements." However, Nutex has consistently represented that it
has "started the process of designing and implementing effective
internal control measures to remediate the reported material
weaknesses."

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) HaloMD was achieving lucrative arbitration
results for Nutex by engaging in a coordinated scheme to defraud
insurance companies; (ii) as a result, to the extent that they were
the product of fraudulent conduct, revenues attributable to the
Company's engagement with HaloMD in the IDR process were
unsustainable; (iii) in addition, the Company overstated the extent
to which it had remediated, and/or its ability to remediate, the
material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial
reporting; (iv) as a result, the Company was unable to effectively
account for the treatment of certain of its stock based
compensation obligations; (v) as a result, Nutex improperly
calculated these stock based compensation obligations as equity
rather than liabilities; (vi) the foregoing increased the risk that
the Company would be unable to timely file certain financial
reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"); (vii) accordingly, Nutex's business and/or financial
prospects were overstated; and (viii) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 22, 2025, Blue Orca Capital ("Blue Orca") issued a short
report on Nutex (the "Blue Orca Report" or the "Report"). The Blue
Orca Report alleged, among other things, that "HaloMD achieved
dramatically lucrative results for clients like Nutex by engaging
in a coordinated fraudulent scheme to steal millions of dollars
from insurance companies on behalf of and in conjunction with its
healthcare billing clients."

Specifically, Blue Orca referenced three recent "bombshell
lawsuits" filed against HaloMD. The lawsuits, brought variously by
Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia, Inc., Community
Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and
Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company and Blue Cross
of California d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross, allege that HaloMD violated
various federal and state laws by submitting false attestations of
eligibility and initiating massive volumes of IDR disputes.

As summarized by Blue Orca, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits
accused HaloMD and its clients of "flooding the arbitration system
with thousands of claims that they knew at the time of submission
to be ineligible" and alleging that HaloMD was able to garner
improper payments by "falsely attesting to the eligibility of
claims and [. . .] improperly inflating payment offers that far
exceeded the amounts to which providers should have been entitled."
Accordingly, Blue Orca concluded that "it may just be a matter of
time before another suit is filed against HaloMD, this time
including Nutex," and "once Nutex can no longer use the NSA
arbitration system to receive unsustainably high reimbursement
rates, our suspicion is that Nutex will return to penny stock
status."

Following publication of the Blue Orca Report, Nutex's stock price
fell $11.18 per share, or 10.05%, to close at $100.01 per share on
July 22, 2025.

On July 24, 2025, Nutex issued a press release responding to the
Blue Orca Report, stating that it "strongly disagrees with the
allegations in the report" and that it "expects to provide related
updates in its upcoming earnings release and Form 10-Q for the
second quarter of 2025 due on or before August 14, 2025."

However, after the market closed on August 14, 2025, Nutex
announced that it would "delay filing its Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2025", citing "non-cash accounting adjustments
related to the treatment of stock-based compensation obligations
for certain under-construction and ramping hospitals, as disclosed
in previous filings."

When Nutex failed to rebut the allegations of the Blue Orca Report,
the Company's stock price fell $18.22 per share, or 16.39%, to
close at $92.91 per share on August 15, 2025.

After the end of the Class Period, on August 21, 2025, Nutex filed
a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC which, among other
things, contained a Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a
Continued Listing Rule or Standard and stated that the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors concluded that
certain of the Company's previously issued financial statements
"treated non-cash obligations related to under-construction and
ramping hospitals as equity rather than liabilities and should be
restated." This filing also purported to address the Blue Orca
Report. However, Nutex merely provided a generalized description of
the arbitration process under the NSA and the Company's own claims
process, acknowledged that Nutex had engaged HaloMD to assist in
the IDR process, and discussed two of the three recent lawsuits
filed against HaloMD, noting that the Company had not been named as
a Defendant. As such, Nutex's filing did not in fact meaningfully
rebut any of the allegations contained in the Blue Orca Report.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com. [GN]

OILCREEK GENERAL: Hamel Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oilcreek General
Partner LLC, et al. The case is styled as Isaac Hamel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oilcreek General
Partner LLC, Oilcreek Oswego Program LP, Case No. 5:25-cv-00918-G
(W.D. Okla., Aug. 14, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Oilcreek General Partner, LLC -- https://oilcreekoswego.com/ --
specializes in carefully selected oil and gas development projects
across proven formations in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN PLLC
          201 W 74th St., Unit 8A
          New York, NY 10023
          Phone: (757) 509-3050

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Deal in Former Employee's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 has reached a settlement
in the class action filed by a former employee.

On July 29, 2024, a former employee filed a class action against
the Company in Imperial County, California alleging violations of
the California Labor Code, to act in a representative capacity for
other Ormat employees in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour regulations. The complaint was amended on
September 12, 2024 to add companion Private Attorneys General Act
claims. The complaint seeks recovery of various damages as well as
equitable relief. The parties attended a mediation in April 2025
and have reached a settlement in principle for an immaterial
amount, which is subject to approval by the Court.

OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL: Reaches $4.75MM Settlement in Rexulti Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that lawyers involved in a class-action
lawsuit over the drug Rexulti say a $4.75 million settlement has
been reached on behalf of patients and the estates and families of
those who were prescribed the drug.

The class action involved anyone in Canada who was prescribed the
drug between Feb. 16, 2017 and today and experienced compulsive
behaviours or impulse-control disorders such as compulsive
gambling, hypersexuality, compulsive spending and shopping or
binge-eating.

Rexulti is a antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia
and depression.

A notice made public by Toronto law firm Rochon Genova says Quebec
Superior Court has not made any determination on the merits of the
claims and the settlement is a compromise of disputed claims
without any admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part of the
defendants.

Quebec Superior Court authorized the national class action in 2024
against the manufacturers.

Lawyers will be before the court in Montreal on Oct. 31, 2025 for a
settlement approval hearing.[GN]

OTTER.AI INC: Brewer Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BREWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OTTER.AI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-06911 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and
California's Comprehensive Computer Data and Fraud Access Act.

According to the complaint, Otter has developed and provides to the
public an artificial intelligence-powered meeting assistant called
Otter Notetaker. Otter Notetaker engages in real-time transcription
of Google Meet, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams meetings for Otter
accountholders and other users. By virtue of providing the Otter
Notetaker service, however, Otter also records, accesses, and
records the contents of private conversations between Otter
accountholders who use the Otter Notetaker and meeting participants
who do not subscribe to Otter's services.

Otter does not obtain prior consent, express or otherwise, of
persons who attend meetings where the Otter Notetaker is enabled,
prior to Otter recording, accessing, reading, and learning the
contents of conversations between Otter accountholders and other
meeting participants. Moreover, Otter completely fails to disclose
to those who do set up Otter to run on virtual meetings, but who
are recorded by the Otter Notetaker, that their conversations are
being used to train Otter Notetaker's automatic speech recognition
and machine learning models, and in turn, to financially benefit
Otter's business, says the suit.

Otter.AI, Inc. provides software solutions. The Company offers
proprietary technology that gives people the power to store,
search, share, and analyze their voice conversations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Jared W. Connors, Esq.
          Ryne E. Tipton, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON WERNING CO., LPA
          305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                 jconnors@meyerwilson.com
                 rtipton@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Brian Levin, Esq.
          Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq.
          LEVIN LAW, P.A.
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B
          Miami, Florida 33133
          Telephone (305) 539-0593
          Email: brian@levinlawpa.com
                 brandon@levinlawpa.com

               - and -

          Jacob Polin, Esq.
          LEVIN LAW, P.A.
          344 20th Street
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (305) 402-9050
          Email: jacob@levinlawpa.com

PUBMATIC INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
PubMatic, Inc. (NASDAQ: PUBM) securities between February 27, 2025
and August 11, 2025. PubMatic is a technology company that enables
real time programmatic advertising transactions for advertisers,
agencies, and demand side platforms ("DSPs").

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
PubMatic, Inc. (PUBM) Misled Investors Regarding its Business
Prospects

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose (1) that a top DSP buyer was shifting a
significant number of clients to a new platform which evaluated
inventory differently, and (2) that, as a result, PubMatic was
seeing a reduction in ad spend and revenue from this top DSP
buyer.

The complaint alleges that on August 11, 2025, PubMatic released
its second quarter 2025 financial results, noting that the
Company's outlook reflects "a reduction in ad spend from one of
[its] top DSP partners." The Company's Chief Executive Officer,
Rajeev Goel, further revealed that a "top DSP buyer" had "shifted a
significant number of clients to a new platform that evaluates
inventory differently" causing significant headwinds. Goel stated,
in response to the inventory valuation change, the Company would
"need to do a better job . . . to prioritize across all the
hundreds of billions of daily ad impressions that we have, which
subset of those impressions that we send to this DSP." On this
news, PubMatic's stock price fell $2.23, or 21.1%, to close at
$8.34 per share on August 12, 2025.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against PubMatic, Inc.
Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must
submit their papers to the court by October 20, 2025. The lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to
participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. 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. [GN]

QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Suit Over Preservatives in Cereal Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims that Life cereal is falsely advertised as
free of artificial preservatives given it contains tocopherols.

According to the 18-page lawsuit, although the Quaker Oats' Life
cereal products are represented as containing "no artificial
preservatives," this is false and misleading given the presence of
tocopherols, which are defined as artificial chemical preservatives
by the FDA.

Tocopherols are antioxidant preservatives, meaning they help slow
"oxidative deterioration" over the course of the product's shelf
life, the lawsuit relays. While tocopherols can occur naturally,
the complaint claims that the kinds found in Life cereals are
commercially and synthetically produced by the refining of crude
vegetable oil or chemical synthesis.

While the lawsuit acknowledges that Quaker Oats' intention in
adding the tocopherols may include vitamin content or other health
reasons, they are still categorized as chemical preservatives,
which the suit claims is of greater importance than the "subjective
intent" behind their use in the cereal.

The complaint claims that the "no artificial preservatives"
representation on Life cereal boxes capitalizes on the growing
demand for "natural" food products from health-conscious shoppers,
as the majority of American consumers associate a lack of additives
and artificial preservatives with greater health value and are
willing to pay more for products they view as healthy.

The lawsuit alleges that the inclusion of a chemical preservative
in Life cereal, regardless of the intent behind its use, renders
the claim of "no artificial preservatives" false and deceptive to
reasonable consumers, who paid a premium based on the
representation.

The Life cereal class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased a
Life cereal product or other Quaker Oats product that was
advertised as containing "no artificial preservatives" despite
containing tocopherols. [GN]

RADIANT LINEN: Arias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radiant Linen
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Arias, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Radiant Linen Services,
LLC, Case No. 25STCV24069 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug.
14, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Radiant Linen Services -- https://radiantservices.com/ -- is
Southern California's premier full-service laundry and dry cleaning
facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Phone: 310-432-0000
          Fax: 310-432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

RECOLOGY INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Recology has
agreed to pay a $700,000 settlement to resolve a class action
lawsuit that alleged that negligent cybersecurity on the part of
the California-based waste management company resulted in a data
breach discovered in November 2023.

The court-authorized website for the Recology data breach
settlement can be found at RecologyDataSettlement.com.

The deal covers a class of 37,554 people who received notice from
Recology or its authorized representative that their personal
information was potentially exposed to unauthorized third parties
as a result of the Recology data breach, which occurred on or
around November 2, 2023.

To receive a Recology settlement payment, eligible class members
must file a valid claim form online or by mail by October 1, 2025.

Consumers can submit a Recology settlement claim form online on
this page. Online submission requires a unique ID and PIN, which
can be found on the personalized settlement notice issued about the
deal.

Class members who prefer to file by mail may download a PDF claim
form or contact the settlement administrator to request a paper
copy.

According to the Recology class action settlement website,
consumers who submit a timely, valid claim form will receive
reimbursement of up to $2,000 per person for documented
out-of-pocket expenses that were incurred as a result of the data
breach and have not been reimbursed by a third party. The website
says that examples of out-of-pocket expenses include postage,
copying, scanning, faxing, mileage and other travel-related costs;
bank fees; phone or data charges; credit monitoring costs; attorney
or accountant fees; and other miscellaneous expenditures.

Alternatively, class members can forego the reimbursement benefit
in favor of a flat cash payout, the site shares. Court documents
state that individual payout amounts will depend on how many valid
claims are filed.

"For example, if 20% of all Class Members submit a claim for this
benefit, the amount of the Alternative Cash Payment could be in the
range of $50-$60 per claim but may be higher or lower depending on
the number of valid claims submitted and other factors," the
website relays.

Recology settlement payments may be reduced or increased on a pro
rata basis to exhaust the $700,000 fund, the settlement agreement
notes.

As part of the deal, the company has agreed to take measures to
better secure its computer environment in response to the incident,
the website adds.

The Recology class action settlement received preliminary approval
from the court on June 17, 2025. It is now up to the court to
decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at
a hearing on October 16, 2025.

Should the deal be ultimately approved, the agreement says, class
action settlement payments will be issued to eligible class members
within 45 days following the date it goes into effect.

The Recology lawsuit claimed that during the breach, certain files
were compromised that contained the personal information of
individuals with a current or former connection to the company or
its affiliates.

The data breach lawsuit asserted that the incident exposed
individuals' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
driver's license or state ID numbers, medical treatment or
diagnosis information and health insurance details. [GN]


SALTGRASS INC: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------
Erik Garcia, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
SALTGRASS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-03848 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 14, 2025),
is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical
barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility
Guidelines ("ADAAG").

The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer
and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the
Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint
are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of
the revisit is to be a return customer of Saltgrass Steakhouse, to
determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to
substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for
Advocacy Purposes.

The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase
services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but
does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to
access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public
accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing
barriers to access. As such, Plaintiff is dissuaded from returning
back to the Property as a customer until after the barriers to
access are removed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes.

SALTGRASS, INC. is a Texas company that transacts business in the
State of Texas and within this judicial district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq.
          THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L.
          7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Phone: (561) 807-7388
          Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com

SOUTHERN TIRE: Faces Mota Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAFET MOTA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN TIRE MART, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00110-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., August 12, 2025) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices.

This class action stems from the recent data breach involving
Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit
from the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members,
Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals
to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access
and intrusion.

In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information and give them timely, adequate notice
of the data breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to
negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.

Southern Tire Mart is a large commercial tire dealer and retread
manufacturer company with its principal place of business located
in Columbia, Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
  
          Gerald J. Diaz, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher P. Williams, Esq.
          James R. Segars, III, Esq.
          DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          208 Waterford Square, Suite 300
          Madison, MS 39110
          Telephone: (601) 607-3456
          Facsimile: (601) 607-3393
          E-mail: joey@diazlawfirm.com
                  chris@diazlawfirm.com
                  tripp@diazlawfirm.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pitsick-Perez Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Raymond Pitsick-Perez, on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public
v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 25CU036084C was
removed from the San Diego Superior Court of the State of
California, to the United States District Court for Southern
District of California on Aug. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-02079-DMS-BLM.

The Complaint asserts class claims for relief arising out of
Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. Plaintiff asserts class
claims for: failure to pay all straight time wages; knowing and
intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions under Labor Code; failure to pay all wages due at the
time of termination of employment under Labor Code; and violation
of unfair competition law under Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David E. Amaya, Esq.
          Andrew B. Dizon, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          Email: damaya@fisherphillips.com
                 adizon@fisherphillips.com

SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alex Lopez, Travell Woods, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of
America, Inc., Case No. 25STCV07961 was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 14, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01796 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Suzuki Motor USA, LLC -- https://suzuki.com/ -- is a distribution
company for the US market only, handling products which are
manufactured by Suzuki Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          David H. Marenberg, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Phone: (310) 586-7700
          Fax: (310) 586-7800
          Email: marenbergd@gtlaw.com

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing Extended to Jan. 30, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gibbs v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02209
(S.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez
entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to
continue :

-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
    certification is extended from Aug. 22, 2025, to Jan. 30,
    2026.

-- The deadline for the parties to raise a dispute concerning the

    discovery at issue is similarly extended to Jan. 30, 2026.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.

Swift is an American truckload motor shipping carrier.[CC]

TJ INSPECTION: FLSA Class in Cox Gets Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN COX, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TJ INSPECTION,
INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00187-G (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Charles
Goodwin entered an order conditionally certifying, under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), the putative Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
class of:

     "All individuals who claimed overtime in Farmer v. TJ
     Inspection, Inc. who have been denied work by TJ Inspection,
     Inc. for the purpose of facilitating notice of this
     retaliation case."

The Court approves the Amended Proposed Notice and related
documents, attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiff's reply,
subject to Plaintiff making the following revisions to the notice
prior to distribution:

TJ is a professional interior decorator.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xMDXuB at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


TOLEDO PUBLIC: Seeks Leave to File Counterclaim Instanter
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MUCHIARONE, v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND CARNEL
SMITH, Case No. 3:24-cv-01688-JRK (N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for leave to
file a counterclaim instanter based on new evidence with amended
counterclaim.

The Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff’s abuse of the public
forum arising from her incomplete and materially misleading filing,
which she admittedly and immediately used to induce media attention
to improperly influence the proceedings, have clearly caused and
are continuing to cause the Defendant Smith direct and palpable
damages. He is and will continue to incur legal fees, and to suffer
loss of reputation, emotional distress, distraction from his job
duties, suspicion and concern at his place of employment, as well
as public embarrassment.

On April 4, 2025, Carnel Smith filed a motion for leave to file a
Counterclaim Instanter, after the case management conference order
setting the deadline to amend the pleadings to Dec. 10, 2024.
On July 21, 2025, the Cout issued its memorandum opinion and order
denying Carnel Smith's motion.

Board of Education is the governing body for the Toledo Public
Schools (TPS) in Toledo, Ohio.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IftRFn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Norman A. Abood, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN A. ABOOD
          101 Broadcast Building
          136 North Huron Street
          Toledo, OH 43604-2304
          Telephone: (419) 724-3700
          Facsimile: (419) 724-3701
          E-mail: norman@nabood.com 


TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Partly Wins Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Court certifies the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):


    "All current and former California Bus Driver/Operator
    employees of Transdev Services, Inc. who drove routes with
    stops in California during the period from Feb. 27, 2019
    through the present ("Class Period")."

The Court appoints named Plaintiff Cherisha Lovejoy as class
representative and appoints Hewgill Cobb & Lockard, APC and
Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP to serve as class
counsel.

The Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion as to the
fifth and sixth causes of action. If so desired, Plaintiff may file
a renewed motion for class certification as
to those causes of action no later than Aug. 25, 2025.

The instant class action centers on allegations that Defendant
"systematically mistreat[ed] its employees in violation of
California's wage and hour laws."

Throughout the proposed class period, Defendant has used the
"HASTUS run cutting system" to generate route schedules called
"paddles."

Transdev is a private operator of multiple modes of public
transportation in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vGpAnD at no extra
charge.[CC] 


TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA: Babb Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York. The case is styled as Khamari
Babb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Case No.
1:25-cv-06745-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York --
https://secretary.columbia.edu/ -- operates as an educational
institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          ARNOLD LAW FIRM
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com

TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA: Nadeau Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York. The case is styled as Gabriela
Nadeau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Case
No. 1:25-cv-06720 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York --
https://secretary.columbia.edu/ -- operates as an educational
institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: Gary@lcllp.com

UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Unicycive
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:UNCY) securities between March 29, 2024
and June 27, 2025. Unicycive is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company that identifies, develops, and commercializes therapies to
address unmet medical needs in the U.S.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. (UNCY) Misled Investors Regarding the
Readiness of its Drug Prospect

According to the complaint, defendants touted the prospects of its
New Drug Application ("NDA") for oxylanthanum carbonate ("OLC") for
the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease
patients on dialysis and assured investors of the Company's
readiness and ability to satisfy the U.S. Drug and Food
Administration's ("FDA") manufacturing compliance requirements. The
complaint further alleges, however, that defendants failed to
disclose that Unicycive's readiness and ability to satisfy the
FDA's manufacturing compliance requirements was overstated.

On June 10, 2025, Unicycive announced that the FDA "had identified
deficiencies in cGMP [current good manufacturing practice]
compliance at a third-party manufacturing vendor"-specifically, a
third-party subcontractor of Unicycive's contract development and
manufacturing organization("CDMO")--" following an FDA inspection"
and that, "given the identified deficiencies, any label discussions
between the FDA and the Company are precluded." On this news, the
price of Unicycive's stock fell over 40%. Then, on June 30, 2025,
Unicycive announced that the FDA had issued a Complete Response
Letter for the OCL NDA, citing the previously identified cGMP
deficiencies at the third-party subcontractor of its CDMO. On this
news, Unicycive's stock fell almost 30%, to close at $4.77 per
share on June 30, 2025.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve
as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP before
the October 14, 2025, deadline to move for lead plaintiff. 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.

To be notified if a class action against Unicycive Therapeutics,
Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives
engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact:

     Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq.
     Robbins LLP
     5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
     San Diego, CA 92122
     adumas@robbinsllp.com
     (800) 350-6003
     www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SILEIRI DOE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12245-ADB
(D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
consisting of:

    "All individuals who (i) scheduled their appointments for
    entry to the United States using the CBP One app; (ii) were
    paroled into the United States between May 16, 2023 and Jan.
    19, 2025; (iii) had their parole terminated in April 2025; and

    (iv) remain in the United States."

The grounds for the Plaintiffs' motion are set forth in the
On Aug. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel provided Alex Haas and
Diane Kelleher, the Directors of the Federal Programs Branch of the
U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, and Rayford Farquhar,
Chief of Defensive Litigation in the Civil Division of the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts with a copy of
the Plaintiffs' complaint which contains the Plaintiffs' class
action allegations.

On Aug. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel asked the Defendants to
confer on the motion, but Counsel for the Plaintiffs have not yet
been informed of the Defendants' position on this motion.

Department of Homeland Security works to improve the security of
the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jw68ZV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melanie M. Chaput, Esq.
          Heather Arroyo, Esq.
          Iris Gomez, Esq.
          MASSACHUSETTS LAW REFORM
          INSTITUTE
          40 Court Street, Suite 700
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 357-0700
          Facsimile: (617) 357-0777
          E-mail: mchaput@mlri.org
                  harroyo@mlri.org
                  igomez@mlri.org

                - and -

          Brian D. Netter, Esq.
          Allyson R. Scher, Esq.
          Cortney Robinson Henderson, Esq.
          DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
          Washington, DC 20043
          Telephone: (202) 448-9090
          E-mail: bnetter@democracyforward.org
                  ascher@democracyforward.org
                  crhenderson@democracyforward.org

UNITED STATES: Valine ADA Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB VALINE, v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Case No. 1:25-cv-02352-JEB (D.D.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiff brings this action under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging the Defendant's
exclusionary conduct toward disabled youth seeking access to
federally funded vocational training through the Job Corps program.


The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals defined as:

    "All disabled youth eligible for Job Corps who have been
    denied placement, accommodations, or timely access by the
    United States Department of Labor."

The Defendant administers federal labor laws to guarantee workers'
rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PgzZaQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

          Jacob Valine
          5035 Shavano Drive
          Windsor, CO 80550
          Telephone: (970) 617-8650
 


USA DEBUSK: Filing for Class Cert. in Alexander Due July 2, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY ALEXANDER, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. USA DEBUSK LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00839-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin
entered an order setting class certification dates:

  The Deadline for the Defendant produce its 30(b)(6) witness for
  deposition: Feb. 27, 2026;

  Expert Disclosure exchange as to class certification issues:
  April 3, 2026;

  Motion for class certification filing deadline: July 2, 2026;

  Opposition to motion for class certification filing deadline:
  Aug. 10, 2026;

  Reply in support of motion for class certification filing
  deadline: Aug. 31, 2026; and

  Hearing re: motion for class certification: Sept. 22, 2026, or a

  date thereafter convenient for the Court.

USA DeBusk delivers specialty services for industrial turnarounds
and maintenance.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tr9I9Q at no extra
charge.[CC] 


VALLEY LIGHT CENTER: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Light Center
for Social Advancement, et al. The case is styled as Irma
Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated employee v. Valley Light Center for Social Advancement,
Ingrid Dominguez, Janice Dykstra, Sheryl Newman, Case No.
25STCV23921 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 13, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Valley Light Center -- https://www.valleylightctr.org/ -- empowers
developmentally disabled adults through employment, social
opportunities, and contract services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Orion S. Robinson, Esq.
          ROBINSON DILANDO A PLC
          801 S Grand Ave., Ste. 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633
          Phone: 213-229-0100
          Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com

VASSAR COLLEGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 18, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graham et al, v. Vassar
College, Case No. 7:23-cv-07692-CS-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Victoria Reznik entered an order granting the parties' request to
extend class certification deadlines as follows.

                 Event                            Deadline

  Substantial completion of parties'           Dec. 18, 2025
  document productions:

  The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class             June 18, 2026
  Certification, together with any class
  expert reports:

  The Defendant's Opposition to Class          August 20, 2026
  Certification, together with any class
  expert reports:

  The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of          October 22, 2026
  Class Certification, together with any
  rebuttal expert reports:

Vassar is a private liberal arts college in Poughkeepsie, New
York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e2cuzc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michelle A. Lamy, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maria Papasevastos, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2323 Ross Ave. Suite 1660
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 608-6700
          Facsimile: (713) 225-2340

VILLAGRANA LOGISTICS: Maalouf Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Elie Maalouf, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VILLAGRANA LOGISTICS, INC., a
California corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2025CUOE036978 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District
Court for Central District of California on Aug. 14, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07625.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime;
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage
statement violations; and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
          Eva M. Nofri, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1.213.612.2501
          Email: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
                 eva.nofri@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due Oct. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEREDITH FAW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VILLANOVA
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03897-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Cynthia M. Rufe entered an amended scheduling order  as follows:

  1. All motions for class certification, summary judgment, or the

     exclusion of experts shall be filed on or before Oct. 15,
     2025. Judge Rufe's Policies and Procedures for Summary
     Judgment will not apply in this case.

  2. Any opposition briefs to such motions shall be filed on or
     before Dec. 1, 2025.

  3. Any reply briefs shall be filed on or before Dec. 22, 2025.

Villanova is a private Catholic research university.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6dMwUp at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


WASCO NURSERY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WASCO NURSERY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09584 (N.D. Ill., August 12, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.wasconursery.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.

The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 3, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for products, but encountered barriers
that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to
purchase a houseplant from the Defendant's online store.
Unfortunately, he was unable to complete this purchase due to the
inaccessibility of 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.

Wasco Nursery, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of
houseplants, garden plants, and landscaping supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

WBY INC: Awards of Attorneys' Fees in FLSA Action Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the appeal styled LATOYA BECTON, LATISHA BLAKE, SHANETRIA
CAMERON, DONJANAE GRANT, SHELDON HAILEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus WBY, INC., a.k.a. Follies, STEVEN
YOUNGELSON, SURREY WHITE, Defendants-Appellants, No. 24-11362 (11th
Cir.), Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robert J. Luck and Stanley Marcus
of the United State Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the awards of attorneys' fees by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the FLSA
action.

In February 2016, WBY filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In
September 2016, 47 Follies entertainers and waitresses, represented
by J&W and Dudley, moved the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic
stay entered pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 to file an FLSA action
in federal district court. On Oct. 7, 2016, the bankruptcy court
granted the movants relief from the automatic stay.

On Oct. 24, 2016, WBY proposed a Plan of Reorganization in the
Follies Bankruptcy, with proposed payments to creditors. The Plan
sorted claims and equity interests, offering all FLSA claimants a
settlement with Follies (but not White or Youngelson) equal to 10%
of their proof of claims; claimants who declined the 10% fell in
Class C, while those who accepted it were in Class D. Once the
bankruptcy court approved the Plan, thirty Class D claimants
accepted the offer and began receiving their 10%.

On Oct. 26, 2016, LaToya Becton and several others from Follies
filed suit under the FLSA against WBY, White and Youngelson in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
In the complaint -- which the defendants repeatedly moved to
dismiss and was amended a few times -- the Becton plaintiffs sought
wages in "an amount to be determined at trial," liquidated damages
in an equal amount, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 14, 2018, a different plaintiff, Soraya Barker, filed suit
against WBY, White and Youngelson in the same district court.
Twenty-nine then-current and former Follies entertainers and
waitresses opted into the Barker case.

In 2023, the parties in Becton and Barker reached agreement on the
terms of a settlement of the FLSA claims. In the Becton settlement,
12 Class C plaintiffs received $236,078 and 30 Class D plaintiffs
received $153,450, plus 10% of their proof of claim from the
Follies Bankruptcy, for a total of $701,213. In Barker, the
plaintiffs settled for $624,962 in total. In both settlements, the
parties agreed the recovery amount was fair and reasonable, despite
incomplete wage records that had made it difficult to determine
damages since the plaintiffs had been deemed independent
contractors.

The parties proceeded to litigating attorneys' fees. In Becton, the
district court awarded fees on behalf of plaintiffs represented by
Dudley and J&W. The fees covered time counsel spent pursuing and
preserving plaintiffs' FLSA claims in both the district and
bankruptcy courts, where Dudley served as employment counsel and
J&W served as bankruptcy counsel. The district court awarded
$689,850 in fees to Dudley. As for J&W, the district court decided
to change course from a fee decision it had made in a related case
-- Smith v. WBY, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-4017-MLB (N.D. Ga.), in
which J&W represented two other creditors in the Follies Bankruptcy
-- and held that it should have awarded J&W all its fees for that
work. Thereafter, the district court awarded $433,422.73 in fees
for services rendered by J&W in Becton.

In Barker, the district court awarded fees to Dudley and J&W for
representing Barker in the Follies Bankruptcy; to Dudley, J&W and
Flynn for representing Barker in district court; and to Dudley and
Flynn for representing the 29 opt-in plaintiffs in district court.
In total, the court awarded $359,700 in fees to Dudley and $100,640
in fees to Flynn. As for J&W, the court declined to award the
"Global Class C Fee Request" since it had already done so in
Becton, in order to avoid a double recovery. For the remaining work
in Barker, the court awarded $22,442.50 to J&W.

The defendants appealed the attorneys' fee awards in both Becton
and Barker. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated the two cases on
appeal.

On appeal, the defendants argue that the district court abused its
discretion in:

   (1) failing to lower the lodestar amount based on the
plaintiffs' partial success in the underlying actions; and
   (2) finding that the hours plaintiffs' counsel claimed were
reasonable for the lodestar calculation.

According to the Circuit Judges, "As we see it, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in awarding the lodestar fee in Becton
and Barker. Not only is the lodestar 'strongly presumed' to be
reasonable, but the defendants have not shown that it was
inappropriate. As for the defendants' argument that the lodestar
should have been reduced because the plaintiffs did not recover the
full amount they requested, their pleadings did not request a
particular amount. In fact, the difficulty of determining what
plaintiffs sought or would have sought in these cases was
complicated by the absence of reliable wage records, so wages were
estimated by the parties at the settlement stage. With these
uncertainties, we cannot say the district court abused its
discretion in declining to reduce the lodestar amount based on the
plaintiffs' success."

They add, "Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in
recognizing an inherent value in enforcing the FLSA. Because
Congress made attorneys' fees a required part of a prevailing FLSA
plaintiff's relief and because the defendants here agreed the
plaintiffs were entitled to fees, the plaintiffs' victory -- and
the district court's recognition of their counsel's hard work --
must mean something. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in declining to lower the lodestar amount."

The record in this case reflects that the district court began by
carefully reviewing the plaintiffs' attorneys' billing records and
the hours assigned to each task. The district court found that
Dudley's, Flynn's and J&W's time records provided "detailed"
descriptions of the work they performed. Where the defendants took
issue with particular line items, the district court addressed each
in turn. Several objections questioned why particular tasks were
important to the litigation. For each objection, the district court
explained why the work was necessary to the litigation, oftentimes
because it protected the plaintiffs' ability to collect damages or
to secure attorneys' fees, which the district court considered an
integral part of the merit of FLSA cases and part of the relief
sought therein. The Eleventh Circuit finds the district court did
not abuse its discretion in finding this time to be necessary or
reasonable.

The panel holds, "We are satisfied that the district court
carefully resolved each of the defendants' cognizable objections to
the billing records. Where the court spoke broadly, the defendants'
objections were overly broad. We cannot say the district court
abused its considerable discretion in parsing the time entries or
the defendants' objections to them. Accordingly, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in calculating the time component of
the attorneys' fees awards, and we affirm."

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 22, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YnGhqa

                        About WBY Inc.

Incorporated on Jan. 29, 1991, WBY, Inc., d/b/a Follies, is located
at 4075 Buford Highway, Atlanta, in DeKalb County, Georgia and
licensed by the City of Chamblee as a bar and restaurant with adult
entertainment.  In addition to food and beverages, Debtor provides
the adult entertainment of nude dancing by professional female
entertainers.  The Debtor is owned equally by two of its original
founders, Steven M. Youngelson and Surrey R. White.

The Debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. N.D.
Ga. Case No. 16-52291) on Feb. 5, 2016, disclosing under $1 million
in both assets and liabilities.  The Debtor is represented by
Edward F. Danowitz Jr., Esq., at Danowitz & Associates, PC.

No official committee of unsecured creditors has been appointed in
the case.

The court confirmed the Debtor's Chapter 11 plan of reorganization
on Dec. 22, 2016.


WELLNOW URGENT: Underpays Clinic Shift Leads, Smith Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER SMITH, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WELLNOW URGENT CARE, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00255 (W.D. Pa., August 12, 2025) is a class and collective
action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant
under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

According to the complaint, WellNow's meal deduction policy,
rounding policy, unpaid travel policy, and bonus pay scheme
violates PMWA by failing to compensate Smith and the other Hourly
Employees at rates of at least one and a half times their regular
rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.  

Additionally, its meal deduction policy, rounding policy, unpaid
travel policy, and bonus pay scheme violate the Pennsylvania WPCL
by depriving Smith and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages,
including overtime wages, on their regular paydays and/or following
the termination of their employment, says the suit.

Plaintiff Smith worked for WellNow as a clinic shift lead from
approximately November 2021 until December 2024, in Olean, New York
until 2022 and based out of Bradford, Pennsylvania from 2022 until
December 2024.

WellNow Urgent Care, P.C. provides urgent medical care, telehealth
and occupational medicine services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          William F. Goodrich, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, PC
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
                  bill@goodrichandgeist.com

WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Antitrust Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Superior Court of Quebec
stayed the Caustic Soda antitrust class suit awaiting final
certification decision.

Beginning in October 2020, similar class action proceedings were
also filed in Canada before the Superior Court of Quebec as well as
before the Federal Court. These proceedings seek the certification
or authorization of a class action on behalf of all residents of
Canada who purchased caustic soda (including, in one of the cases,
those who merely purchased products containing caustic soda) from
October 1, 2015 through the present or such date deemed appropriate
by the court.

In December 2021, the Superior Court of Quebec stayed its
proceedings until after a final certification decision is released
in the Federal Court proceedings.

At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if
any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's consolidated
financial statements either in the current period or in future
periods.

Westlake is a vertically-integrated global manufacturer and
marketer of performance and essential materials and housing and
infrastructure products for diverse consumer and industrial
markets, including residential construction, flexible and rigid
packaging, automotive products, healthcare products, water
treatment, wind turbines, coatings as well as other durable and
non-durable goods.

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Appeals Denied Motion to Modify Class Definition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion to modify the class definition on the
basis of arbitration agreements in the lawsuit entitled William
Rushing, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law,
California's Unfair Practices Law. The complaint alleges that the
Defendants do not adhere to industry practice, standards, or
instruction from the Federal Trade Commission concerning their
calculation of textile's thread count.

On Sept. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge William H. Orrick granted for a class of California
purchasers of the Defendants' bedding products, but denied as to
their request to certify a nationwide injunctive relief class on
Feb. 21, 2024.

On May 9, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration.

On Aug. 18, 2025, Judge Orrick denied the Defendants' motion to
modify the class definition on the basis of arbitration
agreements.

The Court concludes that Williams-Sonoma, Inc. has not met its
burden to establish what a consumer would have seen regarding
disclosure of WSI's Terms & Conditions when using each of the WSI
brands' websites or through one or more apps on a mobile device,
nor has it shown that the T&Cs were visually conspicuous. For each
reason independently, WSI's motion to modify the class definition
is denied.

The appellate case is entitled Rushing, et al. v. Williams-Sonoma,
Inc., et al., Case No. 25-5252, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 19, 2025.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 25,
2025;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 29, 2025; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 29, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees WILLIAM RUSHING, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

         Amber L. Eck, Esq.
         HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
         225 Broadway, Suite 2050
         San Diego, CA 92101

                - and -

         Robert B. Carey, Esq.
         Leonard Wayne Aragon, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
         11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85003

Defendants-Appellants WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., et al. are represented
by:

         P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
         350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071

                - and -

         Robert J. Guite, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
         4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111

                - and -

         Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
         333 S. Hope Street, Suite 1600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071

                - and -

         Alyssa Sones, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
         1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
         Los Angeles, CA 90067

WILSON ELECTRIC: Andrews Seeks to Redefine Certified Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Andrews, et al., v.
Wilson Electric Services Corp., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00995-DJH
(D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order grant
their motion for reconsideration and redefining the certified Class
as:

    "All participants and beneficiaries of the Wilson Electric
    Services Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan since the
    date that is six years prior to the filing of this action."

Wilson provides electrical contracting services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2njMWQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
          Steven J. Eiden, Esq.
          ENGSTROM LEE LLC
          323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 305-8349
          Facsimile: (612) 677-3050
          E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com
                  cengstrom@engstromlee.com
                  cgokey@engstromlee.com
                  seiden@engstromlee.com

                - and -

          Mark L. Heaney, Esq.
          HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050
          Minnetonka, MN 55305
          Telephone: (952) 933-9655
          Facsimile: (952) 487-0189
          E-mail: mark@heaneylaw.com

X CORP: Agrees to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit Over 2022 Layoffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will McCurdy of PCMag reports that Elon Musk's X has agreed to
settle with thousands of former employees who sued the company
after they were dismissed following Musk's 2022 takeover.

The company, then known as Twitter, laid off almost 60% of its
employees after Musk's acquisition, affecting nearly the entire
content moderation and communications teams.

Employees sued, alleging that 6,000 former Twitter employees were
owed $500 million or more in collective severance pay. Courtney
McMillian, the company's former Head of People Experience, and
Ronald Cooper, a former operations manager, claimed that X failed
to adequately inform staff about changes to their severance plan
and did not adhere to the plan that was in place before Musk bought
Twitter.

The case was dismissed in July 2024, but the judge left the door
open for McMillian to file another, amended suit. That suit was
scheduled to go before a federal appellate court next month,
according to Bloomberg Law.

Employees were originally promised two months of base pay, with an
additional week for every year they had been at the company,
according to the filing. However, the lawsuit alleged that
employees, in many cases, received only one month's pay.

This isn't the end of X's employment disputes. In 2024, some of
Twitter's former top brass, including CEO Parag Agrawal, Chief
Financial Officer Ned Segal, Chief Legal Counsel Vijaya Gadde, and
General Counsel Sean Edgett, filed a separate lawsuit claiming they
were owed more than $128 million in unpaid severance.

The platform also faces the threat of a criminal investigation in
France for alleged "organized interference," as well as a lawsuit
alleging X was negligent in its handling of child sexual abuse
material (CSAM) and slow-walked its response to reports. [GN]

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Trial in "Carlson" Set for Feb. 2026
----------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association, disclosed in a Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a trial is
set for February 2026 in the putative class action styled Carlson
v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A.

Carlson v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A. is a putative class action
case pending in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California.
Plaintiff has asserted violations of California law for alleged
non-payment of certain work-related expenses incurred by company
employees. Plaintiff has also initiated a related action under the
California Private Attorneys General Act. The putative class action
is in the discovery phase, with trial set for February 2026.


                            *********

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 ***