250829.mbx

250829.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 29, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 173 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Armstrong Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Bruner Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Butterfield Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Dickinson Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Gelormino Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Hamel Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Hollander Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Hollaway Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Holmes Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Hook Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Huguenin Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Johnson Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Jones Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Kautz Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Ko Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Lavoie Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Lopez Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Martinez Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Morisette Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Nelson Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Osborne Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Pasch Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Smalley Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Ventresca Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Wilde Files Suit in D. South Carolina 530 FOOD: Gallardo Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Loses Class Certification Bid ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Masry Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Masry Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal ACADIA LAPLACE: Hamm Seeks Leave to File Opposition Reply AEROTECH INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Amended to Nov. 12 AETNA INC: Filing for Class Cert in Kulwicki Due April 14, 2026 ALEX ADAMS: MH Bid for Class Certification Tossed ALLIANZ LIFE: Robinson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Chiu Files Renewed Class Cert Bid AMDOCS INC: Wolfe Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA AMERICAN EXPRESS: Schumann Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois AMETROS FINANCIAL: Class Cert Supplement Filing Due Feb. 18, 2026 AMPAC PAPER: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Initial Nod AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Ex-Employees Suits AMUSEMENTS OF AMERICA: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Siddiqui Suit Transferred to D. Maryland ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks Approval of Class Action Notice ANTHROPIC PBC: Court Junks Bid to Stay Further Proceedings APPLOVIN CORP: Continues to Defend Brownback Class Suit in Calif. APPLOVIN CORP: Continues to Defend Wayne County Employees Suit ASSOCIATED COURIERS: Faces Smith Suit Over Unpaid Overtime AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suit in NJ AZ TORRES: Faces Izelo Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Arizona BAJA CONSTRUCTION: Magana Suit Removed to N.D. California BANNER HEALTH: Kelly Seeks to Clarify Class Cert Filing Deadline BENTON HARBOR, MI: Braziel Suit Seeks Class Certification BERRY BROS: Jury Trial Set for Nov. 16 in Castillo Class Lawsuit BHP GROUP: Trial on Samarco Dam Failure Suit to Start Sept. 2025 BIG STAR: Fails to Properly Pay Drivers, Ramirez Says BIOGEN INC: Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines BLUE CROSS: Allowed to File Brief Under Seal BOAR'S HEAD: Class Action Settlement in Pompilio Gets Final Nod BOAR'S HEAD: Court Grants Final Approval of $3.1M Settlement BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 17, 2026 BOEING COMPANY: Leonard Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BOYNE USA: Partly Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Hornbeck BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Fact Discovery in Caughey Suit Due Dec. 15 BRINKER INT'L: Bid to Notify Members of Class Cert Outcome Tossed BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Order Entered in Torres BUSPATROL AMERICA: Court Extends Time to File Reply C3.AI INC: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors CABINETS TO GO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Rodriguez Class Suit Tossed CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Madatovian Suit Removed to C.D. California CANYON BICYCLES: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAPITAL ONE: Fact Discovery Cut-Off in Shah Extended to Nov. 7 CAPITAL ONE: Hoard Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses CAPITAL ONE: Strange Suit Removed to D. Maryland CAREERIST INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid CAREERIST INC: Wright Seeks More Time to File Class Certification CARLSBAD UNIFIED: Court Continues ENE and CMC CARVANA CO: Must Disclose Confidential Witness Identities CARVANA COMPANY: Joint Discovery Bid Partly OK'd CASSAVA SCIENCES: Common Stock Purchaser Class Wins Certification CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: $2.97MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod CELEBRITY CASINOS: Trahan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Cardero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime CHW GROUP: Court Bifurcates Discovery in Consumer Protection Case CIVITAS RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Lin Securities Class Suit CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Hershkowitz Files Suit in E.D. Missouri CLARK COUNTY, IL: Must File Joint Status Report by August 29 CLEAN CONTROL: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Nov. 18 CLOUDSPOTTER TECHNOLOGIES: Hooks Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CMRE FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Certification Due June 26, 2026 CMS-NY/PA LLC: Smalt Suit Seeks to Certify NYLL Class COINBASE GLOBAL: Brown Files Suit in S.D. New York COINBASE GLOBAL: Quito Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COLUMBIA RECYCLING: Amended Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sabedra Says COMELLA'S RESTAURANT: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMPASS GROUP: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMPASS MINERALS: Class Settlement Hearing Set November 18 CONNEX CREDIT: Esposito Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII CONNEX CREDIT: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Hedlund Says CONNEXION POINT: Conditional Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 30 CONOCOPHILLIPS: Federal Securities Class Suit Remains Pending CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainees Suit CORPORATE MANAGEMENT: Day Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CORTESE ENERGY: Geroulis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois COSMAX USA CORP: Lee Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CPA GLOBAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 30 CROCS INC: Continues to Defend Carretta & Shah Suits in Delaware CRUNCH LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Hawkins Set for July 17, 2026 CRUNCH LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Eloisa Due Oct. 23, 2026 CVS PHARMACY: Luis Suit Removed to C.D. California DBM GLOBAL: Ranson Files Suit in D. Arizona DC PORTFOLIO: Class Action Settlement in Burrows Gets final Nod DELTA AIR: Faces Meyer Suit Over Breach of Contract DIDI GLOBAL: Court OK's Chopra Class Certification Bid DIDI GLOBAL: Hechler Wins Class Certification Bid DIDI GLOBAL: Kucharski Wins Class Certification Bid DISH NETWORK: Appeal From Lingam Securities Suit Dismissal Pending DISH NETWORK: Brooks Seeks More Time to File Class Certification DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit in Colorado DISH NETWORK: Must Oppose Owen-Brooks Class Cert Bid by Sept. 24 DISH NETWORK: Parties in Jones 401(k) Litigation Fail to Settle DONALD TRUMP: Suspension of Grants at Issue Vacated in Thakur DOXIMITY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Reply Briefs DYNAMICS DEVELOPMENT: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EAST GATE: Mena Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks EATON CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 8, 2026 EDDIE BAUER: Parties in Clark Seek to Extend Class Cert Bid Filing EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Federal Securities Suit Deal Has Final OK EMIRATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend "Cline" Suit EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod EVENT TICKETS: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gershzon EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Vladimir Gusinsky Class Suit EXCEL FITNESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McBride Says EXPERT TEAM: Underpays Sewing Machine Operators, Lima Suit Alleges FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Kula Securities Class Suit in Cal. FAT BRANDS INC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination FCA US: Faces Vasser Suit Over Unfair Premium Billing Scheme FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sept. 4 Settlement Hearing in Data Breach Suit FIDELITY NATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend MOVEit Suit FINASTRA TECH: Parties in Kalabich Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FINASTRA TECH: Parties in Nyland Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FINASTRA TECH: Parties in West Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FINASTRA TECH: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FLO HEALTH: Files Renewed Bid for Judgement in Frasco Suit FLYWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend Hickman Securities Class Suit FOLEY CARRIER: Illegally Collects Website Users' Data, Heiting Says FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Conditional Class Cert. Filing Due Oct. 21 FOREST RIVER: Nelson Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal Granted FOREST RIVER: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Nelson FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson Seeks Class Certification FORTREA HOLDINGS: Continue to Defend Deslande Shareholder Suit FRED LOYA INSURANCE: Mendez Suit Removed to C.D. California FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Conditional Cert. Filing Due Dec. 12 G-STAR RAW: Dilanyan TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GEICO GENERAL: Bid to Modify Protective Order Partly OK'd GENERAL MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ginn Due Oct. 8 GEO GROUP: CMWA and TVPA Class Suit Trial Dates Stayed GEORGIA: Martinez Sues Over Enforcement of Child Support Order GLOBAL E-TRADING: Settlement Deal in Sihler Gets Prelim. Nod GOOGLE LLC: Kande Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GOOGLE LLC: Rodriguez Bid for Voluntary Dismissal OK'd GRACE KNUTSON: Robilliard Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Ogdon Class Suit Trial Date Still Not Set GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Smith and Wang Class Suit Discovery Ongoing GROCERY OUTLET: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit GROW SMART: Must Get Attorney in 30 Days After Counsel Exits GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Prelim. Approval of $24.75MM Settlement Sought HANESBRANDS INC: Settlement in Ransomware Suits Get Final Court OK HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits HEALTH CARE: Seeks Leave for Reconsideration of Three Orders HOGSALT: The Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages HOME DEPOT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Franklin Due August 27, 2026 HOSPITAL SISTERS: Brahm Suit Seeks Class Certification HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement IMPERIAL FIRE: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Bass IPSWITCH INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Pipes Suit J. CREW GROUP: Leyden Files Suit in D. Oregon JOYOUS PBC: Class Settlement in Doe Suit Gets Initial Nod KINNLS INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Legrier Suit Removed to S.D. New York KRAFT HEINZ: Paszek Seeks Confirmation of Class Cert Deadline KRISTI NOEM: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Sept. 16 LANDS' END: Faces Jones Suit Over Customers' Leaked Private Info LEAFFILTER NORTH: Court Dismisses Christian Class Suit LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wright Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE: Clay Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Narrows Claims in Badin Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert Reply Extended to Sept. 19 LIFE ADULT CARE: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Automatic Card Shufflers Suit LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Timothy Sornberger Class Suit LINEAGE INC: Continues to Defend St. Clair Securities Class Suit LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Richard Suit Removed to C.D. California LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER: Valine Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification LX HAUSYS: Torres Seeks Conditional Class Certification MAGGY LONDON: Sanchez Suit Removed to S.D. California MANHATTAN LASER SPA: Gibbons Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California MANPOWER OF LANSING: Harmon Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info MANPOWER OF LANSING: Middleton Sues Over Failure to Protect Info MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Camas MCDONALD'S CORP: Spada Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania MDL 2566: Bid for Sanctions Partly OK'd in Securities Suit MDL 2992: Bid to Stay Proceedings in Employment Class Suit Tossed MDL 3083: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Data Breach Suit MERCK SHARP: Court Extends Case Schedule in Baltimore Suit MITRA-9 BRANDS: Cheswick Files Suit in S.D. New York MONUMENT GRILL: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MUNCH ADDICT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walsh Suit Says NASCAR ENTERPRISES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Seeks to File Exhibit Under Seal NEBULA GENOMICS: Portillo Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts NEWS CORP: Antitrust Class Suit Settlement for Final Court OK NPAS SOLUTIONS: Fishman Class Action Closed NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Callahan NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Eyester NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Farrar NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Peel NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Salas NVIDIA CORPORATION: More Time for Class Cert Briefing Sought OBERON DISTRIBUTION: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OSMOSE UTILITIES: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. California PACIFIC GAS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Moon Due Oct. 16 PAVILION ASSISTED: Waters Seeks Notice for FLSA Employee Class PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit PENTAGON FEDERAL: Must Oppose Beyard Class Cert Bid by Sept. 2 PERRIGO CO: Oct. 2025 Conspiracy Suit Certification Hearing Set PF CALI: Filing of Class Cert Opposition Due Sept. 12 PHH MORTGAGE: Class Settlement in Munoz Suit Gets Initial Nod PHYNET DERMATOLOGY: Cunningham Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee PINNACLE WEST: Continues to Defend Nuclear Wage Class Suit PLY GEM: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Jameson Class Suit POSHMARK INC: Arnold Sues Over Data Privacy Violations PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dean Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Five Class Actions Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Giarrizzo Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Maggio Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris Suit Seeks Leave to File Reply PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Seeks to Strike Certain Exhibit PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Okeke PUBMATIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20 QUAKER OATS CO: Edwards Files Suit in S.D. New York QUIDELORTHO CORP: Continues to Defend Bristol County Class Suit QUIKAID INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid RALPH LAUREN: Bid to Transfer Venue Tossed RALPH LAUREN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Merrell Amended to Nov. 12 RALPH LAUREN: Filing for Class Cert. in Merrell Due Nov. 12 RALPH LAUREN: More Time for Class Cert Fact Discovery Sought RALPH LAUREN: Parties' Request to Continue Discovery Deadline Nixed RAWLINGS CO: Zakarian Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd RICHARD CHAREST: Court Temporarily Lifts Stay of JEL Case RIVERSIDE, CA: Riverside Seeks to Reset Class Cert Filing Deadline RIVIAN LLC: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ROBLOX CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Soucek Class Action ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey RXO INC: Standing Order Entered in Orr Class Action SALEM TOWNSHIP: Liddle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SAPPHIRE PERSONAL HOME: Hollen Sues Over Unpaid Wages SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces ELEVIDY's-Related Securities Class Suit SEE INC: Kaya Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan SELECTQUOTE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Coneo Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE: Peterson Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed SIGNET BUILDERS: Vanegas Bid for Leave to File SAC Tossed SIRIUS XM: Court Holds in Abeyance All Pending Bids SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Cogan Suit Gets Final Nod SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Kobor Suit Gets Final Nod SNAP INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20 SNAP INC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Black Suit SOLIANT HEALTH: Saenz Suit Removed to C.D. California SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klassen Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass STATE FARM: Wins Right to Keep Court Documents Sealed STELLAR HOSPITALITY: Fultz Sues Over Property Discrimination SUB-ZERO INC: Bids to Certify Collective Class Due July 31, 2026 SUMMIT APPAREL: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SUN ENERGY: Lawrence Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply Tossed SYMBIOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Traina Securities Class Suit SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 30 T-MOBILE USA: Burrise Suit Removed to C.D. California TARGET CORP: Class Cert Hearing in Montgomery Continued to Nov. 17 TARGET CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1, 2026 TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Penn Suit Removed to C.D. California TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend Ostrander Securities Class Suit TG3 ENTERPRISES: Powell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages THG BEAUTY: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TINDER INC: Continues to Defend Candelore State-Wide Class Suit TKO GROUP: Cirkunova Class Suit Trial Date Still Not Set TKO GROUP: Davis Class Suit Trial Not Yet Set TKO GROUP: Johnson Class Suit Trial Still Not Set TORRID LLC: Echeverria-Corzan Sues Over Data Privacy Violations TOTAL EVENT: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Misclassification TR TOOLS: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRAMONTINA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says TRIAGE LLC: Jaiyeola Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Stott Due June 1, 2026 UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd UNITED STATES: TPS Alliance Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd UPCIRCLE BEAUTY: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind USCIS: General Pretrial Management Order in Dan Suit Entered UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Chavez Suit Removed to C.D. California VECTOR SECURITY: Faces Wolf Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info VGW HOLDINGS: Operates Illegal Casino Website, Johnston Suit Claims VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Class Suit Settlement for Final Court OK WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. WALT DISNEY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 27, 2026 WARNER BROS: Bid to Dismiss NY Securities Suit Remains Pending WESTLAKE CORP: Continues to Defend Caustic Soda Antitrust Suit WEXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Response OK'd WM WHOLESALE: Bid to Certify Class in Hernandez Tossed ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ZR CONSULTING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faces 1,337 New Exposure Claims ********* 3M COMPANY: Armstrong Files Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Samuel Armstrong, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment Company; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema Inc.; BASF Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Incorporated; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; The Chemours Company LLC; Chubb Fire LTD; Clariant Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont de Nemours, Inc. (f/k/a DowDupont, Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex, LLC; Fire Service Plus, Inc.; Johnson Controls, Inc.; Kidde PLC, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; Raytheon Technologies Corporation; Ricochet Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Technologies, Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10818-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 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: Bruner Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Timothy Bruner, 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-10765-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Butterfield Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as William Butterfield, 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-10773-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Dickinson Files Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as William Dickinson, 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-10784-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Gelormino Files Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as James Gelormino, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company; AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Dupont De Nemours, Inc.; Dynax Corporation; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; The Chemours Company; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Tyco Fire Products LP; UTC Fire and Security Americas Corp, Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-11116-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 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 John Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9730 Fax: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Hamel Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Russell Hamel, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company; AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Dupont De Nemours, Inc.; Dynax Corporation; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; The Chemours Company; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Tyco Fire Products LP; UTC Fire and Security Americas Corp, Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-11118-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 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 John Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9730 Fax: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Hollander Files Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Harold Hollander, 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-10631-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: Hollaway Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Robert Hollaway, 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-10587-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Holmes Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard Edward Holmes, Jr., 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-10591-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1634 Fax: (512) 727-3432 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Hook Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Darrin Ryan Hook, 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-10660-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: Huguenin Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Theodore Huguenin, 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-10593-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Johnson Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Rodaryl Johnson, 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-10601-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Jones Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Latrish Jones, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment Company; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema Inc.; BASF Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Incorporated; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; The Chemours Company LLC; Chubb Fire LTD; Clariant Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont de Nemours, Inc. (f/k/a DowDupont, Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex, LLC; Fire Service Plus, Inc.; Johnson Controls, Inc.; Kidde PLC, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; Raytheon Technologies Corporation; Ricochet Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Technologies, Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10749-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 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: Kautz Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Jerri Kautz, 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-10623-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: Ko Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Gun Ko, 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-10650-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: Lavoie Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as James Lavoie, 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-10592-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: Lopez Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Maite Lopez, 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-10465-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: Martinez Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard E. Martinez, 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-10554-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: Morisette Files Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Michelle Morisette, 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-10481-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Nelson Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Lloyd Nelson, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corp; Corteva Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc., formerly known as: DowDuPont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10484-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: Osborne Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Jared Mitchell Osborne, 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-10489-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: Pasch Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Ronald Alan Pasch, 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-10478-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: Smalley Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Nadia Smalley, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company; AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Dupont De Nemours, Inc.; Dynax Corporation; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; The Chemours Company; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Tyco Fire Products LP; UTC Fire and Security Americas Corp, Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-11119-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 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 John Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9730 Fax: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Ventresca Files Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Thomas Ventresca, 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-10798-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Wilde Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Jeffrey Wilde, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company; AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Dupont De Nemours, Inc.; Dynax Corporation; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; The Chemours Company; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Tyco Fire Products LP; UTC Fire and Security Americas Corp, Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-11120-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 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 John Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9730 Fax: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 530 FOOD: Gallardo Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIDRO GALLARDO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. 530 FOOD CORP. d/b/a KEY FOOD, 2401 FOOD CORP. d/b/a KEY FOOD UWS, and TED Y PARK, Case No. 1:25-cv-00201-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice. Key Food is a supermarket chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9bYPdb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Loses Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order denying LeGrand's motion for class certification and granting Abbott's motion in limine. In sum, the Court concludes that LeGrand has met the requirements of Rule 23(a) but has not met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Therefore, class certification is not warranted. Ms. LeGrand brings this putative class action against Abbott Laboratories, alleging certain statements on the labels of Abbott's Ensure (TM) nutrition drinks are false and misleading. On Oct. 6, 2022, LeGrand filed the initial complaint in this matter, along with a co-plaintiff, Larissa Bates, who is a resident of New York that purchased Ensure Complete Nutrition Shakes in New York. On Jan. 23, 2025, LeGrand filed her instant Motion for Class Certification. LeGrand moves to certify the following class: "All persons who purchased Ensure Original Nutrition Shake, Ensure Plus Nutrition Shake, or Ensure Complete Nutrition Shake in the State of California from Oct. 6, 2018, to the time the Class is notified (the 'Class Period')." Abbott manufactures, markets, and distributes several different "nutrition" shakes and drinks under its Ensure brand. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YGj0ns at no extra charge.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Masry Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR MASRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-04348-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 25, 2026, will move the Court for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) that: This case is certified to proceed to the merits as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) on all causes of action set forth in Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint filed against the Defendant on behalf of the following Class: "All residents of California who, within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint (the "Class Period," which is Aug. 24, 2019 to the present), purchased Glucerna shakes labeled with the statement "help manage blood sugar" for personal use and not for resale." The Plaintiff Omar Masry be appointed as Class Representative. Shireen M. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify, and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Defendant labels and advertises its Glucerna shakes with a clear promise: they "help manage blood sugar." But the promise is false. Glucerna's key ingredient, the non-nutritive sweetener sucralose, does not help manage blood sugar. Instead, it impairs insulin response, exacerbates insulin resistance, and is associated with an increased risk of developing diabetes. The Plaintiff Omar Masry and Class members purchased Glucerna shakes in reliance on the uniform front-label claim and paid a premium for a product that does not deliver the promised benefit. Abbott is a multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eLRxfh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Masry Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR MASRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-04348-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to file under seal portions of his motion for class certification, portions of the declarations of Colin Weir and Dr. Sabyasachi Sen, and exhibits attached to the Declaration of Alan Gudino. These documents reference information that the Defendant has designated as confidential under the Protective Order. The Plaintiff states that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. However, the Plaintiff submits this request solely to comply with Civil L.R. 79-5 and the Protective Order and take no position on whether the Defendant satisfies the applicable standard for sealing this information. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3), the Defendant, as the designating party, must file a declaration within seven days establishing that the documents warrant sealing. Abbott is a multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0PrrFw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com ACADIA LAPLACE: Hamm Seeks Leave to File Opposition Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, and JOYE WILSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC, and OCHSNER-ACADIA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte motion for leave to file reply to the Defendants' second memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E5hlOc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. Daniel Centner, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC 935 Gravier St., Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 E-mail: JPeiffer@pwcklegal.com DCentner@pwcklegal.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com AEROTECH INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Amended to Nov. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schultz, et al, v. AEROTECH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00618 (W.D. Pa., Filed April 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an amended case management order as follows: -- Plaintiffs' Motion and Supporting Memorandum in Support of Class Certification is due by Nov. 12, 2025 -- Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification is due by Dec. 10, 2025. -- Plaintiffs' Reply, if any, is due Jan. 7, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.) Aerotech manufactures highly advanced linear planar and rotary air-bearing systems.[CC] AETNA INC: Filing for Class Cert in Kulwicki Due April 14, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KULWICKI, v. Aetna, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00229 (D. Conn., Filed Feb. 9, 2022), the Hon. Judge Vernon D. Oliver entered an order setting the following deadlines. Any party with a claim or counterclaim for damages shall serve a damages analysis on the other parties, in compliance with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), on or before Sept. 16, 2026. Any party required to serve a damages analysis shall serve an updated damages analysis on the other parties 14 days after the close of discovery. The Plaintiff will designate and disclose experts and reports pertinent to class certification by April 14, 2026. The Defendant will designate and disclose reports pertinent to class certification by June 16, 2026, or no later than 60 days from the date of Plaintiff's disclosure if Plaintiff discloses before April 14, 2026. The Plaintiff will disclose any rebuttal reports pertinent to class certification by August 5, 2026, or no later than 45 days from Defendant's disclosure if Defendant discloses before June 16, 2026. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification no later than April 14, 2026. The Defendant shall file its response in opposition no later than June 16, 2026, or no later than 60 days from the date of Plaintiff's motion if Plaintiff files before April 14, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file a reply in support no later than August 5, 2026 , or no later than 45 days from the date of Defendant's response if Defendant files its response before June 16, 2026. Depositions of such experts must be completed by October 21, 2026. Parties must designate all trial experts and provide the other parties with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof by November 19, 2026. Depositions of such experts must be completed by December 16, 2026. Any motion in limine or motion related to preclusion of an expert must be filed concurrently with the Joint Trial Memorandum. The parties shall take the first step to initiate any dispositive motion practice, including requesting a pre-filing conference for a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, according to the Honorable Vernon D. Oliver?s Pretrial Preferences by November 16, 2026. A joint status report of the parties shall be filed on or before September 16, 2026 . The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Aetna provides health care services.[CC] ALEX ADAMS: MH Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MH, KB, SG, AC, BM, individually, and G Doe, by and through her parents and next friends, JANE Doe and JOHN Doe, v. ALEX ADAMS, in his official capacity as the Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,; DR. MAGNI HAMSO, in her official capacity as the Medical Director of the Idaho Division of Medicaid and individually; and the IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00409-REP (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Raymond E. Patricco entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied; and 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental exhibits in support of motion for class certification is denied as moot. Because the referenced new evidence does not change the Court's consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for PI, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied. The Plaintiffs are transgender individuals -- they have gender identities that differ from their assigned sexes at birth. Each has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and their medical providers have recommended that they receive gender-affirming care as medically-necessary treatment. The Plaintiffs are also Idaho Medicaid beneficiaries. They bring this action to challenge Idaho Medicaid's original policy of denying gender-affirming care for transgender individuals seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQbyTi at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIANZ LIFE: Robinson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03251 (D. Minn., August 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information in connection with a data security event disclosed by Defendant in July 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the Data Breach in the future. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts and credit reports to guard against identity theft. As a result of Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate data security Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Robinson is a former policyholder of Defendant. In order to obtain that policy and Defendant's services, he was required to provide his PII to Defendant, including his name, address, date of birth, and SSN. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America is an insurance corporation with its principal place of business located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: mdesanto@bm.net AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Chiu Files Renewed Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CHIU, v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-11852-GC-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying her renewed motion for class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of: "All current and former Robbinsville fulfillment center hourly employees who, during at least one workweek from May 11, 2016, through the present, worked at least 40 hours according to the Defendant's timekeeping system, underwent a security screening, and clocked out exclusively using the pre-screening time clocks." The Plaintiff also asks the Court as follows: 1. Certifying class's claims set forth in Counts I of the Second Amended Complaint. 2. Appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC as class counsel and herself as class representative. Amazon.com.dedc retails auto parts. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2qkjmX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 AMDOCS INC: Wolfe Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMDOCS, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF AMDOCS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02186-K (N.D. Tex., August 13, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Amdocs, Inc. 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries, which include Amdocs, Inc. and the Investment Committee of Amdocs, Inc. and its members during the Class Period. The Plaintiff alleges that during the putative Class Period, Defendant, as a "fiduciary" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. Specifically, the Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Plan to be invested in the Prudential Guaranteed Income Fund. The Prudential GIF carried significantly more risk and provided a significantly lower rate of return than other comparable funds that Defendants could have made available to Plan participants. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of ERISA, says the suit. Plaintiff Wolfe participated in the Plan during her employment. She invested in the Prudential GIF in the Plan and allegedly suffered injury to her Plan account due to the significant underperformance of the Prudential GIF. Amdocs, Inc., a software and services provider, is the Plan sponsor and Plan administrator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. White, Esq. WARD + WHITE PLLC 114 1/2 E. Louisianna Street Suite 206 McKinney, TX 75069 Telephone: (469) 941-0040 E-mail: dwhite@wardwhitepllc.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Schumann Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Schumann, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY; and AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Successor by merger to American Express bank FSB, Case No. 2025CH06932 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County in Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09731. The Plaintiffs are purporting to represent a class of similarly situated all American Express National Bank customers since 2020 who allege to have been "improperly overcharged and pursued for charges that had been previously been charged off or otherwise forgiven based on allegations of fraud or mistake by the original vendor."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen J. Newman, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 980 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 213-439-9411 Email: snewman@steptoe.com - and - Michael A. O'Rourke, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-577-1239 Email: morourke@steptoe.com AMETROS FINANCIAL: Class Cert Supplement Filing Due Feb. 18, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA PAIN SPECIALISTS, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. AMETROS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00391-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's consent motion to stay hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The following deadlines shall pertain to the Class Certification Hearing in this matter: The Plaintiffs supplement to its class certification motion due: Feb. 18, 2026. The Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs class certification motion due: March 9, 2026. Class Certification Hearing date: March 19, 2026, at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom 2. Ametros provides medicare set-aside post-settlement administration services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7oAFSN at no extra charge.[CC] AMPAC PAPER: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEMY JACKSON, ROBERTO PEREZ, and RAYMUNDO GALLARDO, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, v. AMPAC PAPER, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-03120-NSR-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Judith McCarthy entered an order as follows: (1) The Court grants preliminary approval of the parties' settlement as set forth in the Agreement, and preliminarily finds the terms of the Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also approves the proposed Notices and Claim Form, and directs that they be distributed to the Class Members. (2) For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class described in the Agreement, comprised of: "all individuals who were employed by ProAmpac at any point as non-exempt, hourly converting department employees at its manufacturing facility located in Walden, New York from April 15, 2016 through July 31, 2024." The Settlement Class is comprised of the individuals identified in the document annexed to the Agreement. (3) The Court appoints Plaintiffs Noemy Jackson, Roberto Perez, and Raymundo Gallardo as representatives for the Settlement Class and appoints Robert McCreanor (Law Office of Robert D. McCreanor, P.L.L.C.) and Patricia Kakalec (Kakalec Law PLLC) as counsel for the Settlement Class. (4) The Court grants the parties' request to include all Class Members (excluding those who timely opt out) as Class Members subject to the terms of the Agreement. (5) The Court orders that a Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Nov. 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Judith C. McCarthy in Courtroom 421 at 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York, 10601. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will consider whether the Agreement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and rule on the motion for attorney's fees, costs, and additional payments to be submitted by the Plaintiffs. (6) The Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants ProAmpac LLC a/k/a ProAmpac and Ampac Holdco Inc. a/k/a ProAmpac with prejudice. Ampac is a paper manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OcIKHo at no extra charge.[CC] AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Ex-Employees Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, 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 lawsuits filed by former employees in California. "On April 15, 2024, a former employee initiated an employment litigation against Amphastar and IMS by filing a complaint, as amended, having individual and class action claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, wage and hour, and other state laws. This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking damages and related remedies under California Law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code. In November 2024, the court ordered the plaintiff to dismiss the individual and class claims, with only the PAGA claim remaining. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the complaint. "On June 20, 2024, a former employee initiated an employment litigation against Amphastar, IMS and Roth Staffing Companies L.P. by filing a complaint having individual and class action claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to wage and hour, and other state laws. This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking damages and related remedies under California Law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the complaint," the Company stated. AMUSEMENTS OF AMERICA: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. AMUSEMENTS OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-06798 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://amusementsofamerica.com/aoa/index.asp, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. AMUSEMENTS OF AMERICA, operates the Amusements of America online retail store, as well as the Amusements of America interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Siddiqui Suit Transferred to D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Rubina Siddiqui, Jennifer Longwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anne Arundel Dermatology, PA., Case No. 1:25-cv-04197 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02703-GLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Anne Arundel Dermatology -- https://aadermatology.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Prince Frederick, MD that specializes in Physician Assistant (PA).[BN] ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks Approval of Class Action Notice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, ANDREA BARTZ, INC., CHARLES GRAEBER, KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, and MJ + KJ, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion for class notice and approving the Form of Notice as follows: The Plaintiffs propose the following schedule for class notice: Plaintiffs prepare and file a Sept. 1, 2025 comprehensive, per work list Direct notice sent on a rolling basis Sept. 1–26, 2025 Opt out deadline: Nov. 11, 2025 Administrator reports number of opt Nov. 17, 2025 outs to the Court The action arises from allegations that Anthropic engaged in large-scale copyright infringement by downloading and using copyrighted books from so-called "pirate" websites, including Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror. On July 17, 2025, this Court entered an order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court certified the following class (the "LibGen & PiLiMi Pirated Books Class"): "All beneficial or legal copyright owners of the exclusive right to reproduce copies of any book in the versions of LibGen or PiLiMi downloaded by Anthropic." "Book" refers to any work possessing an ISBN or ASIN which was registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work's publication and which was registered with the United States Copyright Office before being downloaded by Anthropic, or within three months of publication. Excluded are the directors, officers and employees of Anthropic, personnel of federal agencies, and district court personnel. The Defendant is an American artificial intelligence startup company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P4XJAR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin A. Nelson, Esq. Alejandra C. Salinas, Esq. Rohit D. Nath, Esq. Jordan W. Connors, Esq. J. Craig Smyser, Esq. Samir H. Doshi, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 - and - Rachel Geman, Esq. Jacob S. Miller, Esq. Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq. Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. Reilly T. Stoler, Esq. Jalle H. Dafa, Esq. Betsy A. Sugar, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 - and - Scott J. Sholder, Esq. CeCe M. Cole, Esq. COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP 60 Broad Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 974-7474 ANTHROPIC PBC: Court Junks Bid to Stay Further Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ and KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, individually, and ANDREA BARTZ, INC., CHARLES GRAEBER, and MJ + KJ, INC., individually and as representatives of the class, v. ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order denying motion to stay. Anthropic and plaintiffs' jointly proposed notice form and schedule remain due by noon on August 15, the proposed class list remains due noon September 1, and our trial date remains scheduled -- as it has been from the start -- to begin December 1. Anthropic wants immediate, "meaningful appellate review," skipping over the trial part altogether. In aid thereof, it also seeks an immediate stay of all further proceedings in the district court. A stay is denied. The case management order set deadlines for class certification and summary judgment motions, and a trial date of December 1, 2025. Anthropic asked for leave to file a summary judgment motion prior to class certification. Both motions were allowed to proceed in parallel, more or less. Both have now been granted in part. Anthropic is an American artificial intelligence startup company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JwQUfA at no extra charge.[CC] APPLOVIN CORP: Continues to Defend Brownback Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- AppLovin Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Brownback class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning in early March 2025, certain alleged stockholders filed putative class action complaints against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and/or Herald Chen asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeking unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On March 24, 2025, Ben Brownback filed the complaint against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and Herald Chen in the Northern District of California (the "Brownback Action"). The Securities Complaints allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding its advertising solutions and financial growth. The Securities Complaints allege a putative class period running from May 10, 2023 through March 26, 2025. The U.S. District Court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel in the Brownback Action and entered a scheduling order on the lead plaintiffs' anticipated amended complaint and the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the current scheduling order, the parties will file submissions in support of, and in opposition to, the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss through early February 2026. The Company believes that the allegations in the Securities Complaints lack merit and will vigorously contest this action. AppLovin Corporation develops technologies that help businesses of every size connect to their ideal customers. The company provides end-to-end software and AI solutions for businesses to reach, monetize, and grow their global audiences. [BN] APPLOVIN CORP: Continues to Defend Wayne County Employees Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- AppLovin Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Wayne County Employees class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning in early March 2025, certain alleged stockholders filed putative class action complaints against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and/or Herald Chen asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeking unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On April 17, 2025, the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System filed the complaint against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and Herald Chen in the Northern District of California. The Securities Complaints allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding its advertising solutions and financial growth. The Securities Complaints allege a putative class period running from May 10, 2023 through March 26, 2025 Pursuant to the current scheduling order, the parties will file submissions in support of, and in opposition to, the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss through early February 2026. The Company believes that the allegations in the Securities Complaints lack merit and will vigorously contest this action. AppLovin Corporation develops technologies that help businesses of every size connect to their ideal customers. The company provides end-to-end software and AI solutions for businesses to reach, monetize, and grow their global audiences. [BN] ASSOCIATED COURIERS: Faces Smith Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH L. SMITH, RAUSHANAH SMITH, and ERICK WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASSOCIATED COURIERS, LLC and MATTHEW SILVERBERG, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01224 (E.D. Mo., August 13, 2025) is an action to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees who were misclassified as independent contractors by the Defendants. During the relevant period, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs an overtime premium for their hours worked over forty in a given workweek. Instead, the Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors and paid them the same per-mile rate regardless of the hours they worked, says the suit. Plaintiff Smith was contracted by the Defendants to perform delivery services involving the transport of medical equipment between St. Louis, Missouri, and West Memphis, Arkansas since March 2025 to the present. Associated Couriers, LLC is a St. Louis, Missouri-based company specializing in the transportation of medical equipment and specimens.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 1951 Mignon Avenue Memphis, TN 38107 Telephone: (901) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com - and - Edward J. Rolwes, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 2333 South Hanley Road, S. 104 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 806-9626 Facsimile: (314) 472-0900 E-mail: erolwes@rolweslaw.com AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------ Automatic Data Processing 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 ERISA-related class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In May 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed against ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the ADP TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and investment decision-making. The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. The Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, with respect to this matter. The Company is vigorously defending against this lawsuit. Automatic Data Processing Inc. provides computer processing and data preparation services in New Jersey. AZ TORRES: Faces Izelo Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------- NADIA GARCIA IZELO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZ TORRES LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, and ADOLFO TORRES and JANE DOE TORRES, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03009-DJH (D. Ariz., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In or around 2018, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work for them as a server at the Tacos Calafia restaurant in Tolleson, Arizona. In or around 2021, the Defendants promoted the Plaintiff to work for them as a general manager. AZ Torres LLC is the owner and operator of a chain of Tacos Calafia restaurants with multiple locations in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com BAJA CONSTRUCTION: Magana Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan Magana, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. BAJA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 2025CUOE036978 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06889. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was Plaintiff's employer and is liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for the following: Violation of California Labor Codes and the Violation of California Business & Professions Codes for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal break premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq. Liam N. Gaarder-Feingold, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com Liam.Gaarderfeingold@jacksonlewis.com BANNER HEALTH: Kelly Seeks to Clarify Class Cert Filing Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT KELLY, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BANNER HEALTH, an Arizona corporation; BH CORPORATE OFFICE, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00920-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his ex parte application for clarifying the class certification filing deadline. Specifically, D.Law seeks confirmation that the current discovery stay issued in Judge Calabretta's July 3, 2025, order further vacated the current Aug. 29, 2025, class certification filing deadline. The application is filed on the grounds that the interests of the putative class will best be served by vacating the current class certification filing deadline. Because Plaintiff has significant health issues and has requested to no longer serve as the class representative in this action, the putative class needs a new representative. The instant action is a wage-and-hour class action, filed by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Defendant. On May 12, 2025, the Court granted the parties' joint motion approving procedures to allow class members the opportunity to opt out of disclosure of their contact information and subsequent disclosure of the non-opt-outs to Plaintiff. On June 25, 2025, the parties appeared at a discovery conference, class counsel advised the Court of their intent to seek leave to obtain a new class representative Banner is a non-profit health system in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l38us9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. Elizabeth Harrier, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: d.yeremian@d.law d.keledjian@d.law e.harrier@d.law BENTON HARBOR, MI: Braziel Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARETHA BRAZIEL, et al., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF BENTON HARBOR, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00960-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs will move under Rules 23(a), (b)(3), (b)(2), and (c)(4) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for an order certifying the following Classes: Class: "All persons who lived in Benton Harbor for at least 365 days from June 1, 2018 to June 30, 2021." The Plaintiffs also request that the Court enter an order: -- Appointing Plaintiffs Daretha Braziel, individually and as next friend for minors R.B., D.B., D.R.; Keesha Jones, individually and as next friend for minors K.J., D.J., T.C., T.M.C., and K.B.; -- Appointing Stacey Branscumb; and Emma Kinnard as class representatives to represent the Class; and -- Appointing Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Edwards & Jennings P.C., and Kershaw Talley Barlow as Class counsel. Benton Harbor is a city in Berrien County in the US state of Michigan. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yjvgeq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Annika K. Martin, Esq. Wilson Dunlavey, Esq. Wesley Dozier, Esq. Amelia A. Haselkorn, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201-2379 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com wdunlavey@lchb.com wdozier@lchb.com ahaselkorn@lchb.com - and - Alice B. Jennings, Esq. Carl R. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS & JENNINGS, P.C. 3031 West Grand Blvd., Suite 435 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 915-3475 Facsimile: (313) 961-5000 E-mail: ajennings@edwardsjennings.com cedwards@edwardsjennings.com - and - Stuart C. Talley, Esq. Jack R. Davis, Esq. KERSHAW TALLEY & BARLOW P.C. 401 Watt Ave. #1 Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 520-6639 E-mail: stuart@ktblegal.com jack@ktblegal.com BERRY BROS: Jury Trial Set for Nov. 16 in Castillo Class Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOISES CASTILLO, V. BERRY BROS GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-01723-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carol Whitehurst entered an order that the jury trial is set for Nov. 16, 2026, before Judge Cain in Lafayette. The pretrial conference is set for Oct. 28, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in chambers with Judge Cain. Oral argument on the forthcoming motion for class certification is set for April 16, 2026, before Judge Cain. The parties submit a joint proposed scheduling order within 10 days of this order. Berry offers oilfield and heavy industrial construction services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w3ULCq at no extra charge.[CC] BHP GROUP: Trial on Samarco Dam Failure Suit to Start Sept. 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BHP Group Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2025, that the Federal Court of Australia has scheduled the trial of the Samarco dam failure shareholder class suit trial to start in September 2025. BHP Group Limited is named as a defendant in a shareholder class action in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of persons who acquired shares on the ASX, JSE or LSE in BHP Group Limited or BHP Group Plc (now BHP Group (UK) Ltd) in periods prior to the Samarco dam failure. The amount of damages sought in the class action is unspecified. A trial is scheduled to commence in September 2025. BHP Group operates as a resource mining company. The Company focuses on minerals, metals, petroleum products, and oil and gas extraction and processing activities, as well as provides marketing services. BHP Group serves customers worldwide. BIG STAR: Fails to Properly Pay Drivers, Ramirez Says ----------------------------------------------------- Rommel A. Ramirez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Big Star Transit, LLC, Brookz321 Logistics LLC, and Kinte R. Brooks, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-01545 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 2025) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time driver from April 25, 2024 to July 03, 2025, or 62 weeks. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, and he was paid for all his hours at regular rate, but he was not paid for overtime hours as required by law, relates the complaint. Further, the Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly by direct deposits without accurate paystubs providing the wage rate paid, the number of days and hours worked during the week, the employee taxes withheld, etc., as required by law, says the suit. Big Star Transit and Brookz321 Logistics are transportation companies providing medical and paratransit transportation services in Orlando.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BIOGEN INC: Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADIA SHASH and AMJAD KHAN, Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, v. BIOGEN INC.; MICHEL VOUNATSOS; and ALFRED W. SANDROCK, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479-IT (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order that the deadlines for class certification briefing be extended as follows: The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification – from Aug. 22, 2025 to Sept. 10, 2025; The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification – from Oct. 10, 2025 to Oct. 29, 2025. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=388o1V at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: William J. Trach, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 948-6000 Facsimile: (617) 948-6001 E-mail: william.trach@lw.com BLUE CROSS: Allowed to File Brief Under Seal -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal the unredacted version of BCBSMT's brief in support of motion to reconsider class certification order on Rule 23(b)(2). Health is a customer-owned health insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BYMr5X at no extra charge.[CC] BOAR'S HEAD: Class Action Settlement in Pompilio Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sheryl Gatoff, and Robby Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-08220-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court re-affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sheryl Gatoff, and Robby Harper as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and finally appoints Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC, Levin Sedran & Berman, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Reese LLP, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Poulin Willey Anastapoulo, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Boar's manufactures and markets food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sqxEjE at no extra charge.[CC] BOAR'S HEAD: Court Grants Final Approval of $3.1M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sheryl Gatoff, and Robby Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-08220 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the class action settlement. Judge Halpern affirmed that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and 1367 and personal jurisdiction over the Parties. The Court affirmed its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certified, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class. The Court: -- appointed Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sheryl Gatoff, and Robby Harper as Class Representatives; and -- designated Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC, Levin Sedran & Berman, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Reese LLP, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Poulin Willey Anastapoulo as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. According to the Court, the notice requirements were satisfied as the publication of the Notice, Summary Notice, and Claim Form: (i) complied with the Preliminary Approval Order (ii) constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (iii) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated to apprise Settlement Class Members of the effect of the Settlement of the proposed Plan of Allocation. The Court found that the notice satisfied the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause). The Court noted that there have been no objections to the Settlement or any of its terms. The Court determined that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering that (a) the named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class (b) the proposal was negotiated at arm's-length between experienced counsel; (c) the relief provided for the Settlement Class is adequate. The Court also found that the proposed plan of allocation treats Settlement Class Members equitably relative to each other. Therefore, the court approved the settlement in all respects (including, without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the releases provided for in the Settlement Agreement; and the dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against Defendant) and shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement. According to the settlement "Each Settlement Class Member who did not opt out, whether or not such Settlement Class Member executed and delivered a Claim Form, is bound by this Judgment, including, without limitation, the release of claims as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. All Settlement Class Members who did not opt out are permanently barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members or otherwise in any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction based on the Released Claims. The Court retained jurisdiction as to all matters relating to administration, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment, and for any other necessary purpose. A copy of the Court's Proposed Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=88k406 for PacerMonitor.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 17, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waziri, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Fremont, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04166-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge TRINA L. THOMPSON entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Feb. 7, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Dec. 16, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: June 25, 2027 Class certification: Hearing: June 16, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Reply due: May 8, 2026 Response due: May 1, 2026 Motion to be filed by: April 17, 2026 Further status conference: Feb. 5, 2026, Boehringer is a construction services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FHb0iq at no extra charge.[CC] BOEING COMPANY: Leonard Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffery Leonard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 25-2-21153-3 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01551. The Complaint sets forth three causes of action – Employment Discrimination Based on Disability Disparate Treatment in Violation of Washington Law Against Discrimination ("WLAD"), RCW 49.60.180; Employment Discrimination Based on Disability Disparate Impact in Violation of the WLAD, RCW 49.60.180; and Retaliation in Violation of the WLAD RCW 49.60.210.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Toff, Esq. Carol Igoe, Esq. BREAD & ROSES LAW GROUP 5413 Meridian Ave N - Suite B Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: 206.705.3006 Email: steven@breadandroseslaw.com carol@breadandroseslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ryan P. Hammond, Esq. Madhura Panjini, Esq. Joshua B. Waxman, Esq. James C. Crowley, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: rhammond@littler.com mpanjini@littler.com jwaxman@littler.com jccrowley@littler.com BOYNE USA: Partly Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Hornbeck ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA HORNBECK, et al., v. BOYNE USA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00682-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an order that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Court further entered an order that: All of Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract in Count III of the amended complaint, insofar as that claim asserts Defendant withheld income from forfeited reservation deposits. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied as moot. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs shall have 14 days from the date of this order to file a new motion for class certification based on the remaining claim. Boyne owns and operates several resorts in northern Michigan, such as Boyne Mountain Resort, The Highlands at Harbor Springs, and the Inn at Bay Harbor. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GK7Swr at no extra charge.[CC] BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRUDY LOISEAU, QUINTON L. HEBRON, and DWAYNE SMALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOZZUTO'S INC., JAMES JONES, CHUCK CERRETA, and JOEL SANTIAGO, Case No. 3:22-cv-01485-JCH (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for class certification. -- With respect to the plaintiffs' disparate impact claims, the motion is granted with respect to the claims as they apply to the six-month performance review system and Bozzuto's Bid Policy. -- The motion is denied with respect to the plaintiffs' disparate impact claims as they apply to promotion policies. -- With respect to the plaintiffs' disparate treatment claims, the Motion is granted, again only with respect to a class of hourly warehouse associates. -- With respect to the plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims, the motion is denied. The court finds that, with regard to a class of hourly warehouse associates, common questions predominate over individual ones, and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating the controversy on the plaintiffs' disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the court certifies the foregoing claims with respect to a class of hourly warehouse associates. The court exercises its discretion to modify the class definition to the following: "All black, hourly warehouse associates employed in Bozzuto's warehouses, who have held the titles or positions of selector, forklift operator, checker, loader, clerk, slotter, support associate, cleaner, pallet auditor, wrapper, runner, between Nov. 21, 2018 and the date of class certification." Daniel Kotchen, Lindsey Grunert, and Kotchen & Low LLP are appointed class counsel on behalf of the revised class, with Nitor Egbarin serving as local counsel. The plaintiffs, who are black, bring claims under section 1981 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code ("section 1981"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Section 2000 of Title 42, et seq. ("Title VII"), alleging that Bozzuto's discriminates against black employees with respect to pay, work assignments, promotions, workplace discipline, and terminations, and that Bozzuto's subjects black employees to a hostile work environment. Bozzutos is a wholesale distributor of food and household products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QLDOMz at no extra charge.[CC] BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Fact Discovery in Caughey Suit Due Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATHEW CAUGHEY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, BRIDGECREST CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00264-DSC-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher B. Brown entered an amended case management order: 1. The parties shall complete fact discovery related to class certification by Dec. 15, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's expert report(s) related to class certification are due on or before Jan. 27, 2026. The Defendants' expert report(s) related to class certification are due on or before March 2, 2026. Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be completed on or before March 30, 2026. 3. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by April 29, 2026. Discovery is NOT stayed pending ADR. 4. Motions for class certification or for summary judgment shall be filed on or before April 29, 2026. 5. The Court will hold a mid-discovery video status conference on Nov. 19, 2025 at 11:00 AM. Bridgecrest is a licensed motor vehicle sales finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pahCB9 at no extra charge.[CC] BRINKER INT'L: Bid to Notify Members of Class Cert Outcome Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hale v. Brinker International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09978 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying Hale's request to notify the proposed class members of the outcome of the motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company. [CC] BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Order Entered in Torres --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Lazaro Torres, v. Bunzl Distribution Midcentral, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06210-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class certification: Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party’s/parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the 2 3 exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, (see infra at ¶ 5), or page and line number(s) of a deposition. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than thirty-five (35) days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. No later than seven (7) days after the meet and confer, the moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the opposing party an electronic copy of the moving party’s portion of the joint brief, together with the moving party’s portion of the evidentiary appendix. Bunzl wholesales and distributes food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ggNAaQ at no extra charge.[CC] BUSPATROL AMERICA: Court Extends Time to File Reply --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLMEA v. BUSPATROL AMERICA, LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-21036 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 5, 2025), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Civil Rights Violation. BusPatrol offers school bus stop-arm technology solution services.[CC] C3.AI INC: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI) securities between February 26, 2025 and August 8, 2025. C3.ai is a global artificial intelligence application software company. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that C3.ai, Inc. (AI) Misled Investors Regarding the Impact of its CEO's Health on its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose the impact the Chief Executive Officer's health was having on the Company's ability to close deals, that its management was unable or otherwise ineffectual in minimizing that impact, and that C3.ai would not be able to execute upon its profit and potential growth as a result. Plaintiff alleges that on August 8, 2025, C3 AI announced disappointing preliminary financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2026 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2026. The Company attributed its poor sales results and lowered guidance on "the reorganization with new leadership" and the health ailments of its Chief Executive Officer. On this news, the price of C3.ai common stock fell from $22.13 per share on August 8, 2025, to $16.47 per share on August 11, 2025, a decline of over 25%. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against C3.ai, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by October 21, 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. To be notified if a class action against C3.ai, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give a call at (800) 350-6003.[GN] CABINETS TO GO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cabinets To Go, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03250 (D. Minn., Aug. 13, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.cabinetstogo.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 cabinets and home improvement supplies for sale, including but not limited to, custom indoor and outdoor cabinets, countertops, vanities, closets, finishing materials 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 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Rodriguez Class Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (re: DATA BREACH SECURITY LITIGATION AGAINST CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.) Case No. 2:23-cv-01447-ART-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Anne Traum entered an order denying the Defendant's to dismiss. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental authorities. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have standing, and that the Plaintiffs have plausibly pled each of their claims. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. On Aug. 18, 2023, members of the cybercriminal group Scattered Spider gained access to Caesars' loyalty program database through a social engineering attack on Caesars' IT support company. On Sept. 7, 2023, Caesars' interval investigation confirmed that Scattered Spider had acquired, among other data, a copy of its loyalty program database including names, driver's license numbers, and social security numbers for "a significant number of Caesars Rewards’ tens of millions of members." The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the data breach, they have experienced "actual and attempted fraud and/or have been exposed to an increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and other misuse of their PII." The Plaintiffs filed the initial class action complaint in this case in September 2023. Caesars is one of the world’s largest lodging and gaming companies and considers itself a global leader in gaming and hospitality. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dkV0wB at no extra charge.[CC] CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Madatovian Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angela Madatovian, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY, Case No. 25STCV17372 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07650. In this putative class action under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and the False Advertising Law ("FAL"), plaintiff claims that Campbell's affirmatively misrepresented the nature and characteristics of certain of Campbell's Cape Cod branded products that bear the label statement "No Artificial Preservatives" and contain citric acid (the "Products").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Keri E. Borders, Esq. Rebecca B. Johns, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 W Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 443 4355 Facsimile: +1 213 443 4310 Email: dgiali@kslaw.com kborders@kslaw.com rjohns@kslaw.com CANYON BICYCLES: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CANYON BICYCLES USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06799 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.canyon.com/en-us/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. CANYON BICYCLES USA, INC., operates the Canyon online retail store, as well as the Canyon interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal CAPITAL ONE: Fact Discovery Cut-Off in Shah Extended to Nov. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shah, et al., v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order granting Sixth Extension Request as follows: Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 7, 2025 Opening Expert Reports: Nov. 21, 2025 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Dec. 12, 2025 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 9, 2025 The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Default. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Hoard Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 13, 2026, will move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(3), for an Order certifying the following Class and Subclasses: The Class: "All holders of a Capital One credit card who, from May 23, 2019, through the date of class certification, were charged Cash Advance Fees on P2P transactions made on Venmo, CashApp, PayPal, WorldRemit, Remitly, Wise, Xoom and MoneyGram." Venmo Subclass: "All holders of a Capital One credit card who, from May 23, 2019, through the date of class certification, were charged Cash Advance Fees on P2P transactions made on Venmo." CashApp Subclass: "All holders of a Capital One credit card who, from May 23, 2019, through the date of class certification, were charged Cash Advance Fees on P2P transactions made on CashApp." The Court also entered an order: 1. Appointing Plaintiffs Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty as Class Representatives; 2. Appointing Sophia G. Gold of KalielGold PLLC; Adam A. Schwartzbaum of Edelsberg Law, P.A.; and Edwin E. Elliott of Shamis & Gentile, P.A. should be appointed Class Counsel; 3. Granting such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dh6dh9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Ste. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Adam Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com CAPITAL ONE: Strange Suit Removed to D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lynn Strange, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. C-16-CV-25-003918 was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for District of Maryland on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02711-TDC. The Complaint is based on allegations that Defendant charged an annual interest rate higher than legally permitted. The Plaintiff alleges six causes of action: Count I – Declaratory Judgment; Count II – Violation of Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act; Count III – Violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act; Count IV – Money Had and Received; Count V – Negligence; and Count VI – Unjust Enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick J. Curran Jr., Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1301 K Street, NW, Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20005 Phone (202) 973-4200 Email: patcurran@dwt.com CAREERIST INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lawrence Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Careerist, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01059-JFS (M.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on a date to be determined by the court and set forth in any forthcoming case management order issued by this Court. Careerist provides software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZDO1AC at no extra charge.[CC] CAREERIST INC: Wright Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CAREERIST, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01059-JFS (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that his time to file his motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 23.3 for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, be enlarged and that the date for the filing of the motion be determined the Court after the conclusion of the initial case management conference held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and L.R. 16.1. Such an enlargement of time will allow the Court, in consultation with the parties, to determine whether any discovery will be required prior to class certification, will permit time for said discovery to be completed, and will allow for the briefing, argument, and decision of any case dispositive motions prior to requiring the parties and this Honorable Court to expend the time and resources necessary for the determination of class certification. In short, the Plaintiff's current request will ensure satisfaction of the twin goals judicial efficiency and judicial economy in this matter. The Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiff's requests for concurrence in his Motion to stay or otherwise enlarge the time for filing of his motion for class certification until after the Rule 16 conference in this matter occurs. On June 11, 2025, the Plaintiff commenced this civil action by filing his Class Action Complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Since the Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint, Defendant just recently answered on Aug. 13, 2025. The court has not yet scheduled the Initial Case Management Conference and no discovery has been exchanged. Careerist provides software solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RV584H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com CARLSBAD UNIFIED: Court Continues ENE and CMC --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.W., a minor, by and through her mother, NEKAIYA WILSON, v. CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Case No. 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Butcher entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE") and Case Management Conference ("CMC"). The Aug. 20, 2025 ENE is vacated and reset for Sept. 12, 2025 at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher. In the event the case does not settle during the ENE, the Court will hold a CMC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) immediately following the conclusion of the ENE. The following are mandatory guidelines for the parties preparing for the ENE. Absent express permission obtained from this Court, counsel must timely comply with the dates and deadlines herein. The parties are, therefore, ordered to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and proceed with the initial disclosure process in advance of the CMC as follows: a. Initial disclosures, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D), must occur on or before Sept. 5, 2025; and b. A Joint Discovery Plan must be filed on the CM/ECF system no later than Sept. 5, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CT46Xh at no extra charge.[CC] CARVANA CO: Must Disclose Confidential Witness Identities --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as United Association National Pension Fund, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Carvana Company, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz.), United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Parties' Joint Discovery Motion regarding 12 confidential witnesses cited in the Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Court ruled on discovery requests seeking the identities and factual statements of confidential witnesses ("CWs") referenced in Plaintiff's securities fraud complaint. The Plaintiffs cited "several former Carvana employees (confidential witnesses or CWs) who provided information demonstrating that Defendant's Class Period statements were false and misleading, that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity or misleading nature of their statements, and that Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors." Defendants argued the information sought was necessary to verify CWs' allegations," and that courts, including those in the Ninth Circuit, had consistently rejected such claims of work product. They characterized CW identities, statements, and documents as facts. Defendants noted that Plaintiffs' insistence that no CW evidence would be relied upon at class certification or trial was a convenient about-face that only highlights the need to test the veracity of the Complaint's CW allegations. Plaintiffs argued that the identities of those with whom counsel elected to speak as part of their investigation," including counsels' notes, memoranda, and communications regarding those conversations lie at the very heart of the work product doctrine as such materials reveal counsel's mental impressions, legal theories, and strategic decisions about which facts and witnesses are most important. They alleged Defendants intended to conduct an improper post hoc investigation into the sourcing of a complaint's allegations. The Court applied the work-product doctrine, which provides qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation. To qualify for work-product protection, documents must be "prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial" and be prepared by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative. The Court agreed with Defendants that CW identities are not work product—they are facts. The Court reasoned that CWs are witnesses whose information Plaintiffs relied upon to plead their claims. They have information relevant to Defendant's scienter, or lack thereof. Defendants are entitled to relevant, non-privileged information. The Court distinguished the case from Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am., noting that the discovery requests at issue here seek relevant facts, not counsels' assessment of their importance to the case. The Court found that the 12 CWs in this case certainly played a much larger role than the lone CW in Grae as CW allegations—hundreds of them—permeate the ACC." For Garcia Sr.'s Request for Production 8, which requested all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS reflecting any statements made by, or information provided by, any Confidential Witness pertaining in any way to GARCIA SENIOR, the Court applied a more nuanced approach. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to comply to the extent that it requests documents provided to counsel or their agents by CWs regarding Garcia Sr. However, the Court protected any documents generated by counsel in anticipation of or because of the litigation and communications between CWs and counsel or their agents to the extent they reflect or contain counsels' thoughts, impressions, opinions, ideas, or anything that could be said to convey any aspect of counsel's litigation strategy. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to comply with the Carvana Defendants' Interrogatory 4 and Garcia Sr.'s RFP 8, subject to limitations. The Court adopted protective measures from In re Bofi Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., including: 1. Any party may informally interview any confidential witness, but must inquire whether the witness is represented by counsel; 2. Defendants shall not question any confidential witness "about his or her participation in Plaintiffs' prefiling investigation; 3. Any confidential witness who has been deposed shall not be required to sit for further deposition without leave of this Court; 4. No party shall identify any confidential witness in publicly filed documents in this Action or related litigation; and 5. Any declaration from a confidential witness purporting to change, clarify or recant information in the Complaint shall be accompanied by a declaration from counsel confirming their compliance with this Order. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Joint Discovery Motion. The Court ordered that the terms of this Order apply to the parties, their counsel, and any other persons working under the parties' or counsel's direction and stated it may impose sanctions on any party or counsel who fails to comply with this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bl13iN from PacerMonitor.com. CARVANA COMPANY: Joint Discovery Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as United Association National Pension Fund, et al., v. Carvana Company, et al. (re Carvana Co Securities Litigation), Case No. 2:22-cv-02126-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John Boyle entered an order granting in part and denying in part the joint discovery motion. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Plaintiffs shall comply with the Carvana Defendants' Interrogatory 4, subject to the limitations as set forth in this Order. -- the Plaintiffs shall comply with Garcia Sr.'s RFP 8, subject to the limitations as set forth in this Order. -- the Court adopts certain limitations to the Defendants' inquiries into CW information as stated in In re Bofi Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 15-CV-2324-GPC-KSC, 2021 WL 3700749, at 8-9 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2021). -- Any party may informally interview any confidential witness. Carvana is an online used car retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JYCNV5 at no extra charge.[CC] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Common Stock Purchaser Class Wins Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification. 1. This action is certified to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class that is defined as follows: "All purchasers or acquirers of Cassava common stock or call options on Cassava common or sellers of put options on Cassava common stock ("Cassava Securities") between Sept. 14, 2020 and Oct. 12, 2023, inclusive." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their immediate families, the officers and directors of the Company and their immediate families, their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. 2. The Plaintiffs are appointed as Class Representatives pursuant to Rule 23(a). 3. Robbins Geller is appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). On Aug. 27, 2021, the Plaintiff Pierre Brazeau filed in this Court the first securities fraud class action against Cassava, which was followed by four more. On June 30, 2022, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Mohammad Bozorgi as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. Cassava is a small Austin, Texas-based clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in developing drugs for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UpEgQR at no extra charge.[CC] CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: $2.97MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ZIMMERMAN, et al., v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01124-JLS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order conditionally granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. Within five (5) days of the issuance of this Order, the parties shall submit an amended notice making clear that objections may be submitted via the Settlement website and that an e-signature is acceptable for all objections submitted. The proposed "Settlement Class" is defined as: "all Participants and Beneficiaries of the Current Participants of the Cedars-Sinai Health System 403(B) Retirement Plan from June 13, 2017, to April 1, 2025[] who did not serve as members of Cedars-Sinai or Cedars Sinai's Board of Directors and/or Committees." The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants will pay $2,970,000 to fund the Settlement. The Settlement proposes the following amounts for these various categories of payments: (1) attorneys' fees not to exceed one third of the fund, or $990,000, if approved by the Court at final approval; (2) litigation costs not to exceed $140,000, if approved at final approval; (3) Plan of Allocation fees not to exceed $1,500; (4) Independent Fiduciary costs not to exceed $25,000; and (5) service awards for the three proposed Class Representatives not to exceed $7,500 each, if approved by the Court at final approval. The parties also estimate settlement administration costs as $97,550 but note that such costs are subject to adjustment based on the Settlement Administrator’s receipt of the Class Member List. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on June 13, 2023. On Sept. 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Feb. 26, 2025, the parties represented that they had reached a settlement agreement. Cedars-Sinai is a non-profit, tertiary, 915-bed teaching hospital and multi-specialty academic health science center. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BgVzTL at no extra charge.[CC] CELEBRITY CASINOS: Trahan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Celebrity Casinos, Inc. The case is styled as Kennethia Mark Trahan, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Celebrity Casinos, Inc., Case No. 25STCV24346 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Celebrity Casinos, Inc. -- https://www.celebritycruises.com/ -- operates as a casino.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Cardero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Mauricio Cardero, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00928 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 15, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended ("FLSA"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period, the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Change Healthcare during the relevant time-period. Change Healthcare is a healthcare technology and service company acting as a clearing house for healthcare claims and provides analytical and software platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES 2901 Dobbs Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com CHW GROUP: Court Bifurcates Discovery in Consumer Protection Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jordan Cameron, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHW Group, Inc. a New Jersey corporation doing business as Choice Home Warranty, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00320-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted the Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Discovery in this putative class action. The court ordered that Defendant may conduct discovery focusing on Plaintiff's individual claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq. (TCPA), and this will be followed by class discovery. The parties' request for a scheduling conference to consider these issues was also granted, with the court resolving the disputed issues in a scheduling order entered contemporaneously with this decision. Plaintiff alleged Defendant violated the TCPA by calling Plaintiff and putative class members with solicitations despite having their phone numbers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Plaintiff alleged Defendant utilized a campaign to market its home warranty services through the use of unsolicited calls, pre-recorded text messages, and other deceptive practice in plain violation of the TCPA. The parties were unable to reach agreement on several issues during their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference: 1. Defendant requested discovery be bifurcated while Plaintiff opposed these requests. 2. Defendant wanted to limit each side to 5 depositions each while Plaintiff wanted to limit each side to 10 depositions each. 3. Defendant did not want to limit the number of requests for admissions while Plaintiff wanted to limit each side to 50 requests. 4. Defendant did not want to limit the number of requests for production while Plaintiff wanted to limit each side to 50 requests. 5. Plaintiff requested that the deadline to file a motion for class certification occur approximately one month after the fact discovery deadline while Defendant requested this court set the deadline for class certification to occur after the close of expert discovery. The court applied the four-factor test established in Klassen v. SolidQuote LLC for determining whether to bifurcate class discovery and a plaintiff's individual claims: 1. overlap between individual and class discovery. 2. Whether bifurcation will promote Fed. R. Civ. P. 23's requirement that certification be decided at 'an early practicable time. 3. Judicial economy. 4. Any prejudice likely to flow from the grant or denial of a stay of class discovery. The court noted that bifurcation under Rule 42 is not the norm or even a common occurrence. However, the court found that in the context of TCPA putative class actions, courts have bifurcated discovery and cited numerous cases from other circuits where courts recognized "the efficiencies of bifurcated discovery in TCPA class actions." First, the court found sufficient separation between class discovery and individual discovery to warrant bifurcation. The court stated: This includes discovery concerning whether Plaintiff consented to the calls, whether his particular number is registered on the National DNC Registry, whether Plaintiff is a residential telephone subscriber, and whether Plaintiff received telephone solicitations that fall within the TCPA. Second, regarding Rule 23's requirement for early certification, the court agreed with Defendant that Rule 23 requires certification be decided at an early practicable time not for the earliest practicable class certification as advanced by Plaintiff. The court found that limited discovery that may ultimately preclude costly class discovery serves Rule 1's purposes and there is nothing in limited individual focused discovery that prevents class certification at 'an early practicable time. Third, on judicial economy, the court found it is promoted by an efficient narrow focus on Plaintiff before proceeding to class discovery. If the case can be resolved on those narrow dispositive issues relevant to Plaintiff and his individual claims, the limited resources of the court will be preserved. Defendant argued that while bifurcated discovery may not be appropriate in all cases, it is appropriate here because this is not a routine merits versus class bifurcation request." Instead, Defendant's focus was on narrow issues that are unique to Plaintiff's individual TCPA claim (e.g., whether he consented, is a 'residential telephone subscriber,' received a 'telephone solicitation') for which no class discovery would be necessary for a short period before proceeding to broader discovery. The court was persuaded that "counsel here are of a sophisticated enough nature to not disintegrate into childish 'petty discovery fights over what constitutes merits discovery versus class discovery.'" The court found that judicial economy is promoted by an efficient narrow focus on Plaintiff before proceeding to class discovery. The court rejected Plaintiff's arguments against bifurcation, stating there is no request to stay discovery such as in Dillard, and Defendant's discovery requests that appear to be class-related do not amount to waiver. Moreover, the 'more than two years later' request to bifurcate discovery does not preclude such a request given what happened procedurally in this case and with the unfortunate passing of Judge Jenkins. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xGfwVl from pacermonitor.com CIVITAS RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Lin Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Civitas Resources 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 Lin securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On May 2, 2025, Jeremy Lin (the "Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Complaint"). The Complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons and entities other than the Defendants who acquired its securities between February 27, 2024 and February 24, 2025 and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to its business, operations and prospects, including its anticipated production volumes and financial condition in 2025. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims brought by the Plaintiff in this matter. Civitas is an independent exploration and production company focused on the acquisition, development, and production of crude oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico and the DJ Basin in Colorado. CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Hershkowitz Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Hershkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-01233 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Clarity Debt Resolution -- https://usclarity.com/ -- is an American based company that aims to help US consumers reduce their debt by negotiating with creditors to settle their debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxwell Cory Nelson, Esq. MCN LAW LLC 8600 W. 110th Street, Suite 214 Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: (913) 358-5800 Email: mcorynelson@mcnlawllc.com CLARK COUNTY, IL: Must File Joint Status Report by August 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herrera v. Clark County, IL. Case No. 3:24-cv-01137 (S.D., Ill., Filed April 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order that on or before August 29, 2025, the parties must file a joint status report indicating whether the issues underlying the Motion to Compel are resolved. In the status report, the parties shall also indicate if Plaintiffs seek an extension of time to file a Motion for Class Certification which is currently due on or before Sept. 1, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Clark is a county located in the southeastern part of U.S. state of Illinois, along the Indiana state line.[CC] CLEAN CONTROL: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Nov. 18 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CLEAN CONTROL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-01478-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered an order granting stipulation to modify scheduling order regarding class certification deadlines: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Nov. 18, 2025 for class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Defendant to file Dec. 2, 2025 opposition to class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply Dec. 16, 2025 in support of motion for class certification and any class certification rebuttal expert report: Class certification hearing: Jan. 16, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Clean is a manufacturer of high quality cleaning products, odor eliminators, disinfectants, sanitizers, deodorizers, and pet products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sjlkGT at no extra charge.[CC] CLOUDSPOTTER TECHNOLOGIES: Hooks Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Hooks, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLOUDSPOTTER TECHNOLOGIES INC. and NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2025CH07040 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09754. The Complaint was brought for statutory damages under the Biometric Information Protection Act ("BIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David A. Wheeler, Esq. Joshua A. Hanson, Esq. NEAL GERBER & EISENBERG, LLP 225 W. Randolph Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 269-8000 Email: dwheeler@nge.com jhanson@nge.com CMRE FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Certification Due June 26, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00152 (D. Or., Filed Jan. 28, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline to amend pleadings and add parties is Nov. 10, 2025. -- Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by Feb. 13, 2026. -- Rebuttal Expert deadline is March 13, 2026. -- Discovery is to be completed by April 24, 2026. -- Dispositive Motions, including Class Certification, are due by June 26, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). CMRE provides financial services.[CC] CMS-NY/PA LLC: Smalt Suit Seeks to Certify NYLL Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY SMALT, VICTORIA WALTER, and JACQUELINE GEIST, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CMS-NY/PA, LLC, CLIFFORD MILOWICKI, and KRISTEN MILOWICKI, Case No. 3:24-cv-01441-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order: 1. granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of collective and class action settlement; 2. certifying the NYLL Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and certifying the FLSA Collective pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act; 3. Appointing Stacy Smalt, Victoria Walter, and Jacquline Geist as representatives of the NYLL Class and FLSA Collective; 4. Appointing the Law Office of Matthew D. Carlson as Class and Collective Counsel; 5. Approving the Notice Packet and notice plan (including the process of opting out and objecting to the settlement) pertaining thereto as set forth in Settlement Agreement; 6. Appointing CAC Services Group, LLC as Settlement Administrator and directing the parties and the Settlement Administrator to proceed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; 7. Scheduling a Fairness Hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement Agreement, Class/Collective Counsel's request for Attorneys' fees and litigation costs, the Settlement Administrator’s fees and costs, and the Service Award to the Named Plaintiffs; and 8. Removing all other current deadlines and hearings from the calendar. copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JthYqm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON 3959 N. Buffalo Road, Suite 29 Orchard Park, NY 14127 Telephone: (716) 242-1234 E-mail: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Brown Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coinbase Global, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Zaal Panthakim, Alexander Crous, Adam McAfee, Paul Bender, Timothy Scheuber, Rachel Sullivan, Aaron Rahman, Matt Grove, John Ramo, Anthony Quito, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-62392-RS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Federal Trade Commission Act (Unfair or Deceptive Acts). Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 739-0622 Email: Israel.David@friedfrank.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Quito Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony Quito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00940 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06775-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brook Garberding, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BROOK GARBERDING PLLC 18005 53rd Ave., NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Phone: (206) 420-1950 - and - Patrick B. Reddy Paul Cipriani, Jr Timothy W Emery EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Ste. 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 - and - Michael Anderson Berry ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 The Defendants are represented by: Siddharth Velamoor, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2100 Pennsylvania Ave Nw Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 663-6447 COLUMBIA RECYCLING: Amended Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osvaldo de la Fuente and Victor Hugo Tapia Romero, v. Columbia Recycling Corp. and Gold Pond Corp.; and Total Employee Solution Support, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00256-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William Ray II entered an order preliminarily approving amended class action settlement, approving fair labor standards act settlement, and directing notice and other relief: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is granted. 2. All non-settlement related proceedings in this Action as to Defendants CRC and GPC are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. 3. This action may be maintained as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes on behalf of the following subclasses (the “Settlement Class”): FLSA Collective Action Subclass I: "All TN visa holders employed by one or more Defendant(s) who suffered underpayment of overtime at the rate of one-and-a- half times the regular rate of pay, including employer- provided transportation, housing, and non-discretionary bonuses." FLSA Collective Action Subclass II: "All TN visa holders employed by one or more Defendant(s) who suffered underpayment of overtime at the rate of one-and-a- half times the mandated regular rate of pay in Defendant Columbia Recycling Corp[oration]'s job offers." Rule 23 Class: "All individuals who, between Nov. 18, 2016, and the present, (1) received wages from Defendant CRC and/or Defendant GPC; and (2) were TN visa holders." 4. The Court finds for purposes of settlement only that the prerequisites to class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are preliminarily satisfied 5. Pursuant to Rule 23, a Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court at 11:00 a.m. on November 12, 2025, Columbia specializes in synthetic fiber extrusion and pelletization. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=890ClH at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sabedra Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN SABEDRA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY d/b/a COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06698 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which had in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. On June 24, 2025, Defendant "notified the community that a technical outage that disrupted certain university IT systems" and "determined that the outage was caused by an unauthorized party with the apparent intent to disrupt our systems." The Defendant also reported "indications that the unauthorized party stole data from our network." The Defendant notified affected individuals of the breach on or around August 7, 2025. The Defendant reported to the Maine Office of the Attorney General that 868,969 individuals were affected. According to the complaint, the data breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. Through this wrongful conduct, the sensitive PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members is now in the hands of cybercriminals, who target this sensitive data for its value to identity thieves. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) breach of implied contract; and (4) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York is a not-for profit, private educational institution with its principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 1830 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com jcshah@millershah.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law COMELLA'S RESTAURANT: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Faldonie, and others similarly situated v. COMELLA'S RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12273 (D. Mass., Aug. 14, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to make its website, Comellasrestaurants.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the website's development and maintenance. Because Defendant's website is not and has never been fully accessible, and because upon information and belief Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its website to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes the ADA and seeks prospective injunctive relief. This case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant through the Website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the Restaurants, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been legally blind and is therefore a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant specializes in restaurant services featuring classic Italian cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 716-281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law COMPASS GROUP: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compass Group USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tiffany Walker, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Eurest Services Inc., Case No. 25STCV24129 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Compass Group -- https://www.compass-group.com/en/index.html -- is one of the world's leading providers of food services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma Geesaman, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: e.geesaman@d.law COMPASS MINERALS: Class Settlement Hearing Set November 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the District of Kansas has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Compass Minerals International Inc. securities (NYSE: CMP): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case No: 24-cv-02165 JOHN VALENTINE and PAUL O'RENICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., KEVIN S. CRUTCHFIELD, EDWARD C. DOWLING, JR., LORIN CRENSHAW, JENNY HOOD and JAMES STANDEN, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL INC. ("COMPASS MINERALS") SECURITIES (PURCHASED COMMON STOCK, PURCHASED CALL OPTIONS, OR SOLD PUT OPTIONS) FROM FEBRUARY 8, 2023 THROUGH MARCH 26, 2024, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, that a hearing will be held on November 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. before the Honorable Eric F. Melgren, Chief United States District Judge of the District of Kansas, 500 State Avenue, Courtroom 427, Kansas City, KS 66101 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $4,900,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $55,000 and a service payment of no more than $17,500 in total to Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 30, 2025 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. If you purchased Compass Minerals securities (purchased common stock, purchased call options, or sold put options) during the period from February 8, 2023 through March 26, 2024, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Compass Minerals securities. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: Compass Minerals Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Notice and submit Claim Form online at www.strategicclaims.net/compass/. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form electronically or postmarked no later than October 7, 2025 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than October 7, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than October 21, 2025, by the Court, Lead Counsel and Defense Counsel. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Michael Cohen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 lrosen@rosenlegal.com mcohen@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: JULY 25, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS [GN] CONNEX CREDIT: Esposito Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly A. Esposito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONNEX CREDIT UNION, INC., Case No. NNH-CV25-6159300-S (Conn. Super. Ct., New Haven Cty., Aug. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly safeguard the PII that Defendant's customers entrusted to it as a condition of receiving services. On July 27, 2025, CCU became aware of a data security incident that first occurred on June 2, 2025, resulting in unauthorized access to certain personal information, maintained by CCU (the "Data Breach"). This Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of the personally identifiable information ("PII") Of Plaintiff and the Class Members, including name, date of birth, including debit card information, account numbers, Social Security number and/or other government ID used to open the individual's account. The Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained the PII of Plaintiff and putative Class Members, who are current/former customers of Defendant. On August 7, 2025, CCU began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its customers vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant. Connex is a financial services company in Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Scott S. Centrella, Esq. Chloe M. Mangan, Esq. DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP #102036 1010 Washington Boulevard, Suite 800 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 358-0800 Email: scentrella@dmoc.com cmangan@dmoc.com CONNEX CREDIT: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Hedlund Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCIS HEDLUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONNEX CREDIT UNION, INC., Defendant, Case No. _______ (Conn. Super., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between June 2, 2025, and June 3, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Connex Credit Union, Inc. is a state-chartered credit union with its principal place of business located in New Haven, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, PC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com CONNEXION POINT: Conditional Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYANN CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CONNEXION POINT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and INTEGRITY, LLC., f/k/a INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-TC-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Tena Campbell entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to for extension of time to file response. 1. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is due on Aug. 15, 2025. 2. The Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their motion for conditional certification is due on Sept. 17, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss and the motion for conditional certification will remain scheduled for Sept. 30, 2025, at 10:30 AM. Connexion develops and builds technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Snx9rY at no extra charge.[CC] CONOCOPHILLIPS: Federal Securities Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the federal securities class suit remains pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against Concho Resources Inc. (Concho), certain of Concho's officers, and ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as lead plaintiffs (Lead Plaintiffs). On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief that may be deemed appropriate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on March 8, 2022. On June 23, 2023, the court denied defendants' motion as to most defendants including Concho/ConocoPhillips. On April 7, 2025, the court certified a class. "We believe the allegations in the action are without merit and are vigorously defending this litigation," the Company said. CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainees Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Corecivic 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 lawsuit filed by ICE detainees. On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego, California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage laws. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees who participated in a VWP wherever the Company held ICE detainees in California. The Company has exhausted appeals of the class certification order. On May 6, 2024, the district court stayed the filing of dispositive motions on state law claims under California law pending the outcome of a related case being prosecuted by another private prison company. That case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The claims resulting in certified classes are proceeding in all other respects in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where the discovery process has commenced. A second California lawsuit concerning the VWP at OMDC has been stayed pending the outcome of class proceedings in the first California case described above. Due to the stage of the ongoing proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcomes, nor can it estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. As a result, the Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as losses are not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this stage of these lawsuits. CORPORATE MANAGEMENT: Day Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Josh Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a California Corporation; NUCONTEXT CREATIVE, INC., a California Corporation; ANGELA GUICE, an individual; ANTHONY LOW an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 2:25-cv-07574 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking relief under state and federal law on account of unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, damages, continuing wages, liquidated damages, penalties, restitution as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked and was paid in tardy fashion. The Plaintiff has never been paid a premium wage on account of the Defendants' failure to provide compliant rest breaks or meal periods. For his services during the work week ending August 20, 2022, as a crew member for the Production, the Defendants were required to pay him by the next week, on or before August 26, 2022. Although the Plaintiff should have been paid in full for his accrued wages, provided proper, uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks, and issued final wages no later than as required by Codes, and/or 204, wages remain unpaid in the full amount owing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a crew member on the Production during the industry standard work week of Sunday, August 14, 2022, to Saturday, August 20, 2022. CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, Inc. ("CMS") is a California Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale CA 91203 Phone: 323.962.3777 Fax: 323.962.3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com CORTESE ENERGY: Geroulis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cortese Energy Services, LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Geroulis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cortese Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09705 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Cortese Energy Company LLC -- https://cortesenergy.com/ -- is a residential and commercial solar energy contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com COSMAX USA CORP: Lee Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jongchan Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COSMAX USA CORP., HANHO CHOI, and JOOHAE LEE, individually and in their official capacities, Case No. 2:25-cv-14646 (D.N.J., Aug. 14, 2025), is brought against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); and for violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), and the New Jersey Wage Theft Act ("NJWTA"), (collectively, "the New Jersey Wage Laws") arising from Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and practices and to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory treble damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable relief. The Plaintiff routinely worked nine to eleven hours per day and frequently exceeded fifty hours per week, especially during month-end close and audit periods. The Plaintiff received no overtime pay for hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiff never signed the WH-58 and never cashed the check. Therefore he never waived any rights to pursue his claims under federal or state law. The Defendants have produced no written agreement and no mutual understanding with Plaintiff authorizing the fluctuating workweek method of calculating overtime. The federal computation undercalculated the overtime owed and did not account for full remedies available under New Jersey law. The Defendants' continued refusal to pay full wages after a federal back wage finding demonstrates willfulness and bad faith, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Cosmax from August 2022 through July 2024 with the title of Accounting Supervisor. Cosmax USA Corp., is a New Jersey corporation with principal offices at 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard Z. Myerowitz, Esq. SONG LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Kelby Street, Suite 1900 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 461-0031 Fax: (201) 461-0032 Email: hmyerowitz@songlawfirm.com CPA GLOBAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINCHILD SURGICAL DEVICES, LLC, a New York limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. CPA GLOBAL LIMITED a foreign entity formed under the laws of the Island of Jersey, Channel Islands, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. entered an order granting the Parties joint submission regarding the briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's class certification motion: Event Date The Plaintiff to advise the Defendant of Sept. 15, 2025 Proposed class definition and class period: Class certification motion filed: Sept. 30, 2025 Opposition to class certification motion: 30 days after motion filed Reply in support of class certification 14 days after motion: opposition filed The pre-trial conference scheduled for Aug. 27, 2025, is taken off calendar. CPA provides intellectual property (IP) and legal support services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4t0A4G at no extra charge.[CC] CROCS INC: Continues to Defend Carretta & Shah Suits in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crocs, 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 shareholders suits filed with the the District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 22, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit titled Carretta v. Crocs, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00096, was filed in the District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 3, 2022, and October 28, 2024, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to the Company's wholesaler inventory and its alleged impact on the Company's revenue. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, and other unspecified relief. On March 21, 2025, a second putative class action lawsuit titled Shah v. Crocs, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00356, was also filed in the District Court for the District of Delaware based on the same allegations as the Carretta complaint. Motions to consolidate the two actions are pending before the court. On April 22, 2025, the court entered the parties' stipulation in which they agreed to confer on deadlines to file the amended complaint and motion to dismiss after the lead plaintiff is appointed. Briefing for motions to appoint a lead plaintiff is complete, but a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed. CRUNCH LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Hawkins Set for July 17, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN HAWKINS ET AL, v. CRUNCH, LLC ET AL, Case No. 2:25-cv-05313-WLH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Dec. 15, 2025 Pleadings/Add Parties: Last Date to Hear Motion for Class July 17, 2026 Certification: Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 25, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 23, 2026 Crunch operates as a health club gym. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DKgH0n at no extra charge.[CC] CRUNCH LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Eloisa Due Oct. 23, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eloisa, v. Crunch LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03467-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a final case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Dec. 6, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Oct. 21, 2027 Class certification Hearing: Jan. 12, 2027 Reply due: Nov. 13, 2026 Opposition due: Nov. 6, 2026 Motion due: Oct. 23, 2026 Class certification expert discovery and Nov. 13, 2026 class certification discovery cut off: Crunch operates as a health club gym. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oJz5Xl at no extra charge.[CC] CVS PHARMACY: Luis Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cristian Luis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 25CV130566 was removed from the California Superior Court, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-06914-KAW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. CVS Pharmacy Inc. -- https://www.cvs.com/ -- distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig Wallace Straub, Esq. Zachary Miles Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: (424) 478-2076 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: David Philip Adams, Esq. J.T. Wells Blaxter, Esq. Brian R. Blackman, Esq. BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 500-7700 Email: dadams@blaxterlaw.com wblaxter@blaxterlaw.com bblackman@blaxterlaw.com DBM GLOBAL: Ranson Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DBM Global Incorporated. The case is styled as Timothy Ranson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DBM Global Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-02953-DLR (D. Ariz., Aug. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. DBM Global -- https://www.dbmglobal.com/ -- is a leading structural steel and industrial construction company that operates across commercial and industrial sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2704 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 610-5223 DC PORTFOLIO: Class Action Settlement in Burrows Gets final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BURROWS, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DC PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, and ABRAHAMSEN GINDEN, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00260-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stacey D. Adams entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and attorney's fees. The Settlement Class is certified in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) solely for purposes of the settlement. The Court finds that Plaintiff William Burrows, Jr. fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of the Settlement Class, and appoints him as class representative. The application for final approval of the settlement is granted and the parties are ordered to consummate the settlement according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in this Order. The Court acknowledges that no members of the Settlement Class have objected to the proposed award of $66,362.50 for Class counsel's attorney's fees and costs. The application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel in the amount of $66,362.50 is granted. The application for a service award to Named Plaintiff William Burrows, Jr. in the amount of $1750.00 in recognition of his efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, is granted. In the class action Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") in connection with collection lawsuits filed in New Jersey Superior Court. The Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on Oct. 28, 2023. The Settlement Class is defined as: "The 52 natural persons identified by Defendants, against whom, on or after Nov. 22, 2020, Abrahamsen Gindin filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of DC Portfolio Services where the complaint filed sought to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes which was described as arising from a "personal loan" when the alleged debt arose from a different type of consumer financial obligation." DC is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fox1bG at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA AIR: Faces Meyer Suit Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04608 (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendant's breach of its contractual obligations by providing the Plaintiff and similarly situated passengers with windowless seats. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members entered contracts with the Defendant that required it to provide "window" seats with actual windows in exchange for the additional consideration class members expended to obtain such seats. As a result of the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a commercial airline headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casey J. Olbrantz, Esq. Carter E. Greenbaum, Esq. GREENBAUM OLBRANTZ LLP 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite C221 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 818-0913 Email: casey@greenbaumolbrantz.com carter@greenbaumolbrantz.com DIDI GLOBAL: Court OK's Chopra Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jatin Chopra v. Didi Global Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05973 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for plaintiffs' claims under Securities Act of 1933 in Counts IV, V, and VI of the second amended complaint; and the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim in Count III, and the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim in Count I premised on a theory of scheme liability. The motion is denied in all other respects. The parties agree that the Securities Act claims should be certified and that the Non Scheme Exchange Act Claims should not be certified. The Court finds no clear error with these conclusions and thus accepts them. In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that DiDi made false or misleading statements in connection with its 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). With respect to the Scheme Liability Claims, plaintiffs allege that on July 2, 2021, DiDi's officers provided certificates to the IPO underwriters stating that no event having a material adverse effect on DiDi's business had occurred between the date of the underwriting agreement and the closing of the IPO. The Officer Certificates did not state that penalties issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") on July 2, including a ban on DiDi adding new users, would have a material adverse effect on DiDi's business. DiDi is engaged in the operation of mobility technology platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZOc0RP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Jing Chen, Esq. Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq. Robin Bronzaft Howald, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 75 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 - and - Gregory Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 - and - Scott Musoff, Esq. Robert Fumerton, Esq. Michael Griffin, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Manhattan West, 395 9th Avenue New York, NY 10001-8602 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 - and - Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. Abby F. Rudzin, Esq. Shane A. Hunt, Esq. William K. Pao, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 500 W 2nd St. Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (737) 261-860 - and - Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, Esq. Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 - and - Matthew S. Kahn, Esq. Michael D. Celio, Esq. Kevin J. White, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 33 S Grand Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90068 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 - and - Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. Andrew M. Kaufman, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad St New York City, NY 10004 Telephone Number: (212) 558-4000 - and - Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1200 Abernathy Road NE Building 600, Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 482-3502 Facsimile: (404) 681-8290 DIDI GLOBAL: Hechler Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hechler v. Didi Global Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07550 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for plaintiffs' claims under Securities Act of 1933 in Counts IV, V, and VI of the second amended complaint; and the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim in Count III, and the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim in Count I premised on a theory of scheme liability. The motion is denied in all other respects. The parties agree that the Securities Act claims should be certified and that the Non Scheme Exchange Act Claims should not be certified. The Court finds no clear error with these conclusions and thus accepts them. In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that DiDi made false or misleading statements in connection with its 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). With respect to the Scheme Liability Claims, plaintiffs allege that on July 2, 2021, DiDi's officers provided certificates to the IPO underwriters stating that no event having a material adverse effect on DiDi's business had occurred between the date of the underwriting agreement and the closing of the IPO. The Officer Certificates did not state that penalties issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") on July 2, including a ban on DiDi adding new users, would have a material adverse effect on DiDi's business. DiDi is engaged in the operation of mobility technology platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kdz1HG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Jing Chen, Esq. Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq. Robin Bronzaft Howald, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 75 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 - and - Gregory Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 - and - Scott Musoff, Esq. Robert Fumerton, Esq. Michael Griffin, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Manhattan West, 395 9th Avenue New York, NY 10001-8602 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 - and - Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. Abby F. Rudzin, Esq. Shane A. Hunt, Esq. William K. Pao, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 500 W 2nd St. Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (737) 261-860 - and - Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, Esq. Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 - and - Matthew S. Kahn, Esq. Michael D. Celio, Esq. Kevin J. White, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 33 S Grand Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90068 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 - and - Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. Andrew M. Kaufman, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad St New York City, NY 10004 Telephone Number: (212) 558-4000 - and - Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1200 Abernathy Road NE Building 600, Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 482-3502 Facsimile: (404) 681-8290 DIDI GLOBAL: Kucharski Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kucharski v. DiDi Global Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06603 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for plaintiffs' claims under Securities Act of 1933 in Counts IV, V, and VI of the second amended complaint; and the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim in Count III, and the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim in Count I premised on a theory of scheme liability. The motion is denied in all other respects. The parties agree that the Securities Act claims should be certified and that the Non Scheme Exchange Act Claims should not be certified. The Court finds no clear error with these conclusions and thus accepts them. In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that DiDi made false or misleading statements in connection with its 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). With respect to the Scheme Liability Claims, plaintiffs allege that on July 2, 2021, DiDi's officers provided certificates to the IPO underwriters stating that no event having a material adverse effect on DiDi's business had occurred between the date of the underwriting agreement and the closing of the IPO. The Officer Certificates did not state that penalties issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") on July 2, including a ban on DiDi adding new users, would have a material adverse effect on DiDi's business. DiDi is engaged in the operation of mobility technology platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GcDteS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Jing Chen, Esq. Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq. Robin Bronzaft Howald, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 75 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 - and - Gregory Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 - and - Scott Musoff, Esq. Robert Fumerton, Esq. Michael Griffin, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Manhattan West, 395 9th Avenue New York, NY 10001-8602 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 - and - Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. Abby F. Rudzin, Esq. Shane A. Hunt, Esq. William K. Pao, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 500 W 2nd St. Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (737) 261-860 - and - Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, Esq. Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 - and - Matthew S. Kahn, Esq. Michael D. Celio, Esq. Kevin J. White, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 33 S Grand Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90068 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 - and - Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. Andrew M. Kaufman, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad St New York City, NY 10004 Telephone Number: (212) 558-4000 - and - Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1200 Abernathy Road NE Building 600, Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 482-3502 Facsimile: (404) 681-8290 DISH NETWORK: Appeal From Lingam Securities Suit Dismissal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ DISH Network Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an appeal from the court order motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Lingam securities class action remains pending. "On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was filed against us and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023 class period. In general, the complaint alleged that DISH Network's public statements during that period were false and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that we allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer data and our operations were susceptible to widespread service outages. "In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed a First Amended Complaint that abandoned the original allegations. In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, during the class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G network build-out that prevented scaling and commercializing the network to obtain enterprise customers. The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S. Allen, our Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John Swieringa, our President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer; Dave Mayo, our former Executive Vice President of Network Development; Marc Rouanne, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting the same theory, on February 23, 2024. The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban and James Allen as individual defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on March 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion without granting plaintiffs permission to further amend. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and briefing is underway. "We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages," the Company said. DISH NETWORK: Brooks Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owen-Brooks v. DISH Network Corporation (re DISH Network Data Security Incident Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-01168-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension to file their motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' move this Court for an extension to the current class certification and related deadlines, as follows: a. The Plaintiffs shall move for class certification by Aug. 25, 2025. b. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 24, 2025. c. The Plaintiffs' reply in support shall be filed by Nov. 25, 2025. Dish is an American provider of satellite television and IPTV services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T5Qm92 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1090 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit in Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in the data breach suit filed with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. "On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16, 2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. On September 27, 2024, the Court granted DISH Network's motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to eight of the eleven named plaintiffs and as to certain causes of action. On October 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which deletes the allegations as to the dismissed plaintiffs and causes of action, leaving three named plaintiffs and causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment. "We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages," the Company stated. DISH NETWORK: Must Oppose Owen-Brooks Class Cert Bid by Sept. 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owen-Brooks v. DISH Network Corporation, Case No. (D. Colo., Filed May 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification. The deadlines in this matter are extended as follows: -- Motion for Class Certification due: Aug. 12, 2025 -- Opposition to Motion for Class Certification due: Sept. 24, 2025 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. DISH is an American provider of satellite television and IPTV services.[CC] DISH NETWORK: Parties in Jones 401(k) Litigation Fail to Settle --------------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the parties in the Jones 401(k) litigation failed to reach a settlement. "On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against us, our Board of Directors at that time, and our Retirement Plan Committee at that time alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan. The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained underperforming funds. On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted, and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion. As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds. On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation. On March 1, 2024, by stipulation, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Board of Directors and the Retirement Plan Committee, leaving DISH Network as the sole defendant. On April 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court certified the proposed plaintiff class. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the case was stayed from October 30, 2024 through May 29, 2025 to facilitate a mediation, but the parties did not reach a settlement. "We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages," the Company said. DONALD TRUMP: Suspension of Grants at Issue Vacated in Thakur ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEETA THAKUR, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order Re National Science Foundation's Suspension Of Grants: -- Pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction, the suspension of the grants at issue is vacated. -- NSF shall restore the affected members of the Form Termination Class to the status quo and reinstate the suspended grants. -- The parties shall file a joint status report by Aug. 19, 2025, confirming all steps to comply with the Preliminary Injunction have been completed by NSF or, in the event that has not occurred, an explanation of why it was not feasible and a description of the steps that have been taken thus far. On June 23, 2025, the Court provisionally certified a “Form Termination Class” and issued preliminary injunctive relief to that class based on their APA claims that the Agency Defendants’ grant terminations were arbitrary and capricious. The certified Form Termination Class consisted of: "All University of California researchers, including faculty, staff, academic appointees, and employees across the University of California system who are named as principal researchers, investigators, or project leaders on the grant applications for previously awarded research grants by the EPA, NSF, or NEH (or their sub-agencies) that are terminated by means of a form termination notice that does not provide a grant-specific explanation for the termination that states the reason for the change to the original award decision and considers the reliance interests at stake, from and after Jan. 20, 2025." Excluded from the class are Defendants, the judicial officer(s) assigned to this case, and their respective employees, staffs, and family members. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8EadcY at no extra charge.[CC] DOXIMITY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Doximity, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 19, 2025, shall move the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) for entry of an order: 1. Certifying a class of investors defined as: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Doximity, Inc. between June 24, 2021 and Aug. 8, 2023, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." 2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. Approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel. Doximity is an online networking service for medical professionals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Ar8H3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. Lauren M. Cruz, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Timothy G. Fleming, Esq. Matthew Arrow, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com timothy.fleming@blbglaw.com matthew.arrow@blbglaw.com - and - Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Reply Briefs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v. DYCK O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her replies in support of her motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment from Aug. 13, 2025 to Aug. 27, 2025. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Plaintiff requests a two week extension of time to file her reply briefs due to discovery deadlines in other matters, including multiple depositions. Additional time is also required to address novel issues raised by Defendant in its responses. The case is a putative class action alleging that the Defendant made nonconsensual, prerecorded-voice calls to the cell numbers of the Plaintiff and others, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On June 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment. On July 16, 2025, the Defendant filed its responses to the motions. Dyck operates as a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jltbgk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Ste. 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com - and - Larry P. Smith, Esq. David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 5250 Old Orchard Rd., Ste. 300 Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: (844) 424-7135 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com dmarco@smithmarco.com DYNAMICS DEVELOPMENT: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Sanchez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DYNAMICS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC., PRESTIGE DEVELOPMENTS SERVICES, INC., KEVIN MARTINEZ, and ANGELA MARTINEZ, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-06718 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2025), is brought to recover damages for Defendants' systemic and continuous violations of: the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs ("NYCRR") for unpaid overtime wages. Despite regularly working beyond forty hours in a week, Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs, potential collective members, and putative class members proper overtime compensation for hours worked beyond forty each week, resulting in Plaintiffs, potential collective members, and putative class members suffering unpaid overtime compensation in willful violation of both the FLSA, and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a construction and demolition worker from 1999 through the wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment on October 16, 2023. The Defendants operate a construction enterprise, specializing in foundation work & superstructure concrete work, masonry, as well as renovations & restorations throughout New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Robert Kansao, Esq. Avraham Y. Scher, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 EAST GATE: Mena Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LEONARDO MENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST GATE SUSHI NJ CORP., YUK CHAN a/k/a JACK CHAN, and YONG XING CHEN a/k/a ERIC CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-14736 (D.N.J., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and Regulations. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' restaurant as a non-exempt cook from on or about February 17, 2025, through on or about May 7, 2025. East Gate Sushi NJ Corp. is the owner and operator of East Gate Chinese & Japanese Restaurant, located in Verona, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com EATON CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 8, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB SCHLESINGER, ANDREW SMITH, JASON THOMAS, PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, LLC, GORDON KIRK; TAUNI DOSTER, STEVE WATKINS; and WILLIAM DOHERTY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EATON CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00157-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court granting joint motion for entry of schedule relating to class certification: Date Deadline Aug. 18, 2025 Fact discovery limited to class certification issues opens May 1, 2026 Fact discovery limited to class certification issues closes June 3, 2026 Rebuttal expert reports due (can only respond to issues raised in the affirmative expert reports) June 26, 2026 Deadline to depose rebuttal experts July 8, 2026 The Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification and support memorandum July 15, 2026 Any Daubert briefs on class certification experts shall be filed Aug. 12, 2026 Eaton files its opposition to class certification Aug. 19, 2026 Daubert opposition briefs due Sept. 9, 2026 The Plaintiffs file their reply in support of certification Eaton is a multinational power management company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hx5sOL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2727 Paces Ferry Rd SE #750 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com lewis@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq. Graham Cotten, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 1919 Cahaba Road Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 208-9588 Facsimile: (205) 208-9598 E-mail: oscar@pricearmstrong.com nick@pricearmstrong.com graham@pricearmstrong.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq. William E. Eye, Esq. Bina Palnitkar, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3333 Piedmont Road NE Terminus 200, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (678) 553 2100 Facsimile: (678) 553 2212 EDDIE BAUER: Parties in Clark Seek to Extend Class Cert Bid Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN CLARK, for Herself and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC; and SPARC GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01106-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification by eight (8) months from its current deadline of October 30, 2025. The Parties request an eight-month extension to June 30, 2026 --because Eddie Bauer's counsel has several other class certification schedules and at least two trials scheduled in the months of March through June 2026. As such, a June 30, 2026, deadline to move for class certification will give Eddie Bauer's counsel the time they need to prepare and file an opposition, the Parties contend. Eddie Bauer has experienced significant and ongoing personnel and organizational changes since this matter was filed. On March 12, 2025, the Court denied Eddie Bauer's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety On March 26, 2025, Eddie Bauer filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer and to Amend Scheduling Order Eddie is an American outdoor recreation brand and chain store. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fSgRG8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: che@hattislaw.com dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 600-2250 E-mail: mbrooks@beneschlaw.com - and - Marc C. Levy, Esq. SEED IP LAW GROUP LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-4900 E-mail: MarcL@seedip.com EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Federal Securities Suit Deal Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emergent Biosolutions Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a court has granted final approval of the settlement agreement in the federal securities class action. On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021, and June 2, 2021, putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former senior officers in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act. These complaints were filed by Palm Tran, Inc. – Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan; Alan I. Roth, and Stephen M. Weiss, respectively. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing capabilities with respect to COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance. These cases were consolidated on December 23, 2021, under the caption In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG (the "Federal Securities Class Action"). The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated matter (the "Lead Plaintiffs") are Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan and The City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Firefighters' Retirement System. An order granting the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives was entered on June 18, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the Company and the Lead Plaintiffs entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the Company and each of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On October 4, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, ordered notice to the settlement class and scheduled a fairness hearing for February 27, 2025. On February 6, 2025, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the Settlement Class and Approval of Plan of Allocation and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Compensatory Awards for Lead Plaintiffs. Under the settlement, the claims against the Company and its officers and directors were dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a payment from the Company of $40.0 million, $30.0 million of which was paid from insurance proceeds, and had previously been funded in the fourth quarter of 2024. The Company recorded the settlement and insurance recoverable amounts as pre-tax operating expense and income, respectively, within "Selling, general and administrative" expenses on the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2024. At the scheduled fairness hearing on February 27, 2025, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. EMIRATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request extensions of: (i) the Defendants' deadline to file their papers in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification from Aug. 18, 2025 until Sept. 8, 2025; and (ii) the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply papers in further support of the motion from Sept. 16, 2025, until Oct. 24, 2025. In light of these developments, the parties submit the instant request, which will afford them sufficient opportunity to complete the briefing of the Motion while accommodating the revised Staley trial schedule and the intervening religious holidays in September and October 2025. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=smMCQ2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Evan B. Citron, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-4030 Telephone: (212) 545-4069 Facsimile: (212) 972-3213 E-mail: evan.citron@jacksonlewis.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend "Cline" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP 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 class action complaint filed by Perry Cline. On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma (the Eastern District Court") against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), LLC (now known as Energy Transfer R&M) and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. (collectively, ETMT") that alleged ETMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the Eastern District Court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012, and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the Class"). Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as minimum pay," prior period adjustments and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies. After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $75 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $81 million to account for interest accrued from trial (the Order"). Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2020, ETMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (10th Circuit") and appealed the entirety of the Order. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was set for November 15, 2021. However, on November 1, 2021, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal due to jurisdictional concerns with finality of the Order. En banc rehearing of this decision was denied on November 29, 2021. On December 1, 2021, ETMT filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 10th Circuit to correct the jurisdictional problems and secure final judgment. On February 2, 2022, the 10th Circuit denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, citing that there are other avenues for ETMT to obtain adequate relief. On February 10, 2022, ETMT filed a Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation Order and Issue a Rule 58 Judgment with the trial court, requesting the Eastern District Court to enter a final judgment in compliance with the Rules. ETMT also filed an injunction with the trial court to enjoin all efforts by plaintiffs to execute on any non-final judgment. On March 31, 2022, Judge Gibney denied the Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation, reiterating his thoughts that the order constitutes a final judgment. Judge Gibney granted the injunction in part (placing a hold on enforcement efforts for 60 days) and denied the injunction in part. The injunction has since been lifted. Despite the fact that ETMT has taken the position that the judgment is not final and not subject to execution, the Class engaged in asset discovery and actively tried to collect on the judgment through garnishment proceedings from ETMT's customers. ETMT unsuccessfully tried to deposit the funds into the Eastern District Court's Registry. Accordingly, to stop the garnishment proceedings, on December 2, 2022, ETMT wired approximately $161 million to the Plaintiff's approved Plan Administrator, which represented at the time the full amount of the judgment with attorneys' fees and post-judgment interest. ETMT did so without waiving its ability to pursue its pending appeal or its right to appeal the merits of the judgment. Plaintiff has since dismissed the garnishment actions. ETMT appealed the denial of the Motion to Modify to the 10th Circuit in an attempt to get a decision on finality. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument was held on March 21, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the 10th Circuit ruled in favor of ETMT and found that the Eastern District Court's plan of allocation (which was part of the final judgment) did not satisfy all finality requirements. The 10th Circuit held that the Eastern District Court abused its discretion in denying ETMT's Rule 60(b)(6) Motion to Modify and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The case was sent back to the trial court so that the Eastern District Court could fix the finality requirements with the judgment. Further, ETMT sought and recovered a return of funds deposited with the Plan Administrator; Class Counsel did not oppose this motion. At a status hearing on September 28, 2023, Class Counsel indicated that it would seek additional interest up until the date that the final judgment is entered. The Eastern District Court asked for briefing on the issue of additional interest and held a hearing on October 17, 2023 to address this issue further and enter a ruling as to whether additional interest should be added to the judgment total. During the hearing, the Eastern District Court ruled that additional interest should be awarded at the 12% statutory rate from the date of the prior improper judgment up until October 17, 2023. However, the Judge tolled the running of interest for the time period during which the Plan Administrator was in possession of ETMT's funds (between November 2, 2022 and October 10, 2023). Based on this ruling, the Class calculated that approximately $23 million in additional interest should be added to the final judgment. On October 19, 2023, the Eastern District Court entered the new final judgment with a corrected Plan of Allocation. Both parties agree that this newly entered judgment fixes the finality concerns and will allow an appeal to the 10th Circuit on the merits. With the inclusion of additional interest, the total amount awarded to the Class is approximately $104 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. ETMT has appealed the entirety of the judgment to the 10th Circuit. Oral argument took place on November 20, 2024 and the parties are awaiting a decision. ETMT cannot predict the outcome of the case, nor can ETMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the appeal. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY VAN COTT individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a real estate investment trust, ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a partnership, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. Case No. 4:25-cv-02358-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: Class Certification for Settlement Purposes – Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement a Settlement Class defined as: "All Equity Residential tenants in the State of California who, from Oct. 29, 2022, through April 30, 2024, were first charged one or more late fee(s) under Equity Residential's former "Standard Late Fee" provision: 5% of the outstanding balance owed (capped at 5% of the total amount of monthly recurring charges) or $50, whichever is greater." The Court finds and concludes that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff Courtney Van Cott is an adequate class representative, who has no apparent conflicts with other members of the Settlement Class, and appoints her as the Class Representative for the Settlement Class. Class Counsel – The Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel, Dardarian Ho Kan & Lee ("DHKL"), Nicholas & Tomasevic ("N&T"), and Community Legal Services in East ("CLSEPA"), are qualified to represent the Settlement Class here, given that they have been vigorously litigating the same issues against the same defendant for the past eleven years in the Munguia-Brown action, which allowed them to fully investigate the Plaintiff's claims, the Defendants' defenses, and the Rule 68 Offer. The Court finds that Counsel are experienced in handling complex class actions and the types of claims asserted in the instant action and that Counsel have committed significant resources to representing the Settlement Class in addition to their continued work representing the certified classes in Munguia-Brown. The Court appoints the Plaintiff's Counsel as Settlement Class Counsel. ]Equity is a United States–based publicly traded real estate investment trust that invests in apartments. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OthGsj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret McBride, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO 1861 Bay Road East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 326-6440 Facsimile: (866) 688-5204 E-mail: mmcbride@clsepa.org - and - Linda M. Dardarian, Esq. Andrew P. Lee, Esq. Katharine L. Fisher, Esq. DARDARIAN HO KAN & LEE 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: ldardarian@dhkl.law alee@dhkl.law kfisher@dhkl.law - and - Craig Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: craig@nicholaslaw.org alex@nicholaslaw.org EVENT TICKETS: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gershzon --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, v. EVENT TICKETS CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-04142-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs have not shown that the Defendant waived its right to enforce the agreement. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted. The action is stayed pending completion of the arbitration proceedings. For administrative purposes, the Clerk is directed to close the file. Any party may move to reopen upon completion of the arbitration or for other good cause shown, the Court says. ]The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant, asserting claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of United States residents and a proposed subclass of California residents who purchased tickets from Defendant's website. The Defendant now moves to compel arbitration, contending Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass are bound by ETC's arbitration agreement. The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint against Defendant on July 9, 2024. Defendant filed its answer on Sept. 30, 2024, asserting multiple affirmative defenses, but omitting any claim of arbitrability. Event provides tickets for live concerts, sporting events, theater shows, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fTB37Z at no extra charge.[CC] EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Vladimir Gusinsky Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ EverCommerce 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 Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 31, 2024, plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, members of its Board and the other parties to its sponsor stockholders agreement, dated June 30, 2021, Providence Strategic Growth II L.P., Providence Strategic Growth II-A L.P., SLA Eclipse Co-Invest, L.P., and SLA CM Eclipse Holdings, L.P. (collectively, the “Sponsor Stockholders”), captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Eric Remer, Penny Baldwin, et. al., Case No. 2024-0077 (Del Ch.). The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) by providing the Sponsor Stockholders with a veto right over the Board’s ability to hire or fire the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO Approval Right”) on the basis that it unlawfully limits the Board’s authority to manage the business and affairs of the Company. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the CEO Approval Right is invalid and void, other declaratory and equitable relief for the class and/or the Company, attorneys’ and experts’ witness fees and other costs and expenses, and other equitable relief. On June 14, 2024, the Company filed its opening brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss, and on July 15, 2024, Plaintiff opposed that motion. On July 16, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order dismissing the director defendants from the action. On August 29, 2024, the remaining defendants, the Company and Sponsor Stockholders (collectively, “Defendants”), filed their reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss, and pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on September 26, 2024, which Defendants filed a response to on October 10, 2024. On October 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that the claims alleged are not ripe for adjudication and on November 15, 2024 Plaintiff opposed that motion. On December 9, 2024, Defendants filed their reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. On January 3, 2025, the Court entered a minute order deferring oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss until after the disposition of the appeal in Moelis & Company v. West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund, Case No. 340, 2024 (Del. Supr.). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. EverCommerce Inc. is a leading provider of integrated software-as-a-service ("SaaS") solutions or services for service-based small and medium-sized businesses ("service SMBs"). EXCEL FITNESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McBride Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES OMAR MCBRIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXCEL FITNESS CONSOLIDATOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01302 (W.D. Tex., August 13, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and the Class resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. On or around January 17, 2025, the Defendant's systems were accessed by an unauthorized third-party and the PII of Plaintiff and other current/former employees and customers was compromised. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised as a result of a targeted attack intended to obtain Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because that is the modus operandi of cybercriminals who perpetrate data breaches such as this, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed and/or acquired during the data breach. Excel Fitness, a Planet Fitness franchisee based in Austin, Texas, operates over 160 gym locations in Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com EXPERT TEAM: Underpays Sewing Machine Operators, Lima Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA LIMA ARCENTALES and MARIA MACAO BONI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXPERT TEAM APPAREL INC. (D/B/A EXPERT TEAM APPAREL) and QIU Y WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04609 (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Lima and Macao were employed as sewing machine operators at the Garment factory located in Long Island City, New York from April 2022 until on or about February 11, 2018, and from March 2023 until in or about April 2025, respectively. Expert Team Apparel Inc., doing business as Expert Team Apparel, is a garment factory owner and operator in Long Island City, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Kula Securities Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fastly 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 Kula securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 24, 2024, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Ken Kula v. Fastly, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-03170), naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on July 23, 2024. On August 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and lead counsel. On November 1, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired Fastly securities between November 15, 2023 and August 7, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2025. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2025. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters and also naming as defendants the Company and its officers and directors. The Company is also party to various disputes that management considers routine and incidental to its business. Management does not expect the results of any of these routine actions to have a material effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial conditions, or cash flows. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Fastly is a Delaware corporation that provides cloud computing services. Its common stock trades in an efficient market on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "FSLY." [BN] FAT BRANDS INC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. FAT BRANDS INC., d/b/a PRETZELMAKER, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-61652-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.pretzelmaker.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. The Website also acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products made in and also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, a chain of fast food, pretzel-themed restaurants selling food and beverage products, including the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com FCA US: Faces Vasser Suit Over Unfair Premium Billing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE VASSER, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FCA US LLC GROUP INSURANCE PROGRAM; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FCA US LLC GROUP INSURANCE PROGRAM; FCA US LLC GROUP INSURANCE PROGRAM JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12529-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., August 13, 2025) is a class action to remedy Defendants' systemic breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The suit challenges the Defendants' design, implementation, and maintenance of a premium billing scheme that inevitably underbills premiums for each coverage month, resulting in wrongful coverage terminations, retroactive lapses, and benefit denials. These premiums were then applied for the week that just passed rather than the upcoming week. As such, the Defendants provided illusory coverage as the insurance benefit being paid for was to insure against a past risk that did not occur and provided no protection from a future event -- the entire purpose of insurance, says the suit. As a result, a participant of the Group Life Insurance Plan could work an entire month and make all premium payments via weekly payroll deductions, and would still have no insurance protection. The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals to restore Plan losses, recover wrongfully denied benefits, and secure prospective injunctive relief to prevent further harm from these unscrupulous administrative and claim procedures. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. FCA US LLC Group Insurance Program is an ERISA governed employee welfare benefit plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wentz, Esq. Joseph Mattia, Esq. THE BOONSWANG LAW FIRM 1500 Sansom Street, Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 940-8900 Facsimile: (215) 974-7800 E-mail: michael@boonswanglaw.com joseph@boonswanglaw.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sept. 4 Settlement Hearing in Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a September 4, 2025 hearing is scheduled for the approval of the settlement in the LoanCare data security breach litigation. "In connection with the cybersecurity incident initially reported on November 21, 2023, the Company and/or its subsidiaries is a party to a consolidated putative nationwide class action, In Re: LoanCare Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23cv1508, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and originating from the consolidation of putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Middle District of Florida, the Central District of California, and the Western District of Missouri. On March 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a nationwide class, along with a California subclass and a Florida subclass, alleging common law tort and contract claims and certain state statutory claims. The parties mediated the case on July 25, 2024, and reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case on a class-wide basis. On March 24, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the class-wide settlement, set class notice and claim form deadlines, and scheduled a final approval hearing for September 4, 2025. If approved, and once the settlement administrator disburses all the funds, the case will be dismissed," the Company stated. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend MOVEit Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, 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 its subsidiary continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit related to the MOVEit file transfer software. F&G Annuities & Life ("F&G") is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits related to the alleged compromise of certain of F&G's customers' personal information resulting from an alleged vulnerability in the MOVEit file transfer software. "F&G's vendor, Pension Benefit Information, LLC (“PBI”), used the MOVEit software in the course of providing audit and address research services to F&G and many other corporate customers. Miller v. F&G, No. 4:23-cv-00326, was filed against F&G in the Southern District of Iowa on August 31, 2023. Miller alleges that he is an F&G customer whose information was impacted in the MOVEit incident and brings common law tort and implied contract claims for damages. Cooper v. Progress Software Corp., No. 1:23-cv-12067, was filed against F&G and five other defendants in the District of Massachusetts on September 7, 2023. Cooper also alleges that he is an F&G customer and brings similar common law tort claims and alleges claims as a purported third-party beneficiary of an alleged contract. "Well over 150 similar lawsuits have been filed against other entities impacted by the MOVEit incident including a number of such lawsuits related to PBI's use of MOVEit. On October 4, 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) created a multidistrict litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to handle all litigation brought by individuals whose information was potentially compromised in connection with the alleged MOVEit vulnerability. Both Miller and Cooper have been transferred to the MDL and consolidated under MDL Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL. The case is proceeding under a modified bellwether structure to decide critical issues and facilitate reciprocal discovery, and Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint against all the bellwether Defendants was filed on December 6, 2024. F&G was not selected as a bellwether Defendant, and there is no schedule in place for further proceedings involving the non-bellwether Defendants like F&G. At this time, we do not believe the incident will have a material impact on our business, operations, or financial results," the Company stated. FINASTRA TECH: Parties in Kalabich Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kalabich v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01344 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] FINASTRA TECH: Parties in Nyland Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nyland v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01300 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] Finastra provides banking software and solutions. FINASTRA TECH: Parties in West Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as West v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01358 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] FINASTRA TECH: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cole v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01292 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] FLO HEALTH: Files Renewed Bid for Judgement in Frasco Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO et al., v. FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., and FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motion for a new trial Meta brings this motion under Rules 50 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Meta will, and does, move for an order granting judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative a new trial. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Meta liable for receiving data connected to twelve "custom app events" defined and created by Flo and sent to Meta by Flo's own app, which incorporated publicly available, open-source code from a software development kit ("SDK"). Flo develops a women's health app that provides access to cycle tracking, health insights, and a private community. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DRaMGV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth K. McCloskey, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7503 Facsimile: (213) 229-6503 E-mail: EMcCloskey@gibsondunn.com CChorba@gibsondunn.com ABarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Michele D. Johnson, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Kristin Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4834 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com michele.johnson@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com FLYWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend Hickman Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Flywire Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hickman securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 25, 2025, the Company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a securities class action complaint captioned Hickman v. Flywire Corporation filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased Flywire securities from February 28, 2024, through February 25, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by purportedly overstating the strength and sustainability of the Company's revenue growth and understating the negative impact of certain government permit and visa related policies on its business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The Company believes to have strong defenses against the asserted claims and intends to vigorously defend itself. Flywire Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a payments-enablement and software company in the U.S. and internationally.[BN] FOLEY CARRIER: Illegally Collects Website Users' Data, Heiting Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOLEY CARRIER SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07781 (C.D. Cal., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. The case arises from Foley's alleged installation and use of data broker software on its website, https://www.foleyservices.com, to secretly collect data about website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits without obtaining prior consent. According to the complaint, Foley has in fact partnered with data brokers, by installing software on its website in order to deanonymize, identify and target prospective customers, while allowing data brokers to access, use, and monetize the data provided by Foley, in manners that are never shared with anyone outside of their organization who does not purchase it. As a result of Foley's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated suffered damages. Foley Carrier Services, LLC is a software company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Conditional Class Cert. Filing Due Oct. 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gawlik v. FoodPrep Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10615 (D. Mass., Filed March 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order allowing the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Deadline. -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for conditional class certification is extended to Oct. 21, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). FoodPrep is a comprehensive provider of professional knife and specialty sharpening services.[CC] FOREST RIVER: Nelson Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER, INC, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal. The Plaintiff has moved for leave to file under seal Exhibits B and C to his Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Class Certification because Exhibit C and portions of Exhibit B contain documents and excerpts from documents designated Confidential under the parties' Stipulation for Confidentiality. Forest is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QsoARa at no extra charge.[CC] FOREST RIVER: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Nelson -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order that: 1. Forest River's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. a. Nelson fails to show any remaining dispute as to material facts regarding his negligent misrepresentation claim. The Court grants summary judgment to Forest River on the negligent misrepresentation claim. b. Nelson has established that disputed issues of material fact remain regarding his negligence claim and his Montana Consumer Protection Act claim. The Court denies summary judgment to Forest River on the negligence and MCPA claims. 2. Nelson's motion for summary judgment is denied. Nelson's arguments that Forest River engaged in a "multi-year scheme of certifying safety while selling defective products, concealing evidence of the defects, and orchestrating a sham recall," lack sufficient support in the record to justify summary judgment against Forest River. Forest River attempted to address defective products through recalls, warranty claims, and inspections. Nelson's motion for summary judgment will be denied. Forest River's motion for summary judgment regarding Nelson's MCPA claims also will be denied. The jury can resolve these remaining genuine issues of material fact. Nelson alleges in his Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC") that Forest River failed to disclose violations of the applicable wiring design standards, actively concealed the alleged violations, and refused to remedy adequately the resulting wiring defects. Forest is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a89voe at no extra charge.[CC] FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYANNA JACKSON, et. al., v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, et. al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60935-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying the proposed classes under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3); -- Appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; -- Appointing undersigned counsel as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); and -- Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: The Damages Class is defined as "those persons present at or near SE 2nd Street and SE 1st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida on May 31, 2020, between 6:50 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., who were subjected to FLPD's crowd dispersal tactics." This Damages Class includes two subclasses: 1) those subject to less-lethal force; and 2) those who were not subject to less lethal force but were driven from the area as a result of FLPD dispersal tactics. The proposed Injunctive Relief Class is defined as: "all persons who have in the past, including those present at or near SE 2nd Street and SE 1st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida on May 31, 2020, between 6:50 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., or may in the future, participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City in the exercise of their rights of free speech, assembly, and petition in general, and particularly as related to protesting police violence and discrimination against people of color, especially Black Americans." The case arises out of the FLPD's coordinated and excessive use of crowd control weapons, including rubber bullets and tear gas, against peaceful demonstrators exercising their First Amendment constitutional rights during the George Floyd protest in downtown Fort Lauderdale on May 31, 2020. The Plaintiffs allege in their First Amended Complaint (DE23) that FLPD officers acted pursuant to unconstitutional policies, practices, or customs of the City and without adequate training or supervision, causing widespread injury to protesters. Fort Lauderdale is a city on Florida's southeastern coast, known for its beaches and boating canals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K0qcZM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benedict P. Kuehne, Esq. Michael T. Davis, Esq. Johan D. Dos Santos, Esq. KUEHNE DAVIS LAW, P.A. 100 SE 2 Street, Suite 3650 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-5989 Facsimile: (305) 789-5987 E-mail: ben.kuehne@kuehnelaw.com mdavis@kuehnelaw.com johand@kuehnelaw.com - and - Stuart N. Ratzan, Esq. Stuart J. Weissman, Esq. Kimberly L. Boldt, Esq. RATZAN WEISSMAN & BOLDT 2850 Tigertail Avenue, Suite 400 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 374-6366 Facsimile: (305) 374-6755 E-mail: Stuart@rwblawyers.com StuartW@rwblawyers.com Kimberly@rwblawyers.com FORTREA HOLDINGS: Continue to Defend Deslande Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Fortrea Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Deslande shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 2, 2025, a purported shareholder class action complaint captioned Lucas Deslande v. Fortrea Holdings Inc., et al., No 1:25-sv-04630 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants made omissions and misrepresentations to investors that they claim violated certain securities laws. A motion for lead plaintiff is expected in August, and it is anticipated that an amended complaint will be filed thereafter, to which the Company will respond. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend itself, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The case is at a very early stage and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this action. Fortrea was formerly the clinical development and commercialization services business of Labcorp Holdings Inc., a life sciences and healthcare company. In June 2023, Labcorp spun off Fortrea as a standalone, publicly traded company (the "Spin-Off" or the "Spin").[BN] FRED LOYA INSURANCE: Mendez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Edna Mendez, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. FRED LOYA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 25STCV20308 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07549. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges seven purported causes of action for: failure to pay all straight time wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; failure to authorize and permit rest periods in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions of California Labor Code sections 226, 1174, and 1175; failure to pay all wages due at the time of termination of employment in violation of California Labor Code section 201-203; and violation of California's unfair competition law, Business & Professions Code section.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq. Mario C. Ortega, Esq. GBG LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 358-2810 Facsimile: (213) 995-6382 Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com marioortega@gbgllp.com FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Conditional Cert. Filing Due Dec. 12 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN GOSTON and SHANNON GERCALIU, v. FROEDTERT THEDACARE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01482-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties have advised the Court that the Plaintiffs served initial disclosure on Feb. 28, 2025. The Defendant's initial disclosures as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be provided on or before Aug. 28, 2025. 2. Amendments to the pleadings may be filed without leave of Court on or before Aug. 28, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 will apply to any amendment filed after that date. 3. All fact discovery must be completed no later than March 27, 2026. 4. Primary expert witness disclosures are due on or before Dec. 19, 2025, and rebuttal expert witness disclosures are due on or before Jan. 9, 2026. All expert discovery must be completed no later than March 27, 2026. 5. Motions for conditional certification of a collective action shall be served and filed on or before Dec. 12, 2025. 6. Motions to decertify a collective action shall be served and filed on or before April 10, 2026. 7. Motions for class certification shall be served and filed on or before March 27, 2026. 8. Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Civil L.R. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and shall be served and filed on or before April 10, 2026. Froedtert is a not-for-profit health care system formed by the merger of Froedtert Health and ThedaCare. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QCpmg2 at no extra charge.[CC] G-STAR RAW: Dilanyan TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nikolay Dilanyan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. G-Star Raw Estore, Inc., Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-04605 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06768-JHR to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. G-Star Raw (commonly called G-Star) -- https://www.g-star.com/ -- is a Dutch designer clothing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hoosai Roya Kabiri, Esq. Peng Shao, Esq. Jared Victor Walder, Esq. R23 LAW, PC 633 West Fifth St., 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (888) 533-2948 Fax: (415) 558-0230 The Defendants are represented by: Susanne Boniadi, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 555 South Flower Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 629-7400 Fax: (213) 629-7401 GEICO GENERAL: Bid to Modify Protective Order Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Coleen Holland entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to modify the Protective Order. Within 14 days of entry of this Decision and Order, the Plaintiff shall file a proposed modified protective order consistent with the proposed amended protective order (PAPO) filed by the The Plaintiff but without any reference to use of the Lewis Documents. GEICO General's motions to seal are denied. On balance, the Court concludes that even if GEICO General had argued that it relied on the permanence of the Protective Order (which it has not), any reliance would not have been reasonable with respect to the discovery materials at issue. The strong presumption against modification is therefore inapplicable and the Court, in its discretion, finds that modification of the Protective Order is warranted for the efficiency reasons set forth by Plaintiff. In sum, GEICO General has not shown any prejudice or burden that would result from modifying the Protective Order, much less some prejudice or burden that would outweigh the clear efficiencies that would result from the sharing of discovery between this case and Shiloah. On April 17, 2023, the Plaintiff commenced this putative class action suit against defendant GEICO General Insurance Company. On July 1, 2025, the Court entered a Decision and Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of some of the documents that he now seeks to share between the two cases. Geico operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K6zfgJ at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ginn Due Oct. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ginn Motor Company v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03773 (N.D. Ga., Filed Sept 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge Tiffany R. Johnson entered an order that: -- The deadline for filing motions for Class Certification and Summary Judgment motions is Oct. 8, 2025. -- No further extensions will be granted. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. General is a motor-vehicle manufacturer.[CC] GEO GROUP: CMWA and TVPA Class Suit Trial Dates Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ Geo Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the United States District Court for the District of Colorado stayed the trial dates for the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (CMWA) and Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) class suit. Civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the CMWA and the TVPA. The complaint also claims that the Company was unjustly enriched based on the level of payment the detainees received for work performed in a Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") the Company is required to implement at the facility under the terms of its contract with the federal government. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the CMWA and dismissed this claim. On February 27, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiffs' class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 18, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Company's affirmative defenses, denying the Company's motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the class period for plaintiffs' TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling against the Company's motions for relief. All trial dates were stayed by court order pending appeal of certain of GEO's defenses to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was held on September 18, 2023. On October 22, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued an Order finding appellate review of GEO's claim of immunity was premature and, therefore, the Tenth Circuit was currently without jurisdiction to consider the merits of GEO's claimed immunity. On January 13, 2025, GEO filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Tenth Circuit's decision. On June 2, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted GEO's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. All trial dates remain stayed. Geo is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities. GEORGIA: Martinez Sues Over Enforcement of Child Support Order -------------------------------------------------------------- ANNALINDA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGIA DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES, GEORGIA DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04686-TRJ (N.D. Ga., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for due process violation of the fundamental right to parent, equal protection violation for wealth-based discrimination, equal protection violation for distinguishing between parents before and after August 2024 Policy, violation of due process for failure to assess ability to pay prior to enforcement of child-support, violation of procedural due process for charging erroneous child-support, and violation of Georgia Code. The case arises from the Defendants' continued enforcement of the Plaintiff's child-support order despite being aware that the children are no longer eligible due to their ages and adoption status. The Plaintiff has made active attempts to have her child-support adjusted, but the Defendants have refused, requiring the Plaintiff to produce documents to which she has no legal right. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' policies, practices, acts, and/or omissions are unlawful and violate her and Class members' rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Georgia Department of Human Services is a department of the executive branch of the State of Georgia. Georgia Division of Family and Children Services is a division of Georgia Department of Human Services. Georgia Division of Child Support Services is a division of Georgia Department of Human Services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phil Telfeyan, Esq. Caroline McCance, Esq. Lily Milwit, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 7th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 Email: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org - and - Darice Good, Esq. GOOD LEGAL FIRM, LLC 2300 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 103 Roswell, GA 30076 Telephone: (404) 234-5475 Email: darice@goodlegalfirm.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Settlement Deal in Sihler Gets Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court preliminarily approves the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated July 11, 2025, including all exhibits thereto as fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are sufficient to warrant sending notice to the Settlement Class and are subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing on Dec. 2, 2025 referenced below. Unless otherwise provided, the terms defined in the Settlement Agreement shall have the same meanings in this Order. 2. The Court has previously certified the Class, Class Representative, and Class Counsel. 3. The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration to be the Settlement Administrator. Responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator are found in the Settlement Agreement. 4. The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Dec. 2, 2025 at 10:00 AM Eastern Time before this Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dADfkc at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Kande Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ansoumane Kande, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Google, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03733 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06757-PKC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Google LLC -- https://www.google.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5c New York, NE 10038 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. Scott M Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com - and - Theodore Walter Maya AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 The Defendant is represented by: Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 947-2000 Fax: (415) 947-2099 Email: jsessions@wsgr.com GOOGLE LLC: Rodriguez Bid for Voluntary Dismissal OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting voluntary dismissal and denying the Plaintiffs' motion in Limine no. 4. In June 2025, the Plaintiffs moved in limine to preclude Google from introducing evidence or argument about former plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed their claims. The motion highlighted that one class representative plaintiff, Sal Cataldo, had agreed to dismiss his claims (after having previously sat for a deposition) but had not yet done so. Over a month later -- and less than three weeks before trial—Cataldo moved to dismiss his claims without prejudice. Google opposes his dismissal, as it has opposed the exclusion of Cataldo's deposition transcript. For the reasons explained below, Cataldo's motion to dismiss his claims is granted, and Plaintiffs' related motion to exclude his deposition transcript is denied. The Plaintiff's motion in limine is denied with respect to Cataldo’s deposition. As Google explains, Cataldo's testimony is relevant because he remains a class member who experienced the at-issue conduct and who previously averred that it violated his privacy; in this respect, his testimony on material elements of the case is far more probative than that of just any person on the street. Thus, Cataldo's availability for trial aside, his deposition is not inadmissible hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Although Plaintiffs complain that prejudice could result if testimony by an absent class member is introduced, any such risk does not substantially outweigh the evidence's probative value. Google operates as a global technology company specializing in internet related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8StEQN at no extra charge.[CC] GRACE KNUTSON: Robilliard Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ROBILLARD, et al., v. GRACE KNUTSON, et al., Case No. 24-cv-01077 (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the renewed motion for class certification and appointing their attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) certifying the case as a class action on behalf of all persons currently or in the future subject to GPS monitoring by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections while on extended supervision (e.g., parole or another form of criminal supervision). Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Department, through its Monitoring Center, automatically issues arrest warrants in response to "tamper" or "strap" alerts received after hours without taking reasonable measures to confirm whether the alert resulted from an equipment problem rather than a deliberate act by the parolee. The Plaintiffs allege that the Department's policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated persons who are subject to the Department's policy and therefore at risk of being wrongfully arrested and detained. On July 9, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gl2ujy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Ogdon Class Suit Trial Date Still Not Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grand Canyon Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has not yet scheduled trial dates for Ogdon False Advertising class suit. Ogdon v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., et al. This putative class action was filed in May 2020 in federal district court in California and later transferred to United States District Court for the District of Arizona and asserts claims for violations of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act; Unjust Enrichment; and purported violations of the federal RICO statute, including a conspiracy claim. The defendants include the Company along with its chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer. On May 27, 2022, after significant motions practice, the Company filed an amended motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint. On August 8, 2023, the court presiding over the dispute entered two orders: (1) an order granting in part the Company's motion to dismiss as to Ogdon's RICO claim from the case and to dismiss the individual Defendants; and (2) an order granting in part the Company's motion to strike scandalous and impertinent allegations in Ogdon's complaint about its business. Shortly thereafter on August 22, 2023, Plaintiff moved the court to reconsider its dismissal of the RICO claim. Though discovery had commenced, and the Company substantially completed its discovery obligations on the state-law claims, discovery was stayed on March 18, 2024, pending mediation and the disposition of Ogdon's motion for reconsideration. On March 29, 2024, the court issued an order reinstating Plaintiff's RICO claim. On September 26, 2024, the court lifted the stay on discovery, and discovery resumed. In July 2025, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and added an additional plaintiff. The Company's answer to the Second Amended Complaint is due August 19, 2025. There is currently no trial date scheduled in this matter. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities. GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Smith and Wang Class Suit Discovery Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand Canyon Education 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 discovery is ongoing and no trial date is set for the Smith and Wang class suit in the United States District of Arizona. Smith and Wang v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. This putative class action was filed in June 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and asserts claims under the federal RICO statute as well as various claims for violations of state law consumer protection statutes. On September 20, 2024, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on November 4, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the case. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court dismissed one of the plaintiff’s RICO counts but allowed the other RICO count and the consumer protection claims to proceed to discovery. Discovery is ongoing, and there is currently no trial date scheduled in this matter. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities. GROCERY OUTLET: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. On January 30, 2025, a federal securities class action lawsuit, captioned Liberato v. Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 25-cv-00957, was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. and certain of its former officers purportedly on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between November 7, 2023 and May 7, 2024 (the "Liberato Lawsuit"). On March 28, 2025, a second and related federal securities class action lawsuit, captioned Cavanaugh v. Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 25-cv-2886, was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the same defendants on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between August 8, 2023 and October 29, 2024 (the "Cavanaugh Lawsuit," and together with the Liberato Lawsuit, the "Class Action Lawsuits"). The Class Action Lawsuits allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's transition to new and upgraded internal systems. The Class Action Lawsuits seek remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including an undisclosed amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and other costs. On March 31, 2025, the plaintiff who filed the Cavanaugh Lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate both actions and to be appointed as lead plaintiff. On June 3, 2025, the Class Action Lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California (the "Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit"). The lead plaintiff’s amended complaint in the Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit is due August 19, 2025, and the Company’s motion to dismiss is due October 21, 2025. The Company intends to defend the Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit vigorously. Headquartered in Emeryville, CA, Grocery Outlet operates as a value retailer of consumables and fresh products. The company's common stock traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol "GO." [BN] GROW SMART: Must Get Attorney in 30 Days After Counsel Exits ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Sara Reyes, Plaintiff, v. Grow Smart Labor, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the motion for withdrawal as counsel for Defendants and ordered the corporate Defendant to acquire new representation within 30 days. The Court granted the motion filed by counsel Jacob Waschak, Landon R. Schwob, and Melissa Huether of Fisher & Phillips LLP to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendants Grow Smart Labor, Inc., Pedro Arellano-Moya, and Jorge Esteban Fuentes. The withdrawal was based on Defendants' failure to pay attorney's fees with a significant amount in attorney's fees remains outstanding, and Counsel does not reasonably expect past payment, nonetheless future payment, is forthcoming. The putative class action was filed by Plaintiff on January 5, 2024. Defendants collectively filed their answer to the operative second amended complaint on August 5, 2024, and a scheduling order issued on September 6, 2024. The Court granted the parties' stipulated motion to modify the scheduling order on May 2, 2025, establishing key deadlines: "pre-certification non-expert discovery deadline is December 29, 2025; pre-certification expert disclosure deadline is December 29, 2025; pre-certification rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is February 13, 2026; pre-certification expert discovery deadline is March 26, 2026; and class certification motion filing deadline is May 14, 2026." Counsel filed the motion to withdraw on June 25, 2025, and Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition on June 30, 2025. The Court held a hearing on August 13, 2025 to ensure the representative of Defendant Grow Smart, Inc., a corporation, understood the consequences of Counsel's withdrawal and the inability of a corporation to represent itself in this Court. The Court applied California Rules of Professional Conduct and Local Rules for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Under these rules, an attorney who has appeared on behalf of a client may not withdraw, leaving the client in propria persona, without leave of court upon noticed motion. The Court found good cause for withdrawal, noting that "Counsel's motion to withdraw establishes a failure to pay a significant amount of attorney's fees with no apparent intent to pay future fees. The Court referenced that A client's failure to pay may demonstrate good cause for withdrawal" and that California Professional Conduct Rules allow withdrawal when a client breaches a material term of an agreement or renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively. The Court ordered several specific actions: 1. Counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel of record for all three Defendants is granted. 2. Counsel must "serve a copy of this order on Defendants Grow Smart Labor, Inc., Pedro Arellano-Moya, and Jorge Esteban Fuentes via mail and shall provide the Court with a declaration indicating proof of service within three days of entry of this order. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the attorneys of record and update contact information for the individual Defendants to "2880 Spalding Drive, Hanford, California, 93230" for both Pedro Arellano-Moya and Jorge Esteban Fuentes, who will proceed pro se. The Court emphasized that Defendant Grow Smart, Inc. is a corporate entity and is barred from appearing in propria persona under Local Rule 183(a), which states a corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney. Therefore, the corporate Defendant has 30 days from the entry of this Order to obtain counsel and file a notice of appearance by new counsel. The Court warned that if the Defendant fails to obtain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance in this Court within 30 days, it is subject to the entry of default and default judgment. Additionally, if an attorney fails to appear for Defendant Grow Smart, Inc. within 30 days of entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a request for entry of default as to Defendant Grow Smart, Inc. five days after Defendant Grow Smart Inc.'s deadline to file a notice of attorney." The Court determined that granting withdrawal would not cause prejudice, noting that "Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to Counsel's motion" and "The next deadline in this action is pre-certification non-expert discovery and pre-certification expert disclosure on December 29, 2025. The deadline to file the motion for class certification is not until May 14, 2026. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xcAVOJ from pacermonitor.com GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Prelim. Approval of $24.75MM Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAEF LAWSON, in his capacity as Private Attorney General Representative, v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC. and GRUBHUB INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Oct. 2, 2025, will move for the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for an order: (1) Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan, filed herewith), on the grounds that its terms are sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate for notice to be issued to the settlement class; (2) Certifying the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c); (3) Approving the form and content of the proposed class notice and claim form (attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan); (4) Appointing Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. to represent the class as counsel; (5) Appointing Simpluris as Settlement Administrator; (6) Scheduling a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs, and enhancement payments to the named Plaintiff; (7) Granting such other and further relief as may be appropriate. The settlement class is defined as: "any and all individuals who entered into an agreement with Grubhub to use the Grubhub platform as an independent contractor to offer delivery services to customers and who used the Grubhub platform as an independent contractor service provider to accept or complete at least one (1) delivery in California during the Settlement between Dec. 3, 2014, and the time of preliminary approval." The Settlement Agreement provides that GrubHub will pay $24,750,000 to fully resolve all the claims in this Action. This case has been actively litigated for nearly ten years – since Sept. 23, 2015. The Plaintiff worked as a GrubHub delivery driver from October 2015 to February 2016, delivering food to GrubHub's customers in Los Angeles, California. GrubHub operates a food delivery service. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AWopAa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com HANESBRANDS INC: Settlement in Ransomware Suits Get Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hanesbrands, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the court has granted final approval of the settlement in the class actions filed in connection with a ransomware incident. "We were named in a putative class action in connection with the previously disclosed ransomware incident, entitled Toussaint et al. v. HanesBrands, Inc. This lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and followed the consolidation of two previously pending lawsuits, entitled Roman v. Hanes Brands, Inc., filed October 7, 2022, and Toussaint v. HanesBrands, Inc., filed October 14, 2022. "The lawsuit alleged, among other things, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. The lawsuit sought, among other things, monetary and injunctive relief. "On April 2, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. On November 5, 2024, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and on June 13, 2025, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. "The settlement provides for class members to claim reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket losses related to the ransomware incident (limited to an aggregate cap of $100,000), as well as a choice of one of the following three forms of additional relief (with no aggregate cap): (1) two years of credit and identity monitoring services; (2) a one-time use credit for purchase of products on the www.hanes.com website; or (3) a cash payment. We also agreed to undertake certain injunctive relief and to pay an agreed upon amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards to the plaintiffs. We do not expect this settlement to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. We currently anticipate the cost of the settlement to be less than $1 million," the Company stated. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- News Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, continues to defend itself from the antitrust and competition class suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "N.Y. District Court") against Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") and certain publishers, including the Company’s subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C. ("HarperCollins" and together with the other publishers, the "Publishers"), alleging violations of antitrust and competition laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2023, the N.Y. District Court dismissed the complaints in one of the cases with prejudice and in March 2024, the court dismissed the complaint against the Publishers in the remaining case with prejudice. However, the plaintiffs' time to appeal the N.Y. District Court's decision to dismiss in the latter case does not expire until the complaint against Amazon in that case has been finally determined. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, HarperCollins believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. News Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global diversified media and information services company comprised of businesses across a range of media, including: digital real estate services, subscription video services in Australia, news and information services and book publishing. HEALTH CARE: Seeks Leave for Reconsideration of Three Orders ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION ("HCSC"), A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana ("BCBSMT"), and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave for reconsideration of the June 11, 2025, July 31, 2025, and Aug. 6, 2025 Orders. The Defendant requests leave of Court to reconsider the portion of the Court's June 11, 2025, Order granting Plaintiff Johnny C. Rutherford’s motion for class certification, and the July 31, 2025, Order, and Aug. 6, 2025, Order, which collectively state that the Court's June 11 Order established a Rule 23(b)(1) class and that the (b)(1) class remains in effect. Health is an insurance provider specializing in health coverage solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oWFDSJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. Christy S. McCann, Esq. BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. 201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 728-1694 Facsimile: (406) 728-5475 E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com christy@bkbh.com - and - Martin J. Bishop, Esq. Robert C. Deegan, Esq. Tracy A. Roman, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 321-4200 Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 E-mail: mbishop@crowell.com rdeegan@crowell.com troman@crowell.com HOGSALT: The Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yuniasih The, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HOGSALT, Case No. 1:25-cv-06754 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendant's decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them at the legally required overtime pay rate and for including managers in the tip pool, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a server at Monkey Bar from January 2023 through July 2025. Hogsalt is an Illinois based company that owns and operates Monkey Bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 HOME DEPOT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Franklin Due August 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS FRANKLIN, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-03657-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order: (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after entry of this order unless stated otherwise below. (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure deadlines, is Aug. 28, 2025. (4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. The following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this case: Event Deadline Last Day File Motion Class Certification: Aug. 27, 2026 Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions: Apr. 22, 2027 at 9:00 AM Final Pretrial Conference: July 15, 2027 at 1:30 PM Trial: Aug. 9, 2027 at 9:00 AM Home is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lU2mFu at no extra charge.[CC] HOSPITAL SISTERS: Brahm Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BRAHM, JAMES QUAID, KIM WARD, & SUE BORNEMANN, v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEMS, SACRED HEART HOSPITAL OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS OF THE THIRD ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS, PREVEA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and PREVEA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should certify this case as a class action because, at its core, this case is about trackers that worked the same way for every patient they tracked, collected the same data from each, and disclosed that data to Google using the same means. Accordingly, Plaintiffs move to certify four classes: (1) Nationwide Prevea Web-Browser Portal Class (represented by Plaintiffs Bornemann and Ward): "Between October 2016 and September 2018, all Prevea patients who logged into the Prevea MyChart patient portal through a web browser." (2) Nationwide Hospital Sisters Web-Browser Portal Class (represented by the Plaintiffs Quaid and Bornemann): "Between October 2017 and September 2018, all Hospital Sisters patients who logged into the Hospital Sisters MyChart patient portal through a web browser." (3) Nationwide Prevea Mobile Application Class (represented by Plaintiff Ward): "Between April 2018 and August 2022, all Prevea patients who logged into the Prevea MyChart patient portal through the MyChart mobile application, versions 5.4 through 10.1.4, using an Android device"; and (4) Nationwide Prevea Email and Text Link Class (represented by Plaintiffs Bornemann and Ward): "Between December 2020 and June 2023, all Prevea patients who clicked on a link within a Prevea MyChart text message or email notification to navigate to the Prevea MyChart patient portal's web browser login page." For each class, Google's trackers worked as designed, uniformly capturing and disclosing class members' health data without class members' consent. As a result, the Court should certify these classes because the Plaintiffs' motion satisfies all Rule 23(a) and (b) factors, including numerosity, typicality, commonality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs move to certify classes asserting Prevea and Hospital Sisters disclosed their patients' identities and health data to Google using Google's "analytics" trackers. Between 2016 and 2023, Prevea and Hospital Sisters worked together to deploy analytics trackers on their patient portals and portal login pages knowing the trackers would disclose patients' identities and their health data. Hospital operates hospitals, clinics, and health groups in Wisconsin and Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8qfbYp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Phillips, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: aphillips@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Joe Ahmad, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com kleyendecker@azalaw.com dwarden@azalaw.com HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00771-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes, -- preliminarily approving the settlement, -- approving the proposed notice and notice plan, and -- setting aside dates for the submission of objections to the settlement and a fairness hearing. In May 2024, Plaintiff attempted to access https://www.husqvarna.com/us/. The Plaintiff could not access https://www.husqvarna.com/us/ because it was not compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, which Plaintiff uses to access digital content because he is blind. On July 28, 2025, the Plaintiff amended his complaint to identify Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc. as the proper defendant. Husqvarna produces outdoor power products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BuIgoF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com IMPERIAL FIRE: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Bass ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA BASS, V. IMPERIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00550-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge David Joseph entered an order granting in part the joint renewed motion for final approval of class action settlement and the parties' joint supplemental submission in support of final approval of settlement as follows. 1. The Settlement Agreement is approved; 2. Normand PLLC, Edelsberg Law, P.A., Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Herman Herman & Katz, LLC are appointed as Class Counsel; 3. The Defendant shall pay Class Counsel its litigation expenses to date, in the amount of $13,823.06, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; 4. The Defendant shall pay Class Counsel for Class Notice and administrative costs, in the amount of $76,554.68, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; 5. Class Counsel shall be paid an attorney fee of $454,525.42 (33% of the settlement value); and 6. Class representative Dana Bass shall receive a service award of $5,000. The Plaintiffs filed suit on Feb. 24, 2022, alleging that the Defendant improperly failed to pay Sales Tax and Transfer Fees when adjusting total loss claims in Louisiana. This Court previously granted preliminary certification, for settlement purposes only, of this matter as a Class Action on behalf of the following Class: "All Insureds, under any Louisiana automobile insurance policy issued by IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and its subsidiaries or related insurance companies with the same operative policy language covering a vehicle with auto physical damage coverage for comprehensive or collision loss where such vehicle was declared a total loss, who made a first-party claim for total loss, and whose claim was adjusted as a total loss, within the relevant time period and who are mailed class Notice and do not timely opt out from the settlement class (the "Settlement Class")." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Imperial, its agents, employees, subsidiaries, parents, and related entities, all present or former officers and/or directors of Imperial, the Settlement Administrator, the Mediator, Class Counsel, and any Judge of this Court and the Judge's staff and employees; (2) Individuals with claims for which Imperial received a valid and executed release; (3) Individuals who are not on the Notice list and who did not submit a valid Claim Form or Electronic Claim Form for payment under this Settlement Agreement; (4) Individuals who request exclusion from the Class; and (5) Individuals with claims for first- party property damage as to which the individual process of appraisal or arbitration or a lawsuit has been completed or initiated at the time this Settlement Agreement is filed. Imperial provides auto, homeowners, and flood insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WOyZ1H at no extra charge.[CC] IPSWITCH INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Pipes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pipes v. Ipswitch, Inc. et al. (RE: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-11394 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 16, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 18, 2026 Ipswitch is an IT management software developer for small and medium sized businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TAblOt at no extra charge.[CC] J. CREW GROUP: Leyden Files Suit in D. Oregon --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Crew Group, LLC. The case is styled as Sean Leyden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J. Crew Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-01448-AB (D. Ore., Aug. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. J.Crew Group, Inc. -- https://www.jcrew.com/ -- is an American multi-brand, multi-channel, specialty retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Ryan Casey, Esq. THE CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC PO Box 2301-417 Silverthorne, CO 80498 Phone: (970) 372-6509 Fax: (970) 372-6482 Email: ryan@rcaseylaw.com JOYOUS PBC: Class Settlement in Doe Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOYOUS, PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02357-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order granting preliminary approval of the classwide settlement agreed to by the parties. 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a "Settlement Class," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), consisting of: "All persons in the United States starting on Oct. 5, 2023 through Jan. 2, 2025 who reported to Defendant Joyous PBC that they: (1) located Defendant Joyous PBC by a method other than a web advertisement; and (2) booked an appointment to use the services provided by Defendant Joyous PBC, completed a screening questionnaire related to the booking process and subsequently received one or more web-directed advertisements relating to ketamine treatments." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. 2. The Court appoints Plaintiff Jane Doe to represent the Settlement Class. 3. The Court appoints Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Scott R. Drury of Drury Legal, LLC, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The final approval hearing December 18, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., or such later date available on the Court’s calendar Joyous is an AI powered digital platform that enables patients to take charge of their mental health. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mqb9q3 at no extra charge.[CC] KINNLS INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. KINNLS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06800 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://store.kinnls.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. KINNLS INC., operates the Kinnls online retail store, as well as the Kinnls interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Legrier Suit Removed to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jennifer Legrier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 157632/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01796 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Deceptive Trade Practices. The Kraft Heinz Company -- https://www.kraftheinzcompany.com/ -- is the third-largest food and beverage company in North America and the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Austin Edmondson, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 891-1606 Fax: (212) 909-0865 Email: eedmondson@jenner.com KRAFT HEINZ: Paszek Seeks Confirmation of Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAL PASZEK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY dba KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY (LLC), a Pennsylvania limited liability company; PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01813-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order confirming the deadline to file motion for class certification: The Plaintiff requests confirmation that the Court's July 7, 2025, Order indeed supersedes the Court's Nov. 18, 2024, Order, and that the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification remains set for Nov. 21, 2025 On July 7, 2025, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion for class certification is continued to November 21, 2025. On July 31, 2025, in its order on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court noted that the deadline to file a motion for class certification remains August 21, 2025, as set by this Court's prior Order. Kraft is a food and beverage company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c704IW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Drexler, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. Robert Myong, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Myong@capstonelawyers.com KRISTI NOEM: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as National TPS Alliance, v. Noem, Case No. 3:25-cv-05687-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: Dispositive motions hearing: Nov. 18, 2025 Last day to file replies in Nov. 4, 2025 support of dispositive motions: Last day to file oppositions Oct. 28, 2025 to dispositive motions: Last day to file dispositive motions: Oct. 14, 2025 Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 8, 2025 Fact discovery cut-off: Sept. 23, 2025 Class certification hearing: Sept. 16, 2025 Last day to file reply in support of Aug. 29, 2025 class certification: Last day to file opposition to class Aug. 25, 2025 certification: Last day to file class certification motion: Aug. 15, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YsWwvf at no extra charge.[CC] LANDS' END: Faces Jones Suit Over Customers' Leaked Private Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANDS' END, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00692 (W.D. Wis., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on December 6, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lands' End, Inc. is a multi-channel retailer of clothing, accessories, footwear and home products, headquartered in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com LEAFFILTER NORTH: Court Dismisses Christian Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE CHRISTIAN, et al., v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02866-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order: -- granting the motion to strike class allegations, and -- dismissing the case for lack of federal jurisdiction without leave to amend but without prejudice to any action in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs June Christian and Michael Sanford filed this class action suit against the Defendant, alleging that its sales and marketing tactics violate various California consumer protection laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act. LeafFilter moves to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim. It alternatively requests that, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court strike the class allegations contained in the complaint. As part of the sales process, Plaintiffs allege, LeafFilter employs a "fraudulent" pricing scheme that artificially inflates the market value of the product. Indeed, Plaintiffs allege that LeafFilter rarely sells its product at the initial price, and so the discounts are “deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers” in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and various California Statutes. The Plaintiffs' complaint included class allegations purporting to represent all California residents who bought a LeafFilter system and paid more than the par price. LeafFilter is an Ohio-based company that manufactures, sells, and installs its gutter protection system in 46 states. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1aPy6D at no extra charge.[CC] LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wright Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01080-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that his time to file his motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 23.3 for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, be enlarged and that the date for the filing of said Motion be determined by this Honorable Court after the conclusion of the initial case management conference held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and L.R. 16.1. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suggests that enlarging the time for him to file his class certification motion is appropriate in order to allow sufficient time for the Parties to engage in discovery and brief the class certification issues. Such an enlargement of time will allow the Court, in consultation with the parties, to determine whether any discovery will be required prior to class certification and will permit time for said discovery to be completed. In short, Plaintiff's current request will ensure satisfaction of the twin goals judicial efficiency and judicial economy in this matter, in addition to providing the “good cause” required by L.R. 23.3 for enlarging the time for the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. On June 13, 2025, the Plaintiff commenced this civil action by filing his Class Action Complaint with this Honorable Court. LeafFilter provides gutter protection solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bzEwzm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE: Clay Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jacqueline Clay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-06789 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.libertymutual.com/ -- is an American diversified global insurer and the sixth-largest property and casualty insurer in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Narrows Claims in Badin Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA BADIN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00163-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief as well as Plaintiff's claim based on the "fraudulent" prong of the Unfair Competition Law, but denies the motion in all other respects. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order, limited to addressing the deficiencies identified in this Order. If the Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended pleading, the AMENDED COMPLAINT will remain her operative pleading. The Defendants' time to respond to the operative pleading will begin to run on the earlier of the date Plaintiff files a second amended complaint or 14 days from the date of this Order. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately alleged the collective action of Defendants, and the ambiguity of their corporate relationships, in a manner that warrants denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the contract claim as to any Defendant. The instant case is a putative class action filed against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“LMFIC”), Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“LMIC”), Liberty Insurance Corporation (“LIC”), and Doe defendants for the alleged breach of homeowners’ insurance policies. On Dec. 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant putative class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, against LMFIC, LMIC, and Doe defendants. On Jan. 23, 2025, the Defendants LMFIC and LMIC removed the case to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of "all owners of Liberty Mutual homeowners' insurance policies who were denied renewal based on a condition of their property that was misrepresented by Liberty Mutual." Liberty is an American diversified global insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OEEfsO at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert Reply Extended to Sept. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watts, et al., v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12845 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply in support of motion to certify class until Sept. 19, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Liberty is an American diversified global insurer.[CC] LIFE ADULT CARE: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Demund Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFE ADULT CARE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01251 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2025), is brought against Defendant and allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("PWPCL") for failure to pay wages, including overtime wages at the legally mandated rate, as well as for liquidated damages and other available relief. Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been paid all of their wages, including overtime wages of at least one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members at the proper rate of pay, including overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, on a routine and regular basis during the limitations period, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from September 2019 through July 16, 2025. Adult Care Services, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company, registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Steve T. Mahan, Esq. Michael J. Bradley, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380 Phone: (717) 238-5707 Fax: (717) 233-8133 Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com smahan@weisbergcummings.com mbradley@weisbergcummings.com LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Automatic Card Shufflers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder 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 Automatic Card Shufflers class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 2, 2021, Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiffs' costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, which the court denied on May 19, 2022. Discovery closed on December 1, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. Also on February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification, which are pending. On May 8, 2025, the court held a hearing on the pending motions for summary judgment. The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. It believes that the claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them. Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and table game products and services to licensed gaming entities; providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and services. LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Timothy Sornberger Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder 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 Timothy Sornberger multistate class suit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. On January 9, 2025, plaintiffs Timothy Sornberger, Donovan Roberts, Matthew Sprinkle, Hope Murnaghan, Luke Whitney, Prince Imanifest Allah Beautiful, and Christopher Ebersole filed a putative multistate class action complaint against SciPlay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of anti-gambling statutes of the states of Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The plaintiffs seek to represent putative classes of individuals in their respective home states who spent money playing SciPlay's online social casino games during various periods of time. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, including recovery of monies allegedly lost by players of SciPlay's online social casino games in the enumerated states, the award of interests and costs, attorneys' fees and expenses and unspecified other relief. On January 17, 2025, the parties filed a notice of a proposed class settlement and a motion to stay the deadlines to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. On January 17, 2025, the court stayed all deadlines in the action, pending the filing of a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and table game products and services to licensed gaming entities; providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and services. LINEAGE INC: Continues to Defend St. Clair Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lineage 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 St. Clair securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On August 1, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Michigan captioned City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Lineage, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-12383 (the "St. Clair Lawsuit"). The St. Clair Lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock in the IPO. The complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of its current officers and directors, Bay Grove Capital Group LLC, and the Company's underwriters in the IPO. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current officers and directors made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the Company's business prospects in the lead-up to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims in the St. Clair Lawsuit. The Company is not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in connection with this matter at this time. Lineage Inc. is a global temperature-controlled warehouse real estate investment trust ("REIT") with a modern and strategically located network of temperature-controlled warehouses. The Company offers a broad range of essential warehousing services and integrated solutions for a variety of customers with complex requirements in the food supply chai LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Richard Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Keith Richard, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2517328 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, State of California, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02141. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against Lineage: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan Cooney, Esq. Katie M. Magallanes, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com - and - Samuel Eckman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: seckman@gibsondunn.com LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits ------------------------------------------------ Live Nation Entertainment, 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 antitrust lawsuits. The Company is a defendant in three putative antitrust consumer class actions alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, among other causes of action. In Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, et al., filed in the Central District of California in January 2022, the District Court denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration in August 2023. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in October 2024. In January 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted in part and denied in part in April 2025. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the lawsuit and will continue to vigorously defend itself. Two other putative class actions were filed in the Southern District of New York in August and September 2024: In Re Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C. Antitrust Litigation, and Jacobson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. While these lawsuits are at their initial stages, the Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims alleged therein and will vigorously defend itself. LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER: Valine Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Valine, v. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, in her official capacity as Secretary of Labor, Case No. 1:25-cv-02533-RTG (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2): "All youth applicants nationwide who were excluded from federally funded programs due to the Department of Labor's failure to resume background checks following the July 25, 2025 injunction, including those with disabilities protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act." The action challenges the Department of Labor's systemic failure to resume background checks for youth applicants to federally funded programs, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all similarly situated youth who have been excluded from access to federally funded programs due to agency inaction and regional enforcement disparities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CuQ9xO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appers pro se: Jacob Valine 5035 Shavano Drive Windsor, CO 80550 Telephone: 970-617-8650 E-mail: jvaline9776@outlook.com LX HAUSYS: Torres Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SINUHE CABRERA TORRES, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ BALDERAS, and ANGEL MANUEL SANTILLAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LX HAUSYS AMERICA, INC.; CL GLOBAL, LLC; and TOTAL EMPLOYEE SOLUTION SUPPORT, LLC. Case No. 1:24-cv-01283-MLB-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) authorizing the Plaintiffs to proceed conditionally as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees and former employees for the Defendants' failure to pay overtime premiums as mandated under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 207; (2) directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with contact information for the putative collective class so that additional similarly situated current and former employees can be promptly notified of their tight to participate in this lawsuit; and (3) approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of Notice to the putative collective classes. LX manufactures and markets building materials. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mo8gT7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com - and - Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. Brian J. Sutherland, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC 945 East Paces Ferry Rd. NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 476-5305 E-mail: rachel@beal.law brian@beal.law - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. James Radford, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT, LLP 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com jradford@radfordscott.com MAGGY LONDON: Sanchez Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Monica Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAGGY LONDON INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a New York corporation, d/b/a WWW.MAGGYLONDON.COM, Case No. 25CU035451C was removed from the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02107-H-JLB. The complaint asserts three causes of action, styled: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17501, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. and Common Law Fraud.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James M. Roth, Esq. David E.C. Gettis, Esq. THE ROTH LAW FIRM, APLC 12975 Brookprinter Place, Suite 260 Poway, CA 92064 Phone: (858) 592-6250 Fax: (858) 451-3643 Email: JRoth@TheRothLawFirm.com DGettis@TheRothLawFirm.com - and - Paul H. Aloe, Esq. Jacob S. Reichman, Esq. KUDMAN TRACHTEN ALOE POSNER LLP 488 Madison Ave, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 868-1010 Fax: (212) 868-0013 Email: PAloe@KudmanLaw.com JReichman@KudmanLaw.com MANHATTAN LASER SPA: Gibbons Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Laser Spa, LLC. The case is styled as Vivian Gibbons, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Manhattan Laser Spa, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02105-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Manhattan Laser Spa, LLC -- https://manhattanlaserspa.com/ -- are the premier medical spa and laser treatment center serving Sunny Isles Beach and Southern Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com MANPOWER OF LANSING: Harmon Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNA I. HARMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER OF LANSING, MICHIGAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00971 (W.D. Mich., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about December 29, 2024, through January 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Manpower of Lansing, Michigan Inc. is a staffing and employment services company, with its principal executive office located in Lansing, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com MANPOWER OF LANSING: Middleton Sues Over Failure to Protect Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- LATOYA MIDDLETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER OF LANSING, MICHIGAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00972 (W.D. Mich., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about December 29, 2024, through January 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Manpower of Lansing, Michigan Inc. is a staffing and employment services company, with its principal executive office located in Lansing, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: gam@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Marqeta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 9, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned Wai v. Marqeta, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-08874 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California ("Court") against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer ("Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuit asserts that Defendants made false or misleading statements relating to the Company's performance or revenue and gross profit expectations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 10, 2024, a second putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned Ford v. Marqeta, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-08892 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in the same Court against the same Defendants alleging violations of the same federal securities laws. The second lawsuit asserts similar theories of liability as the first lawsuit. Both lawsuits (collectively, the "Securities Actions") seek to recover damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during their respective putative class periods. The Securities Actions have been consolidated into one consolidated securities litigation captioned In re Marqeta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 24-08874-YGR (N.D. Cal) and the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the matter. On April 10, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which alleges a putative class period of between February 28, 2024 and November 4, 2024. The Company and the other Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 15, 2025. Given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any potential loss. Marqeta Inc. creates digital payment technology for innovation leaders. It provides all of its customers issuer processor services and also acts as a card program manager. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Camas -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file sur-reply. The purpose of a reply brief is to respond to arguments made in opposition to a motion, not to assert new legal theories because it has become clear to the movant that his motion must be denied. But the latter is exactly what the Plaintiff's Reply in support of his Motion for Class Certification does in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant seeks leave to file a sur-reply to address the new arguments, assertions, and case law raised by Plaintiff's Reply. As the Court recognized at the motion to dismiss stage, this case concerns Plaintiff's allegations that the St. Regis Hotel in Aspen, Colorado hires J-1 visa interns and trainees "to provide labor that was substantially different from what had been presented to them" in their Training/Internship Placement Plan (“Plan”) documents. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that he did not receive the training he desired during his six-week internship at the Hotel and he worked more hours than he wished. Now after discovery, however, Plaintiff does not deny, nor could he, Marriott's assertion that his allegations are disproved. Marriott would have addressed the shortcomings of the Plaintiff's new theory in its Opposition had Plaintiff asserted it in his Motion. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ezkPBq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael P. O'Day, Esq. Ellen E. Dew, Esq. William W. Reichart III, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 650 S. Exeter St., Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 580-3000 Facsimile: (410) 580-3001 E-mail: michael.oday@us.dlapiper.com ellen.dew@us.dlapiper.com wes.reichart@us.dlapiper.com MCDONALD'S CORP: Spada Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zachary Spada v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION d/b/a McDonald's, THOMAS DUCHARME ENTERPRISES d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant, THOMEL ENTERPRISES, all others similarly situated, Case No. 11518-25 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00256. The claims which are the subject of the State Court Action arise out of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant claiming violations of federal law. Plaintiff alleges he was employed by Defendant from October 13, 2024, to November 3, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges he informed an HR representative of his "emotional disability". The Plaintiff alleges Defendant did not take action when a fellow coworker made fun of Plaintiff and that Defendant refused a reasonable accommodation when he needed to take a "breather". The Plaintiff alleges the failure to accommodate Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to quit. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant's actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander Nemiroff, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone (267) 602-2040 Facsimile (215) 693-6650 Email: anemiroff@grsm.com MDL 2566: Bid for Sanctions Partly OK'd in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions in light of the Defendant ProPay's admitted spoliation of evidence. The extent of sanctions to be imposed, if any, is left to the discretion of the presiding District Judge at the appropriate time. In summary, the court finds that ProPay failed to take reasonable steps to preserve relevant evidence after the duty to preserve arose. The extent of lost ESI and whether the information it contained has been made available from other sources cannot be ascertained, at least on the record before the court, nor can the extent of prejudice, if any, to individual plaintiffs. The Plaintiff has not shown that ProPay lost evidence relevant to his claims because ProPay was no longer processing payments when he invested the TelexFree Ponzi-pyramid scheme. The court further finds that Plaintiff has not shown that ProPay intended to deprive any plaintiff of relevant evidence or destroyed evidence in bad faith. This MDL arises from the meltdown of a sprawling, hybrid Ponzi-pyramid scheme operated by TelexFree, LLC, TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree Financial, Inc. On Sept. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his emergency motion to compel discovery regarding ProPay's spoliation of evidence. The Defendant was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iih1fs at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2992: Bid to Stay Proceedings in Employment Class Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to stay the proceedings pending its Rule 23(f) petition. The hearing set on Sept. 16, 2025, shall be vacated. In conclusion, considering the Landis factors, the Court concludes that a stay is not warranted and denies Defendant's motion to stay the case pending its Rule 23(f) petition. The Court recognizes that the case is over four years old, the case was already stayed pending Supreme Court review of Davis, and the Individual Plaintiffs' cases have all been stayed pending a ruling on the class certification motion. This MDL arises from several class actions and a large number of individual actions brought against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") over its administration of the electronic benefits payment system for California's Employment Development Department ("EDD") during the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 24, 2025, the Court granted Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointed class representatives as well as co-lead class counsel. Bank of America operates as a financial holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dO7D2A at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3083: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 27, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 31, 2026 Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IqAyZC at no extra charge.[CC] MERCK SHARP: Court Extends Case Schedule in Baltimore Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order regarding extension of case schedule: Event Revised Deadline Rebuttal Expert Reports: Sept. 29, 2025 Reply Expert Reports: Nov. 17, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Dec. 8, 2025 Motion(s) for Class certification: Dec. 29, 2025 Opposition to motion(s) for Class Feb. 10, 2026 certification and related Rule 702 motions: Merck operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3p4xtc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Walker, Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. David Langer, Esq. Sarah Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9740 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net ecramer@bm.net rpaul@bm.net dlanger@bm.net szimmerman@bm.net - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. Jared Dummitt, Esq. Silvie Saltzman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 858-1990 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com srobertson@cohenmilstein.com jdummitt@cohenmilstein.com ssaltzman@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Bass, Esq. Andrew Lazerow, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: abass@cov.com alazerow@cov.com - and - Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq. Mark J. Fanelli, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: lisa.dykstra@morganlewis.com mark.fanelli@morganlewis.com MITRA-9 BRANDS: Cheswick Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitra-9 Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Lyle Cheswick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mitra-9 Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06795 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mitra9 Brands -- https://mitra-9.com/ -- offers kava extract beverages and kratom extract seltzers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline Cella Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Sixth Avenue, Floor 32 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 437-6409 Email: cdonovan@bursor.com MONUMENT GRILL: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MONUMENT GRILL LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06801 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://monumentgrills.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. MONUMENT GRILL LLC, operates the Monument Grills online retail store, as well as the Monument Grills interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal MUNCH ADDICT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walsh Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUNCH ADDICT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50346 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.munchaddict.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 14, 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. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a snack, "Doritos Late Night Oven Roasted Chicken." The complaint relates that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, 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. Munch Addict, LLC operates the website that offers snack products.[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 NASCAR ENTERPRISES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Connly v. NASCAR Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01547 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, Plaintiff and Defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. NASCAR is an American auto racing sanctioning and operating company.[CC] NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Seeks to File Exhibit Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vanessa Clermont, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. National Tenant Network, Inc.; and LCIJ, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-03545-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Parties will move the Court for entry of an Order pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c) authorizing the filing under seal of Exhibit E to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. National provides resident screening services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uOoTMO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 The Defendants are represented by: Andrew S. Turkish, Esq. Carl M. Perri, Esq. CLAUSEN MILLER, P.C. 100 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 410-4130 - and - Marissa Edward, Esq. David M. Schultz, Esq. Todd P. Stelter, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 111 Wood Avenue South, Suite 210 Iselin, NJ 08830 Telephone: (908) 374-0336 E-mail: marissaedwards@hinshawlaw.com dschultz@hinshawlaw.com tstelter@hinshawlaw.com NEBULA GENOMICS: Portillo Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Antoinette Portillo, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Nebula Genomics, Inc., Meta Platforms Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Google LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09894 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12288-BEM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Nebula Genomics -- https://nebula.org/ -- is a personal genomics company based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Loevy, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 312 N. May Street Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: (312) 243-5900 Email: jon@loevy.com - and - Michael I. Kanovitz, Esq. Thomas M. Hanson, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: (312) 243-5900 Email: mike@loevy.com hanson@loevy.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael B. Galibois, Esq. George John Avdellas, Esq. REED SMITH, LP 10 S Wacker Drive, Ste 4000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 207-2810 Fax: (312) 207-6400 Email: mgalibois@reedsmith.com gavdellas@reedsmith.com - and - Wallace Neel, Esq. WALLACE NEEL 1 Blue Hill Plaza, LL 1509 Pearl River, NY 10965 Phone: (646) 524-6502 Email: wallace@wallaceneel.com - and - Blake James Kolesa, Esq. Geoffrey Young, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 1 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 471-8732 Email: bkolesa@rshc-law.com gyoung@rshc-law.com NEWS CORP: Antitrust Class Suit Settlement for Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------- News 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 antitrust class suit settlement is subject to the final approval of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Beginning in August 2024, a number of purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against certain pipe converters, distributors and the Company's subsidiary, Oil Price Information Service, LLC ("OPIS"), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In May 2025, the Company entered into a settlement which would resolve the complaints. The settlement received preliminary court approval in July 2025 but remains subject to final approval. News Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global diversified media and information services company comprised of businesses across a range of media, including: digital real estate services, subscription video services in Australia, news and information services and book publishing. NPAS SOLUTIONS: Fishman Class Action Closed ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES S. FISHMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 9:17-cv-80393-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robin Rosenberg entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to mark the case as closed. The Court concludes that the discussed factors render class counsels' request for a 30% fee award fair and reasonable. To the extent that any party believes further orders of the Court are necessary to accomplish the Eleventh Circuit's mandate and order of remand, the Court's closure of the case will not impair the ability of any party to file a motion or seek any form of relief from the Court. Because the Court understood the questionable legal basis for the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court did not view the reasonableness of the settlement agreement nor the hours expended by class counsel (given that the objector's appeal contesting the settlement spanned many years) in this case as raising a close question. In the case, the Court determined that a fee award of 30% of the settlement fund of $1,432,000 was reasonable in light of all of the relevant factors under Eleventh Circuit caselaw. In this section, the Court explains its findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasoning that it made at the hearing in support of its determination that the attorneys' fee award was reasonable. NPAS is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EqoPLP at no extra charge.[CC] NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Callahan ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Callahan v. Nuance Communications, Inc. (RE: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION ), Case No. 1:23-cv-12478 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 27, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 31, 2026 Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tgoSTC at no extra charge.[CC] NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Eyester ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eyester v. Nuance Communications, Inc. (RE: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION ), Case No. 1:23-cv-12281 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 27, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 31, 2026 Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HL7vRL at no extra charge.[CC] NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Farrar ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Farrar v. Nuance Communications, Inc. (Re: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12561 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 27, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 31, 2026 Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=buoNsI at no extra charge.[CC] NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Peel --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peel v. Nuance Communications Inc. (Re: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12226 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 27, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 31, 2026 Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oQOn70 at no extra charge.[CC] NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Salas ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salas v. Nuance Communications, Inc.(re: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12273 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 27, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 31, 2026 Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Uf004 at no extra charge.[CC] NVIDIA CORPORATION: More Time for Class Cert Briefing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation and joint request to extend deadlines for class certification briefing. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended from Sept. 11, 2025 to Sept. 18, 2025; and The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of its motion for class certification is extended from Oct. 16, 2025 to Oct. 23, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, which was supported by the expert report of Joseph R. Mason, Ph.D. Nvidia is a multinational technology company that develops, markets, and sells graphics processing units ("GPUs"). A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hjQfBm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq. Jamie M. McCall, Esq. Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq. Nathaniel C. Simon, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com jmccall@ktmc.com nhasiuk@ktmc.com nsimon@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com - and - Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq. Michael M. Mathai, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3472 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com preethi@blbglaw.com michael.mathai@blbglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Amanda A. Main, Esq. John C. Bostic, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com amain@cooley.com jbostic@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com slightdale@cooley.com - and - Scott A. Edelman, Esq. Jed M. Schwartz, Esq. Andrew B. Lichtenberg, Esq. Olivia S. Choe, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com jschwartz@milbank.com alichtenberg@milbank.com ochoe@milbank.com OBERON DISTRIBUTION: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oberon Distribution, Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Diaz, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employee v. Oberon Distribution, Inc., AIGC Services LLC, YILONG CHEN, HAIYAN LI, Case No. 25STCV23930 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Oberon Distribution -- https://oberondistribution.com/ -- is local distribution to service company in China & EUP.[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 OSMOSE UTILITIES: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angel Rivera, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES INC., a Delaware stock corporation; ADAN DURAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-25-102516 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01023-CDB. The Complaint purports to state causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com - and - Jason P. Brown, Esq. Jorge A. Flores, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 Email: jbrown@fisherphillips.com jaflores@fisherphillips.com PACIFIC GAS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Moon Due Oct. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEROMY MOON, RICARDO LUNA, and GUY GRAFF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06716-JFW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order granting deadline to file motion for class certification. 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification, currently Oct. 16, 2025, shall be continued to Dec. 8, 2025. Pacific provides natural gas and electric service to residential and business customers in northern and central California. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mAlgtZ at no extra charge.[CC] PAVILION ASSISTED: Waters Seeks Notice for FLSA Employee Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATINA WATERS, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated current and former employees, v. THE PAVILION ASSISTED LIVING, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion Senior Living and The Pavilion Senior Living Lebanon, PAVILION-THS, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion and The Pavilion Senior Living Rehabilitation & Care Center, CARTHAGE ASSISTED LIVING, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion Senior Living Carthage, and SMYRNA ASSISTED LIVING OPCO, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion Senior Living Smyrna, The Pavillion Assisted Living, LLC et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01318 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Issuing court-authorized notice to all current and former hourly-paid non-exempt patient care employees (including caregivers, certified nursing assistants, restorative nursing assistants, licensed practical nurses, and registered nurses of the Defendants who have performed work for the Defendants at any time since Nov. 4, 2021. 2. Authorizing the Plaintiffs to send notice of the FLSA collective action to all similarly situated patient care employees via First Class Mail and email, apprising them of this lawsuit so that they may join and assert claims under the FLSA. 3. Compelling the Defendants to produce the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and dates of employment for all similarly situated patient care employees. 4. Holding that the statute of limitations for putative opt-in plaintiffs is tolled as of the date of the filing of the original Complaint. Pavilion offers independent living, assisted living, and Alzheimer's and dementia care. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rNNIfj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com The Defendants are represented by: Mekesha H. Montgomery, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 215-5550 Facsimile: (502) 251-5551 E-mail: mmontgomery@fbtlaw.com PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Paylocity Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Illinois BIPA class suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County. On November 16, 2020, a potential class action complaint was filed against the Company with the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that the Company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint sought statutory damages, attorney's fees and other costs. On April 22, 2025, this matter was dismissed with prejudice. On May 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit on appeal. Paylocity Holding Corporation is a cloud-based provider of human capital management and payroll software solutions. PENTAGON FEDERAL: Must Oppose Beyard Class Cert Bid by Sept. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE BEYARD, et al., v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01063-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order regarding stipulation for class certification briefing schedule The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Sept. 2, 2025; The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed no later than Oct. 1, 2025; and The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is set for Nov. 5, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be heard by the undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations. On July 22, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the briefing schedule for the then-to be filed motion for class certification set before the then-assigned District Judge. The stipulation remained pending before the then-assigned District Judge. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification before the then-assigned District Judge. On Aug. 13, 2025, the matter was reassigned to District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Pentagon is a federal credit union. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=loFzvG at no extra charge.[CC] PERRIGO CO: Oct. 2025 Conspiracy Suit Certification Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Co. PLC. 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 Federal Court of Canada has scheduled a conspiracy class suit certification hearing in October 2025. In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Federal Court in Canada against Perrigo and 29 manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which were neither made nor sold by Perrigo's former Rx business. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo. The Statement of Claim has been amended three times since it was issued. The next step in the action is currently expected to be the motion to certify the action as a class proceeding, which is scheduled to be heard in October 2025. Perrigo Company PLC is a provider of over-the-counter health and wellness solutions. It is headquartered in Ireland and markets around the world. PF CALI: Filing of Class Cert Opposition Due Sept. 12 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' ex parte application to briefly continue class certification and briefing related deadlines: Event Date Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Aug. 29, 2025 motion for class certification: Deadline for Defendants to file opposition Sept. 12, 2025 to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply to Sept. 26, 2025 the Defendant' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Hearing for class certification: Oct. 10, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B6gFsz at no extra charge.[CC] PHH MORTGAGE: Class Settlement in Munoz Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00759-MMB-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge M. Miller Baker entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional class certification. 1. The court provisionally certifies the following class under Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(e): "All persons who obtained residential mortgage loans originated and/or acquired by PHH and/or its affiliates from Jan. 1, 2007, through Dec. 31, 2009, and, in connection therewith, purchased private mortgage insurance and whose loans were included within PHH's captive mortgage insurance agreements, including successors, heirs, and/or assigns of such persons." The following entities and individuals are excluded from the settlement class: (a) the Defendants' officers, directors, and employees; (b) Defendants' affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors, and employees; (c) Defendants' future, present, and former direct and indirect parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns, and their future, present, and former directors, officers, employees, managers, servants, principals, agents, insurers, reinsurers, shareholders, investors, attorneys, advisors, consultants, representatives, partners, joint venturers, divisions, predecessors, successors, assigns, and agents thereof; (d) all persons who have previously excluded them selves from the certified class; and (e) any person otherwise in the settlement class who timely and properly excludes himself from the settlement class as provided in the settlement agreement and class notices. 2. The court appoints the Plaintiffs as settlement class representatives. 3. The court appoints Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, and Larson LLP as settlement class counsel. 4. The court will hold a final approval hearing on Dec. 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Time. PHH provides mortgage financing solutions. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iEbWbL at no extra charge.[CC] PHYNET DERMATOLOGY: Cunningham Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PhyNet Dermatology LLC. The case is styled as Yolanda Cunningham, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PhyNet Dermatology LLC; Total Vein & Skin, LLC doing business as: Premier Dermatology Partners; Case No. 3:25-cv-00920 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PhyNet Dermatology -- https://phynet.com/ -- is an outsourced managed services company for dermatology practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. 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 PINNACLE WEST: Continues to Defend Nuclear Wage Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle West Capital Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Nuclear Wage class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 11, 2025, APS, together with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, was named in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges the country's nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation. The class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003 until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The Company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Pinnacle West is an American utility holding company that owns Arizona Public Service. PLY GEM: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Jameson Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William G. Jameson and Bill Lane on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Ply Gem Specialty Products, LLC, Cornerstone Building Brands Services, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-06223-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a consent amended scheduling order as follows: No later than Aug. 29, 2025, the required initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) shall be made. Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings (Fed.R.Civ.P.16(b)(3)(A)) shall be filed no later than Nov. 20, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 no later than Sept. 1, 2026. The Defendants shall file any response to a class certification motion on or before Sept. 22, 2026. Discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 4, 2026. Motions in limine must be filed no later than Feb. 12, 2027. This case is subject to being called for jury selection and/or trial on or after March 1, 2027. Ply is a manufacturer of exterior building products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0fS8i5 at no extra charge.[CC] POSHMARK INC: Arnold Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ TONYA ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POSHMARK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06917 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data, says the suit. Poshmark, Inc. operates as a social commerce marketplace. The Company offers platform where users can buy and sells apparels, home decor, beauty products, jewelry, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dean Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Patricia Dean, Carole Grant, Latronya Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-05977 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00919-DRC-KAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (708) 628-4960 Email: dank@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David R. Singh, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8159 Fax: (212) 310-8007 Email: david.singh@weil.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Five Class Actions Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY "PROTECT, GROW AND RESTORE" MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00900-DRC-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the following actions to the Southern District of Ohio and assigning to the Hon. Douglas R. Cole for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings: "ALZAIDI, ET AL. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25−04519 (N.D. Cal.); DEAN, ET AL. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25−05977 (N.D. Ill); GIARRIZZO, ET AL. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25−11524 (D. Mass.) DUPONT v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case 0:25−02260 (D. Minn.) MAGGIO v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 1:25−02667 (S.D.N.Y.); WILLIS, ET AL. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25−04461 (S.D.N.Y.); and LOWRY, ET AL. v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25−00108 (W.D. Wash.) The Southern District of Ohio is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Defendant P&G has its headquarters in this district, and common witnesses and other evidence likely will be found in or near this district. We assign the litigation to Judge Douglas R. Cole, a jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over multidistrict litigation. We are confident that Judge Cole will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. Procter is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u4XdMm at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Giarrizzo Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Pamela A. Giarrizzo, Cynthia Meuse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-11524 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00922-DRC-KAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, Ste. 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 482-3700 Email: abbyeo@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca J. Sivitz, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 100 Federal Street, 34th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 772-8339 Email: rebecca.sivitz@weil.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Maggio Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Breanne Maggio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Rainforest Alliance, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02667 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00921-DRC-KAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Kathleen Church, Esq. Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Phone: (914) 420-3855 Email: jchurch@richmanlawpolicy.com krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com The Defendant is represented by: David Jason Lender, Esq. David R. Singh, Esq. Aaron J. Curtis, Esq. Elaina Kathryn Aquila, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES (NY) 767 5th Ave. New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8153 Email: David.Lender@weil.com david.singh@weil.com aaron.curtis@weil.com elaina.aquila@weil.com - and - Christopher T. Vazquez, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSEMAN LLP 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020-1605 Phone: (212) 940-6608 Email: christopher.vazquez@katten.com - and - Christopher A. Cole, I, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2900 K Street, NW, North Tower-Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007-5118 Phone: (202) 625-3550 Email: chris.cole@katten.com - and - Johnjerica Hodge, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN 1919 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006-3404 Phone: (202) 625-3710 Email: johnjerica.hodge@katten.com PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris Suit Seeks Leave to File Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a reply in support of the Plaintiffs motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks to address new arguments and evidence presented by the Defendant in its opposition, which were not previously available to the Plaintiffs. The reply will assist the Court in understanding the full context and implications of the issues raised, thereby promoting a just and efficient resolution of the class certification motion. On July 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Progress is the property management subsidiary of Pretium Partners LLC and Progress Residential, LLC. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uqAWux at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Seeks to Strike Certain Exhibit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), `the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: (1) striking and removing from the public docket Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, which is the entire unredacted Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey H. Milgroom; (2) sealing the unredacted version of the Milgroom Transcript, which is Exhibit 1 and concurrently and separately attached as a Proposed Sealed Item on the docket; and (3) permitting Progress to publicly file a redacted version of the Milgroom Transcript, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Progress is the property management subsidiary of Pretium Partners LLC and Progress Residential, LLC. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ym4QCm at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ardith Bronson, Esq. Jose M. Espinosa, Esq. Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. Christine E. Ellice, Esq. Dustin A. Linden, Esq. DLA Piper LLP (US) 2200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 423-8562 Facsimile: (305) 503-9583 E-mail: ardith.bronson@us.dlapiper.com jose.espinosa@us.dlapiper.com angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com christine.ellice@us.dlapiper.com dustin.linden@us.dlapiper.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Okeke ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Okeke v. Progress Software Corporation et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-11523 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order certifying settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons in the United States whose Personal Information was included in the files affected by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Nuance, any entity in which Nuance has a controlling interest, and Nuance's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Denise Peel, Kristen Eyester, Juan Salas, Patricia Callahan, Kayla Farrar, and Justin Okeke are preliminarily as the Settlement Class Representatives; and -- preliminarily appointing, pursuant to Rule 23(g), E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: -- Claim deadline: Dec. 24, 2025 -- Motion for final approval: Feb. 27, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 31, 2026 Progress is an American public company that produces software for creating and deploying business applications. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lEDRcW at no extra charge.[CC] PUBMATIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of PubMatic, Inc. (NASDAQ: PUBM) between February 27, 2025 and August 11, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 20, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased PubMatic securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the PubMatic class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43810 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 20, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a top demand side platform ("DSP") buyer was shifting a significant number of clients to a new platform which evaluated inventory differently; (2) as a result, PubMatic was seeing a reduction in ad spend and revenue from this top DSP buyer; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about PubMatic's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the PubMatic class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43810 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] QUAKER OATS CO: Edwards Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Quaker Oats Co. The case is styled as Selassie Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Quaker Oats Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-06794-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Quaker Oats Company -- https://www.quakeroats.com/ -- known as Quaker, is an American food conglomerate based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Cole Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7011 Email: jdiamond@bursor.com QUIDELORTHO CORP: Continues to Defend Bristol County Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- QuidelOrtho Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bristol County Retirement System class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 12, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint under the federal securities laws against the Company and three of its current and former executives. The complaint, which is captioned Bristol County Retirement System v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02804-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Bristol County Complaint"), asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to statements regarding sales of the Company's COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its Savanna RVP4 assay. The Bristol County Complaint seeks a judgment determining that the lawsuit can be maintained as a class action and awarding the plaintiff and putative class damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs. On December 16, 2024, the court appointed Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund ("Teamsters Funds") as lead plaintiffs in the action, and approved their selection of lead counsel. Teamsters Funds filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2025, and added as additional defendants three current and former executives of the Company not previously named in the Bristol County Complaint. On April 4, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. QuidelOrtho Corporation, formerly known as Quidel Corporation, is a manufacturer of diagnostic healthcare products, headquartered in California. [BN] QUIKAID INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QuikAid, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03238-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend the time file a motion for class certification. The Court expects that the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification at a time that is Ordered by the Court when a Scheduling Order is issued. Quikaid focuses exclusively on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m42eiP at no extra charge.[CC] RALPH LAUREN: Bid to Transfer Venue Tossed ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying motion to transfer venue. The case simply has progressed too far in this Court for a transfer to the Central District to make sense now, and this factor weighs very heavily against transfer. Discovery is nearly complete, and Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is due on Oct. 15, 2025, just over two months from now. The Court understands that this issue arose late in the litigation after the originally-proposed named plaintiff withdrew from the case. But regardless, whatever the merits of this transfer motion might have been at an earlier stage in the case, the Court finds that the public interest in a timely resolution here weighs dispositively against asking a new judge in a new district to take on this case at this late date. The case simply has progressed too far in this Court for a transfer to the Central District to make sense now, and this factor weighs very heavily against transfer. On December 2023, the Plaintiff Vivian Salazar filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Unruh Civil Rights Act. In May 2025, counsel filed an amended complaint replacing Ms. Salazar with Richard Merrell as named plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings the same claims as Ms. Salazar on behalf of identical putative classes. Ralph designs, markets and distributes premium lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tSDQLT at no extra charge.[CC] RALPH LAUREN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Merrell Amended to Nov. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order resetting the following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Close of Fact and Expert Discovery Related Sept. 23, 2025 to Class Certification: Last Day to File Motion for Class Nov. 12, 2025 Certification: Last Day to File Opposition Dec. 3, 2025 Last Day to File Reply: Dec. 17, 2025 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 15, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Ralph markets products in apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rZ4iN4 at no extra charge.[CC] RALPH LAUREN: Filing for Class Cert. in Merrell Due Nov. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the Plaintiff's class certification fact discovery cutoff and class certification briefing schedule: Event Proposed New Deadline Close of Fact Discovery Related to Class Sept. 23, 2025 Certification: Last Day to File Motion for Class Nov. 12, 2025 Certification: Last Day to File Opposition to Motion Dec. 3, 2025 for Class Certification: Last Day to File Reply: Dec. 17, 2025 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 8, 2026, at 2:00 pm Ralph designs, markets and distributes premium lifestyle products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ETJ19X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com RALPH LAUREN: More Time for Class Cert Fact Discovery Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salazar v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the Plaintiff's class certification fact discovery cutoff date of Aug. 12, 2025, to Sept. 9, 2025. On Dec. 28, 2023, prior named class representative, Vivian Salazar filed her class action complaint against the Defendant. On May 21, 2025, Salazar was replaced by the Plaintiff in the first amended complaint. Ralph designs, markets and distributes premium lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v0PYzF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com RALPH LAUREN: Parties' Request to Continue Discovery Deadline Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the parties' request to continue fact discovery deadline, without prejudice to refiling if the parties can correct the outlined deficiencies. The Court says that the parties have failed to actually request an extension of their class certification briefing schedule, let alone present one with enough detail and clarity for the Court to substantively review. Ralph designs, markets and distributes premium lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hQfiYm at no extra charge.[CC] RAWLINGS CO: Zakarian Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN ZAKARIAN, and MARY JONES, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. THE RAWLINGS COMPANY LLC, RAWLINGS FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00229-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (1) The motion is granted insofar as the Plaintiffs' proposed damages classes are certified as follows: Damages Classes Ms. Jones is the representative of the following damages class: "All Missouri citizens, represented by counsel, who resolved any lawsuit, claim, or cause of action in their favor since Jan. 1, 2019 where the Defendants recovered a lien or subrogation interest on behalf of a Medicare Advantage Organization without reducing the amount of the lien or subrogation interest to offset for procurement costs." Mr. Zakarian is the representative of the following damages class: "All Kansas citizens, represented by counsel, who resolved any lawsuit, claim, or cause of action in their favor since Jan. 1, 2021 where the Defendants recovered a lien or subrogation interest on behalf of a Medicare Advantage Organization without reducing the amount of the lien or subrogation interest to offset for procurement costs." (2) The following are appointed as class counsel: Joseph A. Kronawitter and Taylor P. Foye with the law firm of Horn Aylward & Bandy, LC, and Brian T. Meyers and Brian C. McCart with the law firm of Brian Timothy Meyers; (3) Within 21 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall submit a joint proposed Class Notice and Notice Plan regarding the damages classes; (4) Within 21 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint proposed amended scheduling order; and (5) the motion is denied insofar as the Court will not certify the Plaintiffs' proposed injunctive classes. The Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity and ascertainability requirements. The Plaintiffs are and were insured through Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs). The Plaintiffs were involved in separate motor vehicle accidents and suffered personal injuries. Plaintiffs' Medicare Advantage (MA) plans made conditional payments to Plaintiffs' healthcare providers to cover health care related to their accidents. The Plaintiffs retained counsel and settled their claims against the respective tortfeasors. Plaintiffs incurred attorneys’ fees and costs during this process. Rawlings provides legal services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fSPtBJ at no extra charge.[CC] RICHARD CHAREST: Court Temporarily Lifts Stay of JEL Case --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.E.L., by and through their next friend, PATRICIA BYRNES, et al., v. RICHARD CHAREST, in his official capacity as Secretary of the EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00471-MRD-AEM (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Melissa R. DuBose entered an order granting the Parties motion to temporarily lift the stay to consider the Plaintiffs' Assented-to Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The case has been stayed at the parties' joint request since June 27, 2025, while they pursue mediation. Before the Court for immediate consideration are two motions. The Court appoints Kristine Sullivan, Samantha Bartosz, Aarti Iyer, and Lynette Labinger as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MSSNB2 at no extra charge.[CC] RIVERSIDE, CA: Riverside Seeks to Reset Class Cert Filing Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERSIDE ALL OF US OR NONE, ET AL., v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, LARRY GONZALEZ, Case No. 5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting request to reset the time for filing the motion for class certification. Event Deadline Renewed Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 15, 2025 Deadline to Complete Settlement Nov. 5, 2025 Conference (Plaintiffs are open to private, panel, or Magistrate mediation.): Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 7, 2026 Jury Trial – Proposed date or as soon Jan. 26, 2026 after as all parties can be available: If the Court approves the extension, Plaintiffs will consult with Defendants on a briefing schedule that accommodates the holidays. On Jan. 6, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed notice of motion and motion for class certification. No hearing was held. On Aug. 5, 2025, the Court denied the motion without prejudice to the Plaintiffs renewing the motion to address the deficiencies discussed in the Order. Plaintiffs intend to renew the Motion and address the issues raised by the Court. The Plaintiffs contacted the Parties to Meet and Confer regarding the schedule of the renewed Motion and relevant deadlines including trial that may need to be moved. Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZpU4C2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brooke Weitzman, Esq. Allison Greenberg, Esq. Andrea Smith, Esq. ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER 1535 E. 17TH ST., STE. 110 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 617-5353 Facsimile: (714) 754-1306 E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org agreenberg@eldrcenter.org asmith@eldrcenter.org - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. Weston Rowland, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 2632 Wilshire Boulevard, #552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com rowland.weston@gmail.com RIVIAN LLC: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jeffrey Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIVIAN, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; RIVIAN AND VW GROUP TECHNOLOGY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; RIVIAN INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet known Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21452-4-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01552. The Plaintiff asserts one claim against Defendants under the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA") for a purported violation of Wash. Rev. Codes. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "he and more than 40 Class members applied for job openings with Defendant for positions located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered." The Plaintiff alleges that "some, if not all, of Defendants' job postings" lack pay information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 393-4058 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com - and - Matthew R. Kelly, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 393-4060 Email: mrkelly@seyfarth.com ROBLOX CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Soucek Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARACELY SOUCEK, individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff, N.S., YANIV DE RIDDER, individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff T.D., DANIELLE SASS, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, L.C., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., PAUL CLISH, JULIAN DURAK, PATRICK DIETZ, ADURITE LIMITED, STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., BASED PLATE STUDIO LLC, SHANE SELINGER, SPA TIC LLC, ARISTEIDIS STATHOULOPOULOS, RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, RBLX WILD ENTERTAINMENT, BORIS SAID JR., NICHOLAS CARLO, and JOHN DOE # l, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Sept. 18, 2025, will move the Court, for entry of an order dismissing, or in the alternative severing, the Plaintiffs claims against Mr. Said pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and Local Rule 7-2. Given Plaintiffs' extreme delay in seeking to add Mr. Said to this case, and the corresponding deprivation of Mr. Said’s basic right to due process if he is added at this late date, the Plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Said should be dismissed. The Plaintiffs Danielle Sass and Rachelle Colvin filed this class action in August 2023. Now -- two years later -- Sass and her current co-plaintiffs have made a misguided attempt to add Boris Said Jr. (and various other individuals) to the already long list of defendants. The Plaintiffs' attempt to do so is untimely, highly prejudicial, and should be rejected. On April 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an "Amended Complaint for Consolidated Class Action," and the parties soon thereafter stipulated to a protective order. Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdIa6W at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David Clark, Esq. Kevin Crisp, Esq. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 202-3000 Facsimile: (949) 202-3001 E-mail: david.clark@haynesandboone.com kevin.crisp@haynesboone.com ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing two putative securities lawsuits in a New Jersey court. "On June 11, 2025 and July 18, 2025, two stockholders filed putative securities class action lawsuits against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, purportedly on behalf of classes of the Company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025 and between September 17, 2024 and May 26, 2025, respectively. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company regarding its Phase 2 clinical trial for RP-A501 for Danon disease. The actions seek unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. We intend to vigorously defend against such allegations. Given the nature of the cases, including that the proceedings are in their early stages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the cases or estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company stated. RXO INC: Standing Order Entered in Orr Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALLY ORR, v. RXO, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06581-WLH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a standing order for newly assigned civil cases: Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was removed from state court, the defendant that removed the case must serve this Order on all other parties. The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith as required by L.R. 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. RXO provides transportation solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=btnnn1 at no extra charge.[CC] SALEM TOWNSHIP: Liddle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Melinda Liddle, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SALEM TOWNSHIP HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:25-cv-01595 (S.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, for its failure to pay employees wages and overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("Illinois Minimum Wage Law" or "IMWL"). The Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek. During their employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff were not fully and properly paid in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and the IMWL for all of their compensable hours worked due to the Defendant's companywide policies and/or practices. The Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff resulted in unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime. The Defendant was fully aware of the fact that they were legally required to comply with the wage and hour laws of the FLSA and the IMWL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a Registered Nurse ("RN") from August 2022 until August 2024. The Defendant operates a full-service acute care hospital providing a range of inpatient, outpatient, emergency, and long-term care services to patients in Salem, Illinois and the surrounding region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 222-2222 Fax: (888) 604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com SAPPHIRE PERSONAL HOME: Hollen Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Michaela Hollen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAPPHIRE PERSONAL HOME SERVICE AGENCY LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00164-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 15, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking unpaid minimum wages and/or overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other employees at a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour in their regular workweeks. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home health caregiver on April 8, 2025. Sapphire Personal Home Service provides in-home care to seniors and individuals with special needs including, but not limited to, home health care, hospice care, personal care, and personal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is are represented by: Robert A. Hicks, Esq. MACEY SWANSON HICKS & SAUER 429 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 204 Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800 Phone: (317) 637-2345 Fax: (317) 637-2369 Email: rhicks@maceylaw.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces ELEVIDY's-Related Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarepta Therapeutics 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 faces a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 26, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, Chief Executive Officer Douglas Ingram, former Chief Customer Officer Dallan Murray, and President of Research and Development and Technical Operations Louise Rodino-Klapac in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures made regarding ELEVIDYS's safety and efficacy and the Company's financial statements and projections. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between June 22, 2023 and June 24, 2025. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. Sarepta is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company headquartered that focuses on RNA and gene therapies for the treatment of rare diseases. During the Class Period, Sarepta was engaged in the development of therapies to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, including ELEVIDYS. SEE INC: Kaya Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against See Inc. The case is styled as Ekim Kaya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. See Inc. doing business as: Seeeyewear, Case No. 2:25-cv-12541-TGB-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. See Inc. doing business as Seeeyewear -- https://seeeyewear.com/ -- is an eclectic luxury designer eyewear collection of exclusive and original prescription eyeglasses and non-prescription.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SELECTQUOTE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SelectQuote Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 16, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 ("the Hartel Action") was filed against the Company and two of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021 (the "Hartel Relevant Period"). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Hartel Relevant Period. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs. On October 7, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08279 (the "WPBPPF Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, two of its executive officers, and six current or former members of the Company's Board of Directors, along with the underwriters of the Company''s initial public offering of common stock (the "Offering"). The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of the Company's common stock (i) in or traceable to the Offering or (ii) between May 20, 2020 and August 25, 2021 (the "WPB Relevant Period"). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the WPB Relevant Period. The complaint also alleges the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making misstatements and omissions of material facts in connection with the Offering, allegedly causing a decline in the value of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs. On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate the Hartel Action and the WPBPPF Action was filed. On September 2, 2022, the court entered an order consolidating the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions under the caption In re SelectQuote, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (the "Securities Class Action") and appointing the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On November 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting similar allegations to those alleged in the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions in addition to new allegations regarding certain defendants' purported violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also added Brookside Equity Partners LLC, one of the Company's principal stockholders, as a defendant. On January 27, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of itself and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 5, 2023, and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May 10, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on May 31, 2024. On July 31, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October 2, 2024, and the Company filed its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition on November 1, 2024. On April 3, 2025, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2025. On August 8, 2025, plaintiffs West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System filed a brief in support of their appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"), and on August 13, 2025, the Second Circuit granted the parties' joint stipulation dismissing Brookside Equity Partners LLC from the appeal. The appeal remains pending before the Second Circuit. The Company currently believes that none of the above matters will have a material adverse effect on its operations, financial condition or liquidity; however, depending on how the matters progress, they could be costly to defend and could divert the attention of management and other resources from operations. The Company has not concluded that a loss related to these matters is probable and, therefore, has not accrued a liability related to any of these matters. SelectQuote is an insurance broker which sells Medicare Advantage and other health insurance plans online and by telephone.[BN] SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Coneo Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN CONEJO, an individual, and ERICK ONTIVEROS MOLINA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SELLAN STRUCTURAL ERECTORS, LLC, SELLAN STEEL LLC, and GIORGIO SELLAN, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-02930-SKC-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order -- granting their motion for Rule 23 class certification, -- compelling the Defendants to provide contact information for the putative Class members, -- designating the Plaintiffs as class representatives, -- designating the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel, and -- providing for the issuance of judicial Notice. The proposed Class definition is: "All non-management individuals who have worked for Sellan Steel between the date six years before the filing of the Complaint (i.e., Nov. 3, 2017), and the date of the Court's Order on this motion." On Nov. 6, 2023, two individuals filed their Complaint against Defendants Sellan Structural Erectors, LLC, and its principal, Giorgio Sellan, alleging that they were owed underpaid overtime wages and related damages for work performed at Sellan Steel, and that individual Defendant Sellan was their joint "employer" pursuant to the FLSA and Colorado Wage Claim Acts. On April 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to add another corporate entity as a Defendant, add another Plaintiff, and remove a Plaintiff. Sellan is involved in the process of erecting steel structures for various construction projects. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w7AUQ9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Penn A. Dodson, Esq. ANDERSONDODSON, P.C. 14143 Denver West Pkwy., Suite 100-50 Golden, CO 80401 Telephone: (212) 961-7639 E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE: Peterson Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Russell Peterson, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and THE WILDER AGENCY, LLC, Case No. CJ-2025-133 was removed from the District Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma on Aug. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-00285-GLJ. The Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract, fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligent procurement. The Plaintiff alleges Shelter improperly charged a $20 reinstatement fee to "thousands of insureds" and that it is "a common and pervasive practice."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Waddell, Esq. JASON WADDELL, PLLC 222 NW 13th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: (405) 232-5291 Facsimile: (405) 708-7871 Email: jason@jasonwaddelllaw.com The Defendants are represented by: R. Ryan Deligans, Esq. Andrew M. Gunn, Esq. Katherine T. Loy, Esq. DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Phone: (405) 235-9584 Facsimile: (405) 235-0551 Email: rdeligans@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net kloy@dlb.net - and - Martin A. Kasten, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP 400 W Capitol Ave., Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 376-2011 Email: mkasten@fridayfirm.com SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER CHOW, as Administrator of the Estate of LEROY CHOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHOREFRONT OPERATING LLC D/B/A SEAGATE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER; SHAINDY BERKO; ROCHEL DAVID; LEAH FRIEDMAN; DEENA LANDA; ESTHER FARKOVITZ; AVI PHILIPSON; BERISH RUBINSTEIN; DAVID RUBINSTEIN; BRUSCHA SINGER; JOEL ZUPNICK; SHOREFRONT REALTY LLC; SENTOSACARE, LLC; BENT PHILIPSON; and DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order denying the Defendants' request that the Court reconsider the class certification order and deny class certification. However, the Court, on its own initiative, amends the prior class certification order solely with respect to the class period, which is to run from Nov. 27, 2015, through Sept. 30, 2019. The class action concerns the allegations of the Plaintiff that the owners and operators of Seagate Rehabilitation and Nursing Center provided insufficient staffing to residents in violation of section 2801-d of New York's Public Health Law. The Plaintiff alleges that these violations injured Seagate residents, who did not receive the requisite level of care. The Defendants now move for reconsideration of the Court's recent memorandum and order certifying Plaintiff's proposed class. Shorefront provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iuT3K6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 The Defendants are represented by: Lori R. Semlies, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 1133 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 SIGNET BUILDERS: Vanegas Bid for Leave to File SAC Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE AGEO LUNA VANEGAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and GUADALUPE NALLELY GARCIA-GARCIA, in her capacity as the executor of Jose Luis Garcia Gonzalez's estate, v. SIGNET BUILDERS, INC., SIGNET CONSTRUCTION, LLC, NORTHRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ORVILLE J. SCHONEFELD II, NATALIE FARMER, AND RODNEY SCHONEFELD, Case No. 3:21-cv-00054-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended Complaint is denied. 2. The Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. 3. The Sept. 16, 2025, deadline for filing a motion for class certification is struck. The case began in Jan. of 2021 as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It has a long procedural history that includes two trips to the court of appeals, and the case is again in this court for what should be a resolution on the merits. On Aug. 2, 2023, the court allowed plaintiff Jose Aego Luna Vanegas to amend his complaint to add state-law claims and conditionally certified a nationwide FLSA collective. The Court's Aug. 2, 2023, order granted the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a nationwide collective. The Plaintiffs' proposed amendment would re-expand the case to require multi-state discovery (mostly for work done outside of Wisconsin) and require the parties and the court to engage questions of law under the law of those multiple states. The late amendment is not consistent with efficient and fair litigation. Signet is a construction company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EFNuJ6 at no extra charge.[CC] SIRIUS XM: Court Holds in Abeyance All Pending Bids --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE CAMPBELL, et al., v. SIRIUS XM RADIO LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02261-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin S. Bruce entered an order granting request to hold all pending motions in abeyance: -– Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal -– Motion to Certify Class -– Sealed Motion -– Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal -– Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal -– Sealed Motion -– Motion to Strike Undisclosed Declarants -– Motion to Exclude Transcripts -– Motion for Leave to File Surreply -– Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal -– Motion for Leave to File Replies On July 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report representing that they entered into a class action settlement term sheet. Sirius operates as a satellite radio broadcasting company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AgTdId at no extra charge.[CC] SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Cogan Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY COGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SKIDMORE COLLEGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01409-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae D'Agostino entered a final approval order and judgment granting Plaintiffs' (1) unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement; and (2) motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards to class representatives. T the Court finally certifies for settlement purposes only the following Settlement Class: "All persons residing in the United States who were notified in or around Sept. 15, 2023, via written notice, that their PII may have been involved in the Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) the Defendant Skidmore University and its employees, officers, directors, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and any entity in which the Defendant has a whole or partial ownership of financial interest; (ii) all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this Settlement using the correct protocol for opting out; (iii) any counsel and their respective staff appearing in this matter; and (iv) all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, their immediate family members, and their respective court staff. The Court also entered an order: -- granting final approval to the appointment of the Plaintiffs Peter Kobor and Mary Cogan as the settlement class Representatives; -- granting final approval to the appointment of William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA, and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as Class Counsel; -- awarding Class Counsel $195,000 as an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid in accordance with the Settlement, and the Court finds this amount of fees, costs, and expenses to be fair and reasonable; and -- awarding each of the named Plaintiffs a service award in the amount of $2,000 (for a total payment of $4,000). Skidmore is a private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wtwq54 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South - Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 The Defendant is represented by: Casie E. Collignon, Esq. Robyn M. Feldstein, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street - Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Kobor Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER KOBOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SKIDMORE COLLEGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01392-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae D'Agostino entered a final approval order and judgment granting Plaintiffs' (1) unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement; and (2) motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards to class representatives. T the Court finally certifies for settlement purposes only the following Settlement Class: "All persons residing in the United States who were notified in or around Sept. 15, 2023, via written notice, that their PII may have been involved in the Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) the Defendant Skidmore University and its employees, officers, directors, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and any entity in which the Defendant has a whole or partial ownership of financial interest; (ii) all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this Settlement using the correct protocol for opting out; (iii) any counsel and their respective staff appearing in this matter; and (iv) all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, their immediate family members, and their respective court staff. The Court also entered an order: -- granting final approval to the appointment of the Plaintiffs Peter Kobor and Mary Cogan as the settlement class Representatives; -- granting final approval to the appointment of William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA, and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as Class Counsel; -- awarding Class Counsel $195,000 as an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid in accordance with the Settlement, and the Court finds this amount of fees, costs, and expenses to be fair and reasonable; and -- awarding each of the named Plaintiffs a service award in the amount of $2,000 (for a total payment of $4,000). Skidmore is a private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CyYeU5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South - Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 The Defendant is represented by: Casie E. Collignon, Esq. Robyn M. Feldstein, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street - Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 SNAP INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Snap Inc. (NYSE: SNAP) between April 29, 2025 and August 5, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 20, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased Snap securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Snap class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2663 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 20, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to Snap's expected advertising revenue and anticipated growth while emphasizing potential macroeconomic instability. In truth, Snap's optimistic reports of advertising growth and earnings potential fell short of reality as they relied far too heavily on Snap's ability to execute on its potential; Snap was already experiencing the ramifications of a significant execution error when defendants' claimed a lack of visibility due to macroeconomic conditions. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Snap class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2663 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SNAP INC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Black Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE BLACK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SNAP INC., EVAN SPIEGEL, and JEREMI GORMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-08892-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting motion to amend scheduling order The Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued from Aug. 22, 2025 to Sept. 5, 2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to file its reply shall be continued from Oct. 8, 2025 to Oct. 22, 2025. The Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued from Oct. 22, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. to Nov. 20, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. Snap is an American technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ytofM3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Kramer, Esq. Audra J. Soloway, Esq. Kristina A. Bunting, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Facsimile: (212) 757-3990 E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com asoloway@paulweiss.com kbunting@paulweiss.com SOLIANT HEALTH: Saenz Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Desiree Saenz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. SOLIANT HEALTH, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV13787 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07568. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following ten causes of action: failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512 and 558; failure to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and 558; failure to pay all wages in violation of sections 510, 1194, 1194.2; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure to timely pay wages due at termination in violation of Labor Code sections 201-203; failure to timely pay employees in violation of Labor Code section 204(a)(b); failure to reimburse for business expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802; failure to pay for all hours worked, including in violation of Labor Code sections 210, 218; violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; and penalties pursuant to Labor Code sections 2699(f) for violations of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, 558, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 226(a),(e), 201-203, 204(a)(b), 2802, 210, 218.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com - and - Sean M. Bothamley, Esq. Veena Bhatia, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara, Suite 400 San Jose, California 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Sean.Bothamley@jacksonlewis.com Veena.Bhatia@jacksonlewis.com SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klassen Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for class certification, appointing Klassen as class representative, appoint her attorneys as class counsel and order the parties to submit proposed plans for Class Notice. The Plaintiff proposes the following definitions for the Broad Class and Subclass: Broad DMS-to-SolidQuote Pre-Record Class: "Every person in the United States who was the subscriber and/or customary user of a cell phone, whose phone number appears in records adduced in discovery, as having been called during the "AutoInbound6" campaign with an artificial or pre- recorded voice, in a call transferred by DMS to SolidQuote." Insuracall IVR Subclass: "Every person in the United States who was the subscriber and/or customary user of a cell phone, whose phone number appears in the DMS-produced spreadsheet "DMS_Klassen0002" of calls transferred from Insuracall to DMS and then DMS to SolidQuote, and appears in the Leo Winokur produced spreadsheet "Insuracall_00014" with a non-zero number appearing in the column "AD", titled "IVRDurationSecs"." Ms. Klassen is a resident of Spring Hill, Florida who holds a master's degree and works in finance and accounting for a satellite technology company. SolidQuote is an insurance marketing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8gHe3X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Ext.14 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com STATE FARM: Wins Right to Keep Court Documents Sealed ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Melinda Lucero, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and Mitchell International, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01068-WJ-JMR (D.N.M.), United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer M. Rozzoni of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. The Plaintiff initiated this case in the Second Judicial District of the State of New Mexico on February 27, 2023. At its inception, this case was a standard motor vehicle accident lawsuit. The state court entered a Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order on March 12, 2024. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff amended the complaint to assert a class action. On October 21, 2024, this case was removed to federal court, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. While still in state court, State Farm Mutual filed a Motion for Protective Order requesting to maintain the confidential designation of certain portions of the deposition testimony given by State Farm Mutual's corporate representative, as well as an exhibit from that deposition. The state court did not have an opportunity to decide this motion prior to removal. The Court addressed Plaintiff's argument that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the Confidentiality Order entered by the state court. The Court found that it has sole jurisdiction over the Confidentiality Order. According to United States Code Section 1450, Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States... All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court. The Court explained that Section 1450 was simply designed to deal with the unique problem of a shift in jurisdiction in the middle of a case which arises whenever cases are removed from state to federal court. Therefore, orders obtained in state court all remain effective after the case is removed to federal court. The Court noted that an order entered by a state court prior to removal should be treated as though it had been validly rendered in the federal proceeding. The Court addressed Plaintiff's contention that State Farm Mutual waived any confidentiality by filing the Motion for Protective Order into the record in federal court, exposing the purportedly confidential material. The Court found that State Farm Mutual did not waive confidentiality because it did not expose any confidential material to the public because the filing was made under seal. The Court emphasized that Disclosure of a confidential document to the Court does not violate the parties' confidentiality order." The Court explained that it must necessarily review the potentially confidential information to determine whether it should remain confidential." Additionally, State Farm Mutual, as the removing party, was required to file the complete state court record. Regarding the sealing of documents, the Court noted that the state court already granted State Farm Mutual permission to file the Motion for Protective Order under seal. The Court found that State Farm Mutual was not required to file a second motion to seal. However, the Court acknowledged that it has authority to revisit, modify, and dissolve state court orders entered prior to removal, including sealing orders. The Court recognized that there is a well-settled common-law right of access to judicial records but noted that the right is not absolute. The Court explained that it is common practice to allow a filing to remain under seal while the Court decides whether the information should become public. The Court addressed a procedural matter involving the filing of the Motion for Protective Order. In what appears to be a bit of docketing confusion, State Farm Mutual initially filed the Motion for Protective Order as a new motion on the federal court docket, as opposed to filing it as a piece of the underlying record. State Farm Mutual later corrected this error. The Court clarified that Plaintiff incorrectly stated that State Farm Mutual abandoned the original Motion for Protective Order upon removal. The Court noted that motions pending in state court survive removal to federal court. Therefore, State Farm Mutual's Motion for Protective Order remains pending in this Court. However, the Court determined that its decision on the Motion for Protective Order may be informed by the decision on the pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on the Motion for Protective Order until after the Motion to Dismiss is decided. The Court granted the Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal and made four specific findings: 1. This Court is the only court with jurisdiction over the parties' Confidentiality Order. 2. State Farm Mutual did not waive confidentiality by filing the Motion for Protective Order on the federal court docket. 3. The Motion for Protective Order and related briefing may remain under seal until the Court decides the merits of the motion. 4. The Court will defer ruling on the Motion for Protective Order until after it decides the pending Motion to Dismiss. The Court concluded that in the interim, the purportedly confidential information must remain confidential. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sU9jCi STELLAR HOSPITALITY: Fultz Sues Over Property Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Fultz, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly situated v. STELLAR HOSPITALITY BRIGHTON, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-12553-RJW-CI (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 15, 2025), is brought pursuant to the enforcement provision of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 against the Defendant in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations contained in this complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. The Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendant's place of business again on future occasions, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the property but to assure himself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the hotel and its amenities without fear of discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff qualifies as an individual with disability. Stellar Hospitality Brighton, LLC operates and owns Holiday Inn Express & Suites Brighton located in Brighton, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is are represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFCIES OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com SUB-ZERO INC: Bids to Certify Collective Class Due July 31, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN NELSON, BRANDON WAGNER, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. SUB-ZERO INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00464-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: Amendments to the pleadings: Sept. 15, 2025 The Plaintiffs' motion for court to issue notification to proposed collective: Jan. 16, 2026 Motions to certify proposed collective or putative class: July 31, 2026 Deadline for filing dispositive motions: Dec. 21, 2026 Discovery Cutoff: April 9, 2027 Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Apr. 23, 2027 First Final Pretrial Conference: June 2, 2027, at 2:30 p.m. Second Final Pretrial Conference: June 9, 2027, at 2:30 p.m. Sub-Zero is a privately held American company that manufactures and sells luxury kitchen appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mfY9r3 at no extra charge.[CC] SUMMIT APPAREL: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Summit Apparel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09662 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://royalapparel.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 23, 2025, the Plaintiff searched online for stores specializing in eco-friendly garments and came across the Royalapparel.com website. However, when he attempted to complete the purchase, he encountered multiple accessibility issues that prevented him from doing so. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Summit Apparel's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Summit Apparel, Inc. operates the website that offers clothing and 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) 731-3343 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SUN ENERGY: Lawrence Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE v. SUN ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02155 (W.D. Pa., Filed Dec. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order denying motion for leave to file reply filed by plaintiff Justin Lawrence. In his motion, Mr. Lawrence requests leave to file a Reply brief in further support of his pending Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and Final Fair Labor Standandards Act (FLSA) Certification. Mr. Lawrence avers that a Reply brief is warranted to address specific issues raised [in Defendants Opposition brief] and to provide additional relevant information to the Court. Sun Energy opposes the Motion. Sun Energy argues that a Reply brief is not warranted because Mr. Lawrence has not explained what additional information he seeks to bring to the Courts attention, and allowing Mr. Lawrence to file a Reply would undermine the parties previous agreement to file 20-page briefs in support of and in opposition to Mr. Lawrences pending Motion. The Court agrees with Sun Energy. While Mr. Lawrence suggests that his Reply brief would address specific issues raised in Sun Energys Opposition brief, he does not identify those issues. Nor does he explain what additional relevant information his proposed Reply would provide to the Court. Absent such details, the Court does not find that a Reply brief is necessary, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant provides oilfield services.[CC] SYMBIOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Traina Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic 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 Traina securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned Decker v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12976 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged purchaser of the Company's common stock. The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements related to its revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 8, 2024 and November 26, 2024. On May 5, 2025, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and setting a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the Company's response to the complaint. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint captioned Traina v. Symbotic Inc. et al, Case No. 24-cv-12196. Like the Decker complaint, the amended complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and four of officers of the Company on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements or omissions related to its financial results, deployment times, revenue recognition, and internal controls. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs bring claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of persons who purchased stock of the Company between November 20, 2023 and February 5, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Symbotic LLC is a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts, and doing business throughout North America. It has operations in 20 locations in the United States and Canada that include facilities focusing in robotics, machine learning, software engineering, and data analytics. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately September 2019 through September 17, 2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. [BN] SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN FITE and DAVID GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant's deadline to file its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued from Sept. 15, 2025 to Oct. 30, 2025; 2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued from Nov. 14, 2025 to Dec. 29, 2025; 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued from Dec. 4, 2025 to Jan. 22, 2026, at 1:30 PM; 4. The deadlines set in the Scheduling Order are continued as follows: a. The deadline for fact discovery, continued from Sept. 29, 2025 to Nov. 13, 2025 b. The deadline for expert disclosure, continued from Oct. 30, 2025 to Dec. 15, 2025 c. The deadline for rebuttal experts, continued from Nov. 30, 2025 to Jan. 14, 2026 d. The deadline for expert discovery, continued from Dec. 30, 2025 to Feb. 13, 2026 e. The deadline for dispositive motions, continued from March 1, 2026 to April 15, 2026 f. Dispositive motion hearing, continued from Apr. 30, 2026 to June 25, 2026, at 1:30 PM 5. Neither party waives any of their rights or defenses by entering into this stipulation, including any challenges they may have in connection with the Plaintiff' motion for class certification. Sysco distributes food and related products to various businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=st0aGL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Cody A. Bolce, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com Cbolce@TheMMLawFirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer C. Terry, Esq. Brian M. Noh, Esq. Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: jcterry@reedsmith.com bnoh@reedsmith.com bmhernandez@reedsmith.com T-MOBILE USA: Burrise Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shallace Burrise, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16513 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07685. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Codes; meal period liability under Labor Codes; rest-break liability under Labor Codes; failure to properly pay accrued sick wages; violation of Labor Codes; reimbursement of necessary expenditures under Labor Code Labor Codes; failure to keep required payroll records under Labor Codes; violation of Labor Code; penalties pursuant to Labor Codes; and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin L. Webster, Esq. John H. Adams, Esq. Flora Feizi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.830.7200 Facsimile: 916.561.0828 Email: bwebster@littler.com jhadams@littler.com ffeizi@littler.com - and - Matthew J. Ruza, Esq. Yara Mroueh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.372.5520 Facsimile: 312.372.7880 Email: mruza@littler.com ymroueh@littler.com TARGET CORP: Class Cert Hearing in Montgomery Continued to Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY MONTGOMERY and YESENIA ALBA, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-04924-JGB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order granting stipulated request to vacate trial and related pre-trial dates: The Court further entered an order that the hearing on the motion for class certification and the motions to strike are continued to Nov. 17, 2025, at 9:00 AM. Target is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ouPz3e at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIGEN TOVMASYAN, v. TARGET CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02314-MRA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani entered a pretrial scheduling order: On May 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order setting the Scheduling Conference for June 30, 2025. The hearing was continued to July 7, 2025, and then vacated and taken off the Court’s calendar. On June 16, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Rule 26(f) Report, which included a Class Certification Plan. ECF 29. The Court, having considered the parties’ Joint 26(f) Report and Class Certification Plan, sets the following pretrial dates and deadlines: Pre-trial Event Court Order Final pretrial conference: May 10, 2027 Hearing on motion for class certification Dec. 14, 2026 and Daubert motions for class certification: Reply in support of motion for class Oct. 1, 2026 certification: Opposition to motion for class July 15, 2026 Certification: Motion for class certification: May 1, 2026 Non-expert discovery cut-off: Mar. 6, 2026 Target is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0wtRJf at no extra charge.[CC] TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Penn Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derek Penn, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV17372 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07652. The Complaint purports to assert nine causes of action against TEAM on a class wide basis stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and putative class members. Specifically, the Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay minimum wage; unpaid overtime; meal break violations; rest break violations; wages not timely paid during employment; wage statement violations; untimely final wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and unfair and unlawful business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jamie L. Gross, Esq. Jeffrey M. Nellis, Esq. Tess R. O'Hanrahan, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: jgross@fisherphillips.com jnellis@fisherphillips.com tohanrahan@fisherphillips.com TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend Ostrander Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teradata Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ostrander securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On June 14, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), captioned Ostrander v. Teradata Corporation, No. 24-cv-01034 (S.D. Cal.). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of federal securities laws related to statements concerning the Company's business and 2023 financial outlook for Total ARR and Public Cloud ARR. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the period from February 13, 2023 to February 12, 2024 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On December 6, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the case filed an amended complaint, after which the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 4, 2025. Briefing on the motion is complete. The Company disputes the allegations in the amended complaint and intends to defend the case vigorously. The case is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit. Teradata Corporation is an American software company that provides cloud database and analytics-related software, products, and services.[BN] TG3 ENTERPRISES: Powell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN POWELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TG3 ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00912-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, August 13, 2025) is a collective and class action complaint against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other employees overtime wages. The Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the federal law. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant did not, and does not, pay Named Plaintiff and Defendant's other similarly situated employees any overtime wages for the hours that they worked more than 40, says the suit. Named Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in the position of general manager at its Planet Fitness gym from approximately 2020 to June 2025. TG3 Enterprises, Inc. is an independent franchisee of Planet Fitness health clubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com THG BEAUTY: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THG BEAUTY USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06668 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.espaskincare.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on July 29, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Facial Serum from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its 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. THG Beauty USA LLC operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TINDER INC: Continues to Defend Candelore State-Wide Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Match 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 Tinder Inc., a popular dating services that the Company operates, continues to defend itself from the Candelore state-wide class suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. See Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleges that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users over a certain age a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On July 15, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of approximately 270,000 individuals based upon California Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold subscribers age 29 and over. On January 17, 2025, the court denied its motion to compel the class and the Plaintiff to arbitration. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal on January 24, 2025, and on April 18, 2025, the court stayed the case pending its appeal. Its consolidated financial statements do not reflect any provision for a loss with respect to this matter. While there is at least a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss, the amount is difficult to predict. If the court were to order restitution to all members of the class, it estimates the amount would be approximately $14 million, which the Company don't believe would be material to its business. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act provides for statutory damages of the higher of three times the amount of actual damages or $4,000. Plaintiff has argued that the $4,000 in statutory damages should be incurred for each time a class member was charged a higher price; however, it contends that an exposure to that amount would not be permitted for various reasons, including the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Company believes that it has strong defenses and will continue to defend vigorously against the lawsuit. Tinder, Inc. offers online dating services. Its parent company is Match Group, which headquartered in Dallas, TX. [BN] TKO GROUP: Cirkunova Class Suit Trial Date Still Not Set -------------------------------------------------------- TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has not yet set trial date for Cirkunovs class suit. On May 23, 2025, Cirkunovs v. Zuffa, LLC et al., No. 2:25-cv-00914-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Cirkunovs" case), was filed by a putative class of former UFC fighters who signed contracts with arbitration clauses and class action waiver agreements during the period July 1, 2017, to the present. The complaint in Cirkunovs contains nearly identical allegations to Johnson and further alleges that the arbitration clauses and class action waivers contained in the fighters' contracts are unenforceable. The Cirkunovs complaint seeks injunctive relief invalidating these arbitration clauses and class action waivers, as well as treble damages under the antitrust laws and attorneys' fees and costs. No trial date has been set in the Cirkunovs action, and discovery has not yet begun. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. TKO GROUP: Davis Class Suit Trial Not Yet Set --------------------------------------------- TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has not yet set trial date for Davis suit. On May 29, 2025, a complaint was filed by a current Professional Fighters League fighter named Phil Davis. Davis v. Zuffa, LLC et al., No. 2:25-cv-00946-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Davis" case). The Davis complaint also asserts nearly identical allegations as in Johnson and Cirkunovs, except Davis seeks to represent a class of fighters who competed in U.S.-bouts for non-UFC promotions from May 29, 2021, onward, excluding all currently contracted UFC fighters, as well as the Johnson and Cirkunovs class members. The Davis case alleges UFC's alleged anticompetitive conduct impairs the ability of non-UFC fighters to advance their careers and artificially suppresses non-UFC fighter pay. The Davis case does not seek monetary damages and instead seeks injunctive relief. No trial date has been set in the Davis action, and discovery has not yet begun. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. TKO GROUP: Johnson Class Suit Trial Still Not Set ------------------------------------------------- TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has not yet set trial date for Johnson class suit. On June 24, 2021, Johnson et al. v. Zuffa, LLC et al., No. 2:21-cv-1189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Johnson" case), was filed by a putative class of former UFC fighters and covering the period from July 1, 2017, to the present. The Johnson case alleges substantially similar claims to the Lecase and seeks injunctive relief. No trial date has been set in the Johnson action and the parties are in the midst of the discovery process. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. TORRID LLC: Echeverria-Corzan Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- SONNI ECHEVERRIA-CORZAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORRID LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-06926 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant designed the website (www.Torrid.com, the "Website") to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that cause those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and to transmit cookies along with user data. However, unlike other websites, Defendant's Website offers consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. But, the Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to "Reject All" cookies, Defendant surreptitiously causes several third parties – including Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), Google LLC (DoubleClick and Google Analytics), ByteDance Ltd. (TikTok), and many more (the "Third Parties") -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Website, says the suit. Torrid LLC retails apparels. The Company offers dresses, swimwear, jeans, tops, rompers, intimates, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com TOTAL EVENT: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Misclassification -------------------------------------------------------------- JEANINE HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL EVENT SOLUTIONS, INC., and ALISON MURPHY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00409 (D.R.I., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Rhode Island Payment of Wages Law, Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act, Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute, and Massachusetts Minimum Wage Act including failure to pay overtime, independent contractor misclassification, and failure to timely pay wages. Ms. Hill performed promotional work for Total Event Solutions until about October 2, 2022. Total Event Solutions, Inc. is a provider of staffing, management, and promotional services for events based in Newport, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq. BIANCHI, BROUILLARD, SOUSA & O’CONNELL, PC 56 Pine Street, Suite 250 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 223-2990 Facsimile: (877) 548-4539 Email: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com TR TOOLS: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TR TOOLS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06669 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://tite-reach.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on August 4, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Tite-Reach Extension Clamp Family Pack from Defendant and to view the information on the website, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. 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. TR Tools, L.L.C operates the website that offers hand tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TRAMONTINA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Tramontina USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09639 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.tramontina.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 23, 2025, the Plaintiff began searching online for a cast-iron covered skillet and came across Defendant's website. However, while navigating the website, he encountered a pop-up window that appeared without any announcement, which disrupted his navigation. Additionally, product images had identical labels, making it difficult to distinguish between them, and the filter submenu was disrupted by the button that was supposed to open it, further complicating his browsing experience. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Tramontina USA's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Tramontina USA, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of kitchenware, including cookware, cutlery, tableware, and kitchen utensils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TRIAGE LLC: Jaiyeola Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIODUN JAIYEOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIAGE, LLC a.k.a HAYMAKER ENTERPRISES d/b/a TRIAGE HEALTHCARE STAFFING and TRIAGE STAFFING, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03174-JMG-MDN (D. Neb., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on May 1, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Triage, LLC, also known as Haymaker Enterprises, doing business as Triage Healthcare Staffing and Triage Staffing, is a medical staffing agency in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Stott Due June 1, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE STOTT, PAMELA FELLOWS, ROBERT JAKOB and MIGH PATTERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01182-FMO-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order granting joint stipulation to modify scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 16, 2026. 2. The Parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than Jan. 16, 2026. 3. All expert discovery shall be complete by April 3, 2026. The Parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no later than January 30, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later than March 16, 2026. 4. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than June 1, 2026. Any challenge to expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993), or Federal Rules of Evidence 702 704, must be done within the joint brief, or in a separate motion that is filed at the same time the joint brief is filed. United is an American financial services company providing insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the military, veterans and their families. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5URKOw at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. Doe 4, 7, 22, 27, 28 and 29, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Elon Musk, in his official capacity, United States Doge Service, The Department of Government Efficiency, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00462-TDC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Theodore Chuang entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion is granted in that the Court certifies a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) to resolve the issues identified in the accompanying memorandum opinion and which consists of the following persons: "All persons who, between Jan. 27, 2025, through the present, worked at any time for USAID as an employee or personal services contractors and was either a United States citizen or was working in the United States." Specifically excluded from this class are Defendants or any other person who, during the Class Period, acted as administrator or deputy administrator of USAID. The motion is otherwise denied without prejudice to additional requests to certify subclasses or additional issues to be decided on a classwide basis. The Department of Government Efficiency is an initiative by the second Trump administration. Its stated objective is to modernize information technology, maximize productivity, and cut excess regulations and spending within the federal government. The Defendants include United States Department of State, United States Agency for International Development, Marco Rubio, in his official capacity, Peter Marocco, in his official capacity, Jeremy Lewin, in his official capacity, Kenneth Jackson, in his official capacity, and AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cwttMW at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: TPS Alliance Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE, DENIS MOLINA, JHONY SILVA, MARIA ELENA HERNANDEZ, O.C., SANDHYA LAMA, S.K., TEOFILO MARTINEZ, v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:25-cv-05687-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 16, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), for an order certifying the following classes: -- Honduras TPS Class: "All persons who have been granted TPS pursuant to the TPS designation of Honduras and who have not adjusted status to lawful permanent residence"; -- Nepal TPS Class: "All persons who have been granted TPS pursuant to the TPS designation of Nepal and who have not adjusted status to lawful permanent residence"; -- Nicaragua TPS Class: "All persons who have been granted TPS pursuant to the TPS designation of Nicaragua and who have not adjusted status to lawful permanent residence." The Plaintiffs will also ask the Court for an Order: -- Appointing the Plaintiffs Teofilo Martinez, Denis Molina, and Jhony Silva as Representatives for the Honduras TPS Class; -- Appointing Plaintiff Sandhya Lama as the Representative for the Nepal TPS Class; -- Appointing Maria Elena Hernandez as the Representative for the Nicaragua TPS Class; and -- Appointing their counsel as Class Counsel. The action arises from Defendants' unlawful termination of the Temporary Protected Status ("TPS") designations of three countries—Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua -- the effect of which has threatened the status and livelihoods of tens of thousands of TPS holders across the United States. Te Plaintiffs challenge the legality of these terminations under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA') and the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem is an American politician serving since 2025 as the 8th United States secretary of homeland security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GP1wt1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Esq. CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW 385 Charles E. Young Dr. East Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 825-1029 E-mail: arulanantham@law.ucla.edu - and - Emilou MacLean, Esq. Michelle (Minju) Y. Cho, Esq. Amanda Young, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111-4805 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 863-7832 E-mail: emaclean@aclunc.org mcho@aclunc.org ayoung@aclunc.org - and - Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq. Lauren Michel Wilfong, Esq. NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK 1030 S. Arroyo Parkway, Suite 106 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 214-5689 E-mail: jessica@ndlon.org lwilfong@ndlon.org - and - Eva L. Bitran, Esq. Diana Sánchez, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5236 E-mail: ebitran@aclusocal.org dianasanchez@aclusocal.org - and - Erik Crew, Esq. HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE 4560 Alvarado Canyon Road, Suite 1H San Diego, CA 92120 Telephone: (949) 603-7411 E-mail: ecrew@haitianbridge.org UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA COLE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE/ BLUMENTHAL INC., and CHOICE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00576-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order granting in part Cole's motion for conditional certification, and certifying a FLSA collective as follows: "All non-exempt hourly paid certified nursing assistants that were subject to an automatic meal period deduction and worked at one of the following facilities managed by Choice Health Management Services, LLC at any time between July 11, 2021, and May 31, 2024: Blumenthal Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; Universal Health Care and Rehabilitation Center; Universal Health Care/Fuquay Varina; Universal Health Care/Greenville; and Universal Health Care/Lillington." The Court further entered an order that: -- Cole's proposed notice documents and notice plan, as modified in accordance with this memorandum opinion and order, are approved. -- John Neuman and Wilson F. Fong are appointed as Class Counsel and Katrina Cole is appointed as class representative. -- The Defendants are directed, to the extent they have not already done so, to produce the names, home addresses, and email addresses for the collective class. The case is a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and proposed class action under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Universal is an operator of a nursing home catering to an elderly retired community. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v4BDiZ at no extra charge.[CC] UPCIRCLE BEAUTY: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPCIRCLE BEAUTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06648 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.upcirclebeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on July 29, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Soothing Eye Roller from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the items to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. UpCircle Beauty, Inc. operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal USCIS: General Pretrial Management Order in Dan Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TING ROSE DAN, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06525-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: ]All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is this Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless the Court determines that more formal briefing is required. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. USCIS is responsible for processing immigration and naturalization applications. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kApHm3 at no extra charge.[CC] UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Chavez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Felipe Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV19473 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07681. The Complaint was brought on a class basis and alleged that Defendants violated several provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Labor Code, and Industrial Wage Orders.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. Grace L. Waddell, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com gwaddell@littler.com VECTOR SECURITY: Faces Wolf Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM WOLF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VECTOR SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01241 (W.D. Pa., August 13, 2025) is a civil action seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Vector, arising from its failure to safeguard certain personally identifying information and protected health information of thousands of its current and former employees, including Plaintiff, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed in or around December 2024. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a data breach victim. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Vector Security, Inc., is an electronic security company that offers services such as fire protection, video surveillance, and automation services to residential, commercial, and multisite customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry Bendesky, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: lbendesky@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com VGW HOLDINGS: Operates Illegal Casino Website, Johnston Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VGW HOLDINGS, LTD., VGW MALTA LTD., VGW GAMES LTD., VGW HOLDINGS U.S., INC., and VGW U.S., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00653 (M.D. Ala., August 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment and violations of the Alabama Gambling Loss Recovery Statute and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal gambling operation in Alabama through their internet-based casino website called www.Chumbacasino.com. According to the complaint, the website offers chance games, which are already declared unlawful and unconstitutional in Alabama. The Defendants attempt to legitimize themselves by stating that no purchase is necessary since they provide limited free coins and since players may acquire extra virtual token bundles by request. However, the Defendants accept, and practically require, a participant to pay to play to win a prize using only "Sweeps Coins." As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals wagered money or other things of value on the Defendants' casino website and lost. VGW Holdings, Ltd. is a casino website operator with its principal place of business in Malta. VGW Malta Ltd. is a casino website operator with its principal place of business in Malta. VGW Games Ltd. is a casino website operator with its principal place of business in Malta. VGW Holdings U.S. Inc. is a casino website operator with its principal place of business in Boulder, Colorado. VGW U.S. Inc. is a casino website operator with its principal place of business in Boulder, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan Martin, Esq. Trent Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com Trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: joel@skclassactions.com VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Class Suit Settlement for Final Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that Lavin class suit settlement is for the final approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On May 28, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Lavin Action"), Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In September 2021, the Court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class. Co-lead plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021, asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between July 10, 2019 and October 14, 2021. The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the safety of the Company's ships and success of its commercial flight program. Co-lead plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and, on November 7, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion and gave the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 12, 2022. The second amended complaint contains many of the same allegations as in the first amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and, on August 8, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion and did not give plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court's dismissal order and, on December 19, 2023, the court denied plaintiffs' motion. On March 27, 2024, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining Section 10(b) insider trading claim alleged against Branson. On April 2, 2024, the court stayed briefing on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pending resolution of plaintiffs' anticipated motion for leave to add a new representative plaintiff, which plaintiffs’ subsequently filed on May 1, 2024. The court granted plaintiffs' motion on July 2, 2024. On July 8, 2024, defendants withdrew their motion for judgment on the pleadings. On August 21, 2024, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in which Xinqiang Cui, Justin Carlough, Jennifer Ortiz, Richard O'Keefe-Jones, Vipul Gupta, Maria Josephine Rosales, and Hesham Ibrahim (previously named plaintiffs), were designated by plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs (in addition to Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier), and an additional named plaintiff, Montgomery Brantley, was added. The third amended complaint contains substantively the same allegations as in the second amended complaint. On September 11, 2024, defendants filed an answer to plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. On October 12, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify their proposed class. The defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion on December 20, 2024, plaintiffs filed their reply on January 24, 2025, and defendants filed a sur-reply on March 21, 2025. The motion is pending before the Court. On February 12, 2025, plaintiffs submitted a letter request to the Court seeking permission to file a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. On March 17, 2025, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request to file a motion for leave to amend, which plaintiffs did on March 26, 2025. Defendants filed their opposition on April 11, 2025, and plaintiffs filed their reply on April 23, 2025. On July 18, 2025, plaintiffs and defendants ("Parties") executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") outlining the terms of a settlement to resolve all claims in the above-referenced action. In connection with the MOU, the Company recorded an expected net settlement of $2.9 million, which has been included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025. Pursuant to the MOU, the Company has agreed to pay $8.5 million, of which approximately $5.6 million is expected to be covered and paid directly by the Company's insurers pursuant to insurance policies. During the three months ended June 30, 2025, the Company accrued a liability for the gross settlement amount and also recorded a receivable for the portion of the settlement that is expected to be covered directly by insurance. The Parties are currently working on the final settlement agreement to submit to the Court for final approval and the Company expects to make all payments by the end of 2025. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is an American spaceflight company founded by Richard Branson and his British Virgin Group retains an 18% stake through Virgin Investments Limited. It is headquartered in California, USA, and operates from New Mexico. WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walt Disney Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 12, 2023, a private securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, Robert Chapek, its former Chief Financial Officer, Christine M. McCarthy, and the former Chairman of the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution segment, Kareem Daniel on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company (the "Securities Class Action"). On November 6, 2023, a consolidated complaint was filed in the same action, adding Robert Iger, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, as a defendant. Claims in the Securities Class Action include (i) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, (ii) violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Iger and McCarthy, and (iii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all defendants. Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action allege purported misstatements and omissions concerning, and a scheme to conceal, accurate costs and subscriber growth of the Disney+ platform. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, plus interest and costs and fees. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. It filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on December 21, 2023, which was granted in part (dismissing the Section 20A claim against Iger) and otherwise denied on February 19, 2025. On March 28, 2025, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was denied on May 21, 2025. The Company filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 18, 2025. The lawsuit is in the early stages and at this time it cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss. The Walt Disney Company, commonly referred to as simply Disney, is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California.[BN] WALT DISNEY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 27, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walt Disney Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2025, that the consolidated Sherman Act class certification motion is due on March 27, 2026. On November 18, 2022, a private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to YouTube TV (the "Biddle Action"). The plaintiffs in the Biddle Action asserted a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that Disney uses certain pricing and packaging provisions in its carriage agreements with vMVPDs to increase prices for and reduce output of certain services offered by vMVPDs. On November 30, 2022, a second private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to DirecTV Stream (the "Fendelander Action"), making similar allegations. The Company filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in both the Biddle Action and Fendelander Action on January 31, 2023. On September 30, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss both cases and, on October 13, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating both cases. On October 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint asserts claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee antitrust and consumer protection laws based on substantially similar allegations as the Biddle Action and the Fendelander Action. The Consolidated Complaint seeks injunctive relief, unspecified money damages and costs and fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for failure to state a claim on December 1, 2023. The Company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted in part and denied in part on June 25, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the Court entered a case management order setting, among other dates, plaintiffs' deadline to file their class certification motion for March 27, 2026. The Walt Disney Company, commonly referred to as simply Disney, is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California.[BN] WARNER BROS: Bid to Dismiss NY Securities Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Bros. Discovery, 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 its motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York remains pending. On November 25, 2024, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Collura v. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-09027-KPF). The complaint named Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Gunnar Wiedenfels, and David M. Zaslav as defendants and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 21, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs (Anthony Yuson and Michael Steinberg) and co-lead counsel (Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.) to represent the putative class. On May 7, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against WBD, Gunnar Wiedenfels, and David M. Zaslav. The First Amended Complaint generally alleges that, between February 23, 2024 and August 7, 2024, defendants made false and misleading statements in SEC filings and other public disclosures relating to WBD's negotiations with the National Basketball Association concerning its contractual rights to broadcast the NBA's content and the potential impact of a failure to renew the contract on its business, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and seeks damages and other relief. The defendants moved to dismiss on July 11, 2025. The plaintiffs have until August 25, 2025 to file their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. WESTLAKE CORP: Continues to Defend Caustic Soda Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Company continues to defend itself from Caustic Soda antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers. Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the United States. The plaintiffs in the putative class for such direct purchasers sought $861 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs in the putative class for such indirect purchasers sought approximately $500 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages and injunctive relief. The District Court has denied or rejected class certification for both the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petitions for leave to appeal in February and April 2025, respectively. 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. WEXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Response OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to seal various portions of its response in opposition to the motion for class certification and exhibit insofar as the unredacted versions of the Defendant's response and expert report shall remain sealed. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties The Defendant moved to seal certain sections of its brief and the entirety of its expert report. The Plaintiffs and Defendant were directed to confer as to the partial redaction of Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and the attached expert report. Defendant then filed partially redacted versions. Wexford is an American healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdTZqv at no extra charge.[CC] WM WHOLESALE: Bid to Certify Class in Hernandez Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Josue Hernandez v. WM Wholesale, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02553-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying motion to certify class. The Court says that the proposed class and subclass – encompasses all purchasers in California and Florida regardless of where the product was purchased and what conditions apply – are too bad to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zDildg at no extra charge.[CC] ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow 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 consolidated federal securities class suit. On November 16, 2021, November 19, 2021 and January 6, 2022, three purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased its stock between August 7, 2020 and November 2, 2021. The three purported class action lawsuits, captioned Barua v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., Silverberg v. Zillow Group, et al. and Hillier v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al. were brought in the Court and were consolidated on February 16, 2022 (the “Federal Securities Suit”). On May 12, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint which alleges, among other things, that it issued materially false and misleading statements regarding itsr Zillow Offers business. The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged misconduct. On December 7, 2022, the Court rendered its decision granting its previously filed motion to dismiss, in part, and denying the motion, in part. On January 23, 2023, it filed its answer to the consolidated complaint. On March 14, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on August 23, 2024. On September 6, 2024, it filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, on September 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed their opposition to its petition, and on September 23, 2024, it filed its reply in further support of the petition. On October 24, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting Zillow permission to appeal. On January 8, 2025, it filed its opening brief in the appeal. On March 10, 2025, plaintiffs filed their response brief, and on April 30, 2025, the Company filed its reply brief. On November 1, 2024, the Court issued an order staying the Federal Securities Suit pending the outcome of the appeal. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred related to this matter; however, the possible loss or range of loss is not estimable. The Company denies the allegations of any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this consolidated lawsuit. Zillow Group is an American tech real-estate marketplace company. ZR CONSULTING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MOTT, v. ZR CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00081-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion and stay briefing until 30 days after the close of discovery, and granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on Aug. 4, 2025, seeking to certify a nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. The Defendant agrees that briefing on class certification at this juncture is premature and that the interests of judicial economy and procedural fairness warrant a stay of briefing and an extension of time to respond. The Defendant filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint seven (7) days ago and no discovery has taken place. Plaintiff’s Motion relies primarily on conclusory assertions regarding the named Plaintiff's adequacy, numerosity, commonality, and predominance. To advance the Court's "rigorous analysis" obligations, Defendant should be afforded the opportunity to test these claims through discovery. Moreover, the Plaintiff's own motion acknowledges that discovery is necessary to support class certification and requests a stay of briefing for that very reason. ZR is a financial services firm. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z56e6m at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: William J. Piercy, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN, P.C. 3475 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 261-7711 E-mail: wpiercy@bfvlaw.com - and - David P. Milian, Esq. THE MILIAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 808-9736 E-mail: david@lawmilian.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- A wholly-owned subsidiary of CarParts.com, Inc., Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gtWXIK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Personal Injury Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land and its subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation ("D/C"), have in the past and continue to be named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "While there were relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land were allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C were allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. D/C emerged from bankruptcy in 2023 with no assets. However, personal injury claimants have asserted and may in the future assert, asbestos-related claims against D/C. In that regard, the Company maintains a contingent liability relating to the continued filings of asbestos claims. Such filings are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company, but no assurance can be given." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qE2mPK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faces 1,337 New Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, has received approximately 1,337 and 1,556 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. "The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0TuYLJ ********* 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 ***