250902.mbx

250902.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 175 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Antwine Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Archuleta Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Berger Sues Over Poisoning of Reservoir and Water 3M COMPANY: Brantley Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Browning Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Clay Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Dolan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Dudley Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Dyer Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Ehli Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Ford Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Gallardo Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Guerrero Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Harvey Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Lengfelder Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Parker Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Pelman Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Perez Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Phelps Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Preston Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Purves Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Rainey Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Riedel Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Scott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 401 FEDERAL INVESTMENTS: Isaacson Sues Over Unlawful Barriers AAA LIFE INSURANCE: Amador Suit Removed to C.D. California ADMEDIARY LLC: Hall Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia AFFIRM HOLDING: Winters Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Powers Files Suit in D. Minnesota AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Prime Video Class Action Lawsuit ANTHROPIC PBC: Settles Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement APEX ROOFING: Hollis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington APPLE INC: Collins Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey AQUENT LLC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AURA HOME: Bulgatz Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics AVEPOINT INC: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AVIS BUDGET: Bacon Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement BADIA SPICES: Singer Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BAE'S COMPANY: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination BANNER BANK: Davis Suit Removed to E.D. California BARRETT-JACKSON HOLDINGS: Cain Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info BATH & BODY WORKS: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination BATH SAVER INC: Vousoghian Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania BEST BUY STORES: Verdugo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BFO 10299 ROYAL PALM: Isaacson Sues Over Unlawful Barriers BIGGERPOCKETS LLC: Hilton Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado BLADE URBAN AIR MOBILITY: Drulias Suit over Merger Ongoing BLOCK EQUITY: Khosroshahi Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York BLUELINX CORPORATION: Wright Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: 1199SEIU Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts BOMBSHELL SPORTSWEAR: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. California C & J CLARK RETAIL: Herrera Suit Removed to N.D. California CAMBRIAN HOMECARE: Munoz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPPO MANAGEMENT: Wade Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California CAPRI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Delaware CATAMORPHIC COMPANY: Zorski Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CHENEGA GLOBAL: Seeks More Time to File Response in Kalantari CIERANT CORPORATION: Gifford Files Suit in D. Connecticut COINBASE GLOBAL: Eisenberg Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COINBASE GLOBAL: Neu Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COINBASE GLOBAL: Shakib Suit Transferred to S.D. New York CRIMSON WINE: Continues to Defend California Suit CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Chang" Suit in Pennsylvania DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle 2020 Fuel Dump Class Suit for $78MM DISH NETWORK: Sept. 11 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought ELF BEAUTY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle YouTube Class Action Suit for $30MM LANDS' END: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brown Suit Says MANPOWER OF LANSING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Conrad Says MDL 2566: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Celluci Suit Extended MDL 3035: Class Settlement in Retirement Fund Suit Gets Final Nod MOVE INC: Apaydin Suit Removed to C.D. California NATIONAL FREIGHT INSTITUTE: Cobb Suit Removed to C.D. California NATUZZI FLORIDA: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website NEW ERA REAL ESTATE: Deanda Files Suit in E.D. California NEW ERA REAL ESTATE: Deanda Files Suit in E.D. California NFCGC CAFE: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website O5 BNG LLC: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website OAKCHA: Broussard Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California OSHKOSH CORP: Faces La Crosse Class Suit Over Fire Truck Prices PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cohen Says PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Garrett Files Suit in C.D. California PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces Consumer Suits over False Advertising PREMIER NUTRITION: Settlement Reached in California Class Suits PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Appeals Court Decertifies Class Action Suit PUBMATIC INC: Hsu Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation RAMIREZ'S SEAFOOD: Duran Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime REGUS MANAGEMENT: Sanford Suit Removed to C.D. California RESTAURANTE FRANCO: Catizone Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA, IMWL RINGCENTRAL INC: Parties in CIPA Suit Inks Settlement SAVAGE ENTERPRISES: Green Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SIX BROTHERS: Fendley Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination SMITH BROTHERS MOBILE: Gordon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Marketing Emails SPRING ENERGY RRH: Nock TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Maryland STATE FARM FIRE: Hall Sues Over Unlawful Policy and Practice SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California SUPPORT SERVICES: Carmer Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA TAHOE DONNER: Mecham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TALPHERA INC: Appeals Court Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit TAPESTRY INC: Ransom Suit Removed to S.D. California TARGET CORPORATION: Kratzert Files Suit in N.D. New York TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Cook Suit Extended TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Githere Extended TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Murdoch Extended TELEXFREE: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Darr Suit Extended TICKETMASTER LLC: Curry Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota TIOGA DENTAL: Evans Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination TOTALLY HOOKED: Saunders Suit Removed to D. South Carolina TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Bluetooth Echo Defect Class Action Lawsuit TRIDENT COFFEE: Walsh Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California UACJ AUTOMOTIVE: Behan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Azizan Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia US HEALTHWORKS: Peralta Suit Removed to C.D. California VALLEY VISTA NURSING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VGW HOLDINGS: Brown Sues Over Illegal Gambling Enterprises WIPRO LIMITED: Young Sues Over Failure to Overtime Wages YESCARE CORP: Avila Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, MWHL YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: LeBlanc Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZEALTHY INC: Perez Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ********* 3M COMPANY: Antwine Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as G.B. Antwine, Jr., et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2025-011720-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-23732-XXXX. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams (“AFFF”) that Plaintiffs allege were used at various U.S. military facilities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), including perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”), were contained in Defendants’ AFFF, that these substances were used at military facilities, and that these same substances caused injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Elizabeth Roper, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39157 6022 San Jose Blvd South Jacksonville, FL 32217 Phone: (601) 985-4445 Facsimile: (601) 985-4500 Email: Beth.Roper@butlersnow.com 3M COMPANY: Archuleta Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chad Archuleta, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902805.00 was removed from the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01359-ACA. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of these substances caused personal injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 3M COMPANY: Berger Sues Over Poisoning of Reservoir and Water ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Berger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY [f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO.], a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-11384-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 22, 2025), is brought seeking recovery for Defendants' poisoning of a supply reservoir and water system servicing approximately 250,000 people, and which has served millions of people since its formation. The Defendants have contaminated the City of Corona's ("Corona") water system, which serves Corona and certain surrounding communities ("Greater Corona Area"), with dangerously high levels of harmful chemicals. As a result, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people have already experienced, and/or are at substantial risk of developing, serious and/or fatal diseases, disorders, and/or illnesses. Despite 3M's knowledge of the dangers of PFAS accumulation posed to communities like Corona, 3M (in tandem with others, including companies that were generally its corporate rivals) systematically misdirected lawmakers, regulators, and the public from the devastating consequences of these chemicals. It was only after the year 2000 that 3M, under pressure from the United Sates Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and concerned about its legal liabilities, began to phase out PFOA and PFOS. As knowledge of the dangers of PFAS grew, 3M's 1,300-acre Corona plant continued using PFAS in their manufacturing––all while releasing PFAS into the air and water. Corona and neighboring communities had no reason to know that Defendants had been poisoning their water supply. Specifically, Defendants manufactured, received, stored, produced, shipped, and/or disposed of hazardous PFAS. These dangerous chemicals leached into the local water system to the point that high PFOA and PFOS levels were being detected even into the 2020s, at rates substantially higher than other areas. As a result, residents have been harmed or are subject to a substantially increased risk of numerous diseases, disorders, and/or illnesses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has consumed the water the City of Corona has harvested from the Temescal Subbasin. 3M manufactured, received, stored, used, incorporated into products, caused the release as a byproduct of a chemical or manufacturing process, sold, caused to be transported, and/or disposed of PFAS at the 3M Facility, including, but not limited to, PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and/or PFHxS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright 3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com 3M COMPANY: Brantley Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Brantley, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 01-CV-2025-902833.00 was removed from the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01337-ACA. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of these substances caused personal injury to Plaintiffs..[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 3M COMPANY: Browning Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenneth Browning, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 01-CV-2025-902839.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01338-AMM. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of these substances caused personal injury to Plaintiffs..[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 3M COMPANY: Clay Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Clay, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902807.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01336-GMB. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Dolan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Dolan, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-11228-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 19, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Dudley Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Reginal Earl Dudley, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902815.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01367-JHE. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Dyer Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kendall Adam Dyer, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902822.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01368-JHE. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Ehli Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is styled as Emily Ehli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11444-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 25, 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: David Christopher Wright, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP APC 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 Email: dcw@mccunewright.com 3M COMPANY: Ford Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darrell D. Ford, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902889.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01369-AMM. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Gallardo Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is styled as Angelica Gallardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11458-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 25, 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: David Christopher Wright, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP APC 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 Email: dcw@mccunewright.com 3M COMPANY: Guerrero Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Guerrero, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, 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.), Case No. 2:25-cv-11153-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Harvey Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Zol B. Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11436-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 25, 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 Collins Ferrell, Esq. JAMES C. FERRELL PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Phone: (713) 337-3855 Fax: (713) 337-3856 Email: jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Lengfelder Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Karl Lengfelder, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Amesricas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc.; Arkema, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kiddie PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Raytheon Technologies Corporation; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:25-cv-10964-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Grant Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30324 Phone: (404) 381-2888 Fax: (833) 443-7529 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Parker Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Charles Howard Parker, 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-10783-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: 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: Pelman Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Timothy Pelman, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Ciba, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; ChemDesign Products, Inc.; Chemguard, Inc.; Clariant Corporation; Sandoz Chemical Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Du Pont de Nemours Inc.; Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; National Foam, Inc.; The Chemours Company;The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Tyco Fire Products L.P.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10777-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: John J. Carey, Esq. CAREY DANIS AND LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 725-7700 Fax: (314) 721-0905 Email: jcarey@careydanis.com 3M COMPANY: Perez Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Steven Perez, 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.); Veridian Limited; W.L. Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10810-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: Phelps Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Stanley Phelps, 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-10610-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: Preston Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Antoine Lamont Preston, 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-10930-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 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: Purves Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Edward Purves, Jr., and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, administrator of the Estate Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing 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-10894-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 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: Rainey Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Thomas Rainey, 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-10614-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: Riedel Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard Riedel, 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-10622-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: Scott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Ann Scott, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, 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.), Case No. 2:25-cv-11144-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 401 FEDERAL INVESTMENTS: Isaacson Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Dena Isaacson, by and through her next friend, ITZHAK ISAACSON, and the others similarly situated v. 401 FEDERAL INVESTMENTS, LLC and LGMC POMPANO LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61721-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA"), and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the unlawful barriers. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Premises and intends to return to utilize the goods, services, and accommodations offered to the public. However, she is deterred from returning while the discriminatory barriers and non-compliant policies. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Subject Premises, preventing her from enjoying the goods and services offered therein. These denials are caused by the physical barriers, including those outlined in this Complaint, and will continue until the barriers are removed. The Plaintiff has suffered harm and injury as a result of personally encountering barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and she will continue to suffer harm due to the Defendants' failure to address the ADA violations described herein. The Plaintiff has experienced direct and indirect injury as a result of the physical barriers and ADA violations at the Subject Premises and the Defendants' actions or inactions in remedying these violations. The Plaintiff attempted to access the Subject Premises accompanied by her next friend but was unable to do so due to her disability and the existence of physical barriers, dangerous conditions, and ADA violations that restricted her access to the property and its accommodations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Subject Premises accompanied by her next friend and personally encountered physical barriers to access. 401 FEDERAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Phone: 844-702-8867 Email: WassenbergL@gmail.com AAA LIFE INSURANCE: Amador Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Amador; Elma Amador, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV19983 was removed from the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07826. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., arising from AAA's alleged overcharging of cost of insurance ("COI") charges and alleged underpaying of credited interest to universal life ("UL") policyholders.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher C. Frost, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205.254.1000 Email: CFrost@maynardnexsen.com - and - James J. Hockel, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.704.7433 Email: JHockel@maynardnexsen.com ADMEDIARY LLC: Hall Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Admediary, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Hall, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Admediary, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04787-WMR (N.D. Ga., Aug. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Admediary -- https://www.admediary.com/ -- is a people-driven, technology-enabled, full-service online performance marketing and media company with a focus on lead generation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com AFFIRM HOLDING: Winters Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affirm Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Richard Winters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., Does 1 to 20, Case No. CGC25628276 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Affirm Holdings, Inc. -- https://investors.affirm.com/ -- is an American technology company that provides financial services for shoppers and merchants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: 323-306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Powers Files Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Steven Powers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03328-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher P. Renz, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: crenz@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Prime Video Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Amazon of "selling" movies and TV shows on its streaming platform without properly notifying customers that they are only purchasing a license to access the digital content -- which can be revoked at any time. According to the 25-page lawsuit, Amazon.com Services has deceptively conveyed that when a customer "buys" a movie or TV show on Amazon Prime Video, their purchase gives them permanent, unrestricted ownership of the digital work. The suit alleges that at no point is the consumer plainly informed that they are only purchasing a revocable license to the content. Per the case, Amazon has violated California's Digital Property Rights Transparency Law, which was enacted in January 2025 to protect consumers from unwittingly losing access to content they purchased. The complaint explains that unlike a physical DVD, which a customer can keep and watch whenever they like, content sold on Amazon Prime Video may disappear from a user's digital library at any time, if, for example, Amazon replaces the work with a different version or loses the rights to it. California law prohibits Amazon's "bait and switch" tactic, lawsuit claims California law requires sellers of digital goods, such as movies, TV shows, songs, books, codes, apps and games, to explicitly disclose the nature of a consumer's ownership rights, the filing shares. Specifically, the suit says, a seller must either provide a clear and conspicuous disclaimer that customers are buying only a limited license to access the digital work, or obtain an affirmative acknowledgment that the user understands they are purchasing a revocable license. The Amazon lawsuit contends that the tech giant has satisfied neither of these requirements with regard to Amazon Prime Video "purchases." For one, only on the "confirm purchase" page, the very last stage of the purchase flow, does Amazon disclose to the customer that what they are buying is a license to the content, the suit asserts. The fine-print statement is allegedly listed at the bottom of the screen, "buried" amid other text of the same color and size -- a far cry from the "clear and conspicuous" disclaimer required by state law, the case claims. Moreover, the complaint alleges the user is never asked to acknowledge that they understand the limited property rights their purchase affords. The "ephemeral nature" of content purchased on Amazon Prime Video is underscored by the company's terms of use, which grant the buyer a "non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license" to the digital work, the filing says. "And whereas if a consumer purchased a physical copy of the audiovisual work, the consumer could lend it to someone else to watch, with a digital copy of the audiovisual work, the consumer is not permitted to 'transfer, copy or display the Digital Content,'" the case relays. Who's covered by the Amazon Prime Video lawsuit? The Amazon class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in California who have purchased a digital audiovisual work from the company. I bought a movie on Amazon Prime Video. How do I join the class action lawsuit? In general, there's nothing you need to do to join, sign up for or add your name to a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. If the case is eventually resolved with a class action settlement, the people covered by the deal, known as class members, will be notified directly and given follow-up instructions and information about their rights. If you've bought digital content on Amazon Prime Video or just want to stay up-to-date with class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] ANTHROPIC PBC: Settles Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement ------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Brittain of Claims Journal reports that artificial intelligence company Anthropic said in a court filing on Tuesday, August 26, it has resolved a class action lawsuit from a group of U.S. authors who argued the company's AI training infringed their copyrights, marking the first settlement in a string of major AI copyright lawsuits in the United States. A California judge said in a June ruling that Anthropic may have illegally downloaded as many as 7 million books from pirate websites, which could have made it liable for billions of dollars in damages if the authors' case was successful. An Anthropic spokesperson declined to comment on the filing, which did not describe the terms of the settlement. "This historic settlement will benefit all class members," the authors' attorney Justin Nelson said in a statement. "We look forward to announcing details of the settlement in the coming weeks." The lawsuit was one of several brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including OpenAI, Microsoft MSFT.O and Meta Platforms META.O over their AI training. Writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson filed their class action against Anthropic last year. They argued the company, which is backed by Amazon and Alphabet, unlawfully used pirated books without permission or compensation to teach its AI assistant Claude to respond to human prompts. AI companies have argued their systems make fair use of copyrighted material to create new, transformative content. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found that Anthropic made fair use of authors' work for AI training, but violated their rights by saving millions of pirated books to a "central library" that would not necessarily be used for that purpose. A trial was scheduled to begin in December to determine how much Anthropic owed for the alleged piracy. U.S. copyright law says that willful copyright infringement can justify statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work. [GN] APEX ROOFING: Hollis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Hollis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APEX ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 25-2-18009-3 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01612. On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "FAC"). The suit arises from alleged telephone calls placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone that Plaintiff alleges were initiated in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Commercial Telephone Solicitor Statute and Washington Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David Rose, Esq. PACIFIC NORTHWEST FAMILY LAW 15400 SE 30th Place, Suite 206 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: (564) 212-2730 Email: dmr@pnwfamilylaw.com gp@pnwfamilylaw.com - and - Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. Roy Taub, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 491-1120 Email: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com rene.vazquez@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com APPLE INC: Collins Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06399 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-14838-JXN-LDW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Sherman-Clayton Act. Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, in Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Jennifer Rebecca Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP - RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ 55 Challenger Rd., 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Fax: (973) 639-9393 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com JScullion@seegerweiss.com AQUENT LLC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Milito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AQUENT LLC, a foreign limited liability company, et al., Case No. 25-2-21769-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01647. The Plaintiff's first cause of action is based on the assumption that Aquent did not disclose the wage scale or salary range in its job postings seeking Washington workers since January 1, 2023.[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: Matthew Kelly, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, Washington 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 393-4060 Email: mrkelly@seyfarth.com AURA HOME: Bulgatz Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD BULGATZ, CASEY MANOS, and CALNEN SWINGEN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. AURA HOME, INC. d/b/a AURA FRAMES, Case No. 2025LA00000700 (Ill. Cir., Lake Cty., sAug. 20, 2025) is a class action suit for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in possessing, collecting, capturing, storing, using, and/or otherwise obtaining their and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information (biometrics)-- specifically, Plaintiffs' facial geometry -- without obtaining informed written consent or providing or complying with the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' biometrics were possessed, collected, captured, stored, and/or otherwise obtained by the Defendant from November 2022 through the present, when Plaintiffs --while they were located within the state of Illinois -- purchased an Aura digital frame and began uploading photographs through the Aura App. The Defendant created, extracted, and stored Plaintiffs' facial geometry (their biometric identifier). The Defendant then used Plaintiffs' facial geometry to identify them (their "biometric information"). Thus, the Defendant possessed, collected, captured, stored, and/or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs' biometrics, asserts the suit. Aura Home is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. The Defendant's frames are sold in stores located in Illinois and Defendant conducts substantial business throughout Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com AVEPOINT INC: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexander Floyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVEPOINT, INC., a foreign corporation doing business as AVEPOINT, INC. OF WASHINGTON; AVEPOINT, INC. DBA AVEPOINT, INC. WASHINGTON, a foreign profit corporation; AVEPOINT PUBLIC SECTOR, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as AVEPOINT PUBLIC SECTOR and AVEPOINT PUBLIC SECTOR INC; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21370-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01640. The Plaintiff purports to assert a cause of action against AvePoint under the State of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), as codified under the Revised Code of Washington.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 701 Fifth Avenue Columbia Tower, 42nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: +1 512 277 2300 Email: DBHeidtke@duanemorris.com - and - Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: +1 312 499 6710 Email: GMaatman@duanemorris.com JARiley@duanemorris.com AVIS BUDGET: Bacon Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGAIL BACON, ARCADIA LEE, JEANNINE DEVRIES, LISA GEARY, RICHARD ALEXANDER, YVONNE WHEELER, and GEORGE DAVIDSON, and on behalf of themselves and the putative class, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. and PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, INC. Case No. 2:16-cv-05939-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 15, 2025, shall move before the Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) for an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Plaintiffs shall rely on the attached memorandum of law, certification of Greg M. Kohn, Esq. and certification of Frank E. Ballard, and any exhibits annexed thereto, submitted herewith. Avis is an American car rental agency holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A5FmBh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg M. Kohn, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: gkohn@nagelrice.com ddisabato@nagelrice.com lconsidine@nagelrice.com BADIA SPICES: Singer Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Timothy Singer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BADIA SPICES, INC., Case No. 2025-CA-012998 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Aug. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-23828-XXXX. The Complaint alleges one cause of action: Violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Badia manufactures, sells, and distributes a variety of spice products, including the cinnamon and ginger products (the “Products”) at issue in this case. The thrust of the Complaint is Plaintiff’s allegation that Badia “fails to disclose that the Products contain, or are at the risk of containing, lead.” The Plaintiff alleges that Badia “knew and intended that consumers would pay a premium for a product marketed without lead over comparable products not so marketed.”[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark Cheskin, Esq. Natalie Granda, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-459-6500 Facsimile: 305-459-6550 Email: mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com natalie.granda@hoganlovells.com marta.urra@hoganlovells.com (secondary) BAE'S COMPANY: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Andree Campbell, and all others similarly situated v. Bae's Company LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:25-cv-61726-RS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 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 Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's Website was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 3 U.S.-based cafes offering Parisian-inspired all-day brunch, complemented by freshly baked pastries, specialty coffee, and inventive French specialties, including the cafe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com BANNER BANK: Davis Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lisa Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANNER BANK, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV04765 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Siskiyou, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01117. On May 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, alleging eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum 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: Nima Darouian, Esq. Nalee Xiong, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: 424.204.4400 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Email: darouiann@ballardspahr.com xiongn@ballardspahr.com BARRETT-JACKSON HOLDINGS: Cain Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dylan Cain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barrett-Jackson Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03017-MTL (D. Ariz., Aug. 20, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Barrett-Jackson with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant disclosed to Plaintiff via letter dated on or about July 31, 2025 regarding a breach that occurred on Nov. 25, 2024. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. As part of its business, the Defendant receives and maintains the PII/PHI of thousands of its current and former customers and employees. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on their affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Plaintiff is a former customer of Defendant, who received a data breach notice informing him that his Private Information provided to Barrett-Jackson was compromised during the Data Breach. The Defendant is an auctioneer of motor vehicles and "produces The World's Greatest Collector Car Auctions in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Palm Beach, Florida, where thousands of the most sought-after, unique and valuable automobiles cross the block in front of a global audience."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anasuya E. Shekhar, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: anasuya@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com BATH & BODY WORKS: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-23817-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 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"). Because Defendant is a store open to the public, each of Defendant’s physical stores is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA. In its physical stores, including the store Plaintiff patronized ibn the Southland Mall, Defendant has installed credit/debit card reading point of sale (“POS”) devices that allow customers to insert, swipe, or input their debit card information, view information displayed on the associated screen, and use a key pad to make and complete purchases using a confidential debit card pin number. On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff visited and sought to patronize and purchase merchandise from Defendant’s Southland Mall store. During her visit, Plaintiff attempted to use the store’s available POS device to complete her purchase using her debit card and attempted to access the information displayed on the POS device’s screen by plugging her personal headset into the device. However, Plaintiff was unable to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially pay for her order through the POS device because the device did not have any place for her to plug in her headset, nor was the device configured with screen reader software or tactile feedback that would effectively communicate to Plaintiff the visual information displayed on the POS device’s screen. As a result of Defendant’s POS devices not being fully accessible to and not independently usable by blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unable to fully access and use the devices to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially make her purchase in Defendant’s physical store. This left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and contributed to her sense of isolation and segregation, as she was unable to participate in the same shopping experience as provided in the physical store as the non visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with pathologic myopia with central chorioretinal atrophy secondary to her myopia. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of retail stores selling clothing, accessories, and other products, including the store.[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 BATH SAVER INC: Vousoghian Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath Saver, Inc. The case is styled as Sheila Vousoghian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bath Saver, Inc. doing business as: Bath Fitter, Case No. 1:25-cv-01564-YK (M.D. Pa., Aug. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Bath Saver, Inc. doing business as Bath Fitter -- https://www.bathfitter.com/ -- offers top-quality, customized bathroom remodeling products and services installed in as little as one day.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq. GINSBURG LAW GROUP, P.C. 653 Skippack Pike, Suite 300-71 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: (214) 880-6362 Fax: (800) 635-6425 Email: Efilings@ginsburglawgroup.com BEST BUY STORES: Verdugo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Timothy Verdugo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P.; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-22147-4 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01616. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of the following putative class (the "Class"): All current and former employees of Best Buy who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from July 28, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class.[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: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. Per D. Jansen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Lauren S. Titchbourne, WSBA #54565 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com per.jansen@ogletree.com lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com BFO 10299 ROYAL PALM: Isaacson Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------- Dena Isaacson, by and through her next friend, ITZHAK ISAACSON, and the others similarly situated v. BFO 10299 ROYAL PALM BLVD LLC and CORAL PATRON AZTECA INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-61705-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the “ADA”), and the ADA’s Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the “ADAAG”) as a result of the unlawful barriers. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Premises and intends to return to utilize the goods, services, and accommodations offered to the public. However, she is deterred from returning while the discriminatory barriers and non-compliant policies. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Subject Premises, preventing her from enjoying the goods and services offered therein. These denials are caused by the physical barriers, including those outlined in this Complaint, and will continue until the barriers are removed. The Plaintiff has suffered harm and injury as a result of personally encountering barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and she will continue to suffer harm due to the Defendants’ failure to address the ADA violations described herein. The Plaintiff has experienced direct and indirect injury as a result of the physical barriers and ADA violations at the Subject Premises and the Defendants’ actions or inactions in remedying these violations. The Plaintiff attempted to access the Subject Premises accompanied by her next friend but was unable to do so due to her disability and the existence of physical barriers, dangerous conditions, and ADA violations that restricted her access to the property and its accommodations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Subject Premises accompanied by her next friend and personally encountered physical barriers to access. CORAL PATRON AZTECA INC, is a Florida profit corporation which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Phone: 844-702-8867 Email: WassenbergL@gmail.com BIGGERPOCKETS LLC: Hilton Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biggerpockets, LLC. The case is styled as Joni Hilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Biggerpockets, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02687-GPG (D. Colo., Aug. 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Biggerpockets, LLC -- https://www.biggerpockets.com/ -- creates educational resources for aspiring and experienced real estate investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BLADE URBAN AIR MOBILITY: Drulias Suit over Merger Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2025, that in February 2024, two putative class action lawsuits relating to the acquisition of Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc. were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On April 16, 2024, these cases were consolidated under the caption "Drulias et al. v. Affeldt, et al.," C.A. No. 2024-0161-SG. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Litigation is ongoing. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the former directors of Experience Investment Corp. (EIC), the former officers of EIC, and Experience Sponsor LLC and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim against the sponsor. The operative complaint alleges, amongst other things, that the proxy statement related to the acquisition insufficiently disclosed EIC's cash position, Blade's value prospects and risks, and information related to its chief executive officer, who is also its current chief executive officer. Blade Air Mobility, Inc. provides air transportation and logistics for hospitals across the United States, where it is one of the largest transporters of human organs for transplant, and for passengers, with helicopter and fixed wing services primarily in the Northeast United States and Southern Europe. BLOCK EQUITY: Khosroshahi Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Block Equity Group, LLC. The case is styled as Alex Khosroshahi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Block Equity Group, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04681 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Block Equity Group -- https://www.blockequitygr.com/ -- is a Financial Services company that helps provide funding, loans, credit, and private investment options to business owners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (917) 628-5842 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com BLUELINX CORPORATION: Wright Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Katherine Wright, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BLUELINX CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21721-3 KNT was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01645. The Complaint purports to seek relief related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110, which sets out requirements for job postings. Specifically, the Complaint seeks statutory damages for alleged violations; attorney's fees, injunctive relief; and declaratory relief.[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: Catharine M. Morisset, Esq. Meghan A. McNabb, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com mmcnabb@fisherphillips.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: 1199SEIU Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund For Home Care Workers, and 1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Case No. 3:24-cv-00783 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12309-DJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- https://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com/ -- manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 35 drugs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg D. Adler, Esq. Dan Livingston, Esq. LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, PC 557 Prospect Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 Phone: (860) 454-9608 Facsimile: (860) 232-7818 Email: gdadler@lapmk.org delvingston@lapm.org - and - Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. Lin Y. Chan, Esq. Jules A. Ross, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th fl. San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (212) 956-1000 Facsimile: (212) 956-1008 Email: bglackin@lchb.com lchan@lchb.com jross@lchb.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. Emily N. Harwell, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th fl. New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 Email: ddrachler@lchb.com eharwell@lchb.com BOMBSHELL SPORTSWEAR: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bombshell Sportswear, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03324 (D. Minn., Aug. 20, 2025) contends that Defendant's Website, www.bombshellsportswear.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023). The Defendant offers athletic clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, swimwear, and jackets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gilberto Carrillo Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BCV-25-102358 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00721. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of hourly, non-exempt individuals that worked for Defendant in the State of California, specifically failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages due at separation of employment, and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shannon R. Boyce, Esq. Rachael Lavi, 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: sboyce@littler.com rlavi@littler.com C & J CLARK RETAIL: Herrera Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. C & J CLARK RETAIL, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; C & J CLARK AMERICA, INC., an entity of unknown form; CLARKS, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. 25CV130588 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07072. The Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth 9 causes of action, including: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code Section 2802; Violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code SectionSection 1174 and 1174.5; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; and Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Donald P. Sullivan, Esq. Andrew J. Mailhot, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.Mailhot@jacksonlewis.com CAMBRIAN HOMECARE: Munoz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cambrian Homecare LLC. The case is styled as Sophia Munoz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Cambrian Homecare LLC, Case No. 25STCV25099 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cambrian Homecare LLC, established in 1996, is a trusted provider of in-home care services in Palm Desert, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: jeff@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Harita Nandivada, Esq. KNIGHT LAW GROUP 1331 North California Blvd., Ste 205 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 310-552-2250 Email: haritan@knightlaw.com CAPPO MANAGEMENT: Wade Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cappo Management XXIII, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Wade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cappo Management XXIII, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02457-AC (E.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cappo Management XXIII, Inc. is a professional services company based in Soquel, California, specializing in providing comprehensive management solutions for a diverse range of clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com CAPRI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Capri Holdings Limited disclosed in a Form 10-Q For the quarterly period ended June 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action complaints filed in a Delaware court. "On December 23, 2024 and January 28, 2025, two purported shareholders of Capri filed putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Capri, Tapestry and certain of their officers (including John D. Idol, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas J. Edwards, Jr., our former Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer) alleging violations of the federal securities laws based on certain statements by defendants concerning the previously proposed Merger and the FTC's action to enjoin the Merger. "The Court appointed the lead plaintiff on March 7, 2025, and on May 15, 2025 the lead plaintiff filed the Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint. The Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint seeks to bring federal securities claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased Capri stock and sold Capri puts between August 10, 2023 and October 24, 2024. "We may incur substantial costs defending the Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint, and we cannot provide assurance regarding the outcome of this Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint. An unfavorable judgment or ruling could result in substantial liability. We may also be subject to additional demands or filed actions. Our potential liability to shareholders for federal securities claims or other matters related to the previously terminated Merger may be covered in part by our insurance policies, but we may not always have adequate insurance to defend all claims," the Company stated. CATAMORPHIC COMPANY: Zorski Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Zorski, Paige Logan, and Mohammed Shalabi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Catamorphic Company d/b/a LaunchDarkly, Case No. 2584CV02328 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 20, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated co-workers who have worked for Defendant as non-managerial Business Development Representatives ("BDR"). The Plaintiffs and BDRs could not reasonably perform their jobs and complete their required job duties in a traditional 40-hour work week. The Defendant did not require Plaintiffs and BDRs to record the number of hours they worked each day on any timekeeping system. The Defendant did not maintain or possess timekeeping records that show with precision the number of hours Plaintiffs or BDRs worked in individual work weeks. The Plaintiffs and BDRs worked in excess of40 hours in one or more individual work weeks. The Defendant did not pay overtime to Plaintiffs or BDRs for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual work weeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as BDRs. LaunchDarkIy represents that its platform allows its customers to "release, monitor, and optimize software in production."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H Street NE, 4th Floor Washington DC, 20002 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com - and - Anne Kramer, Esq. WERMAN SALAS p.c. 77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: akramer@flsalaw.com CHENEGA GLOBAL: Seeks More Time to File Response in Kalantari ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYA KALANTARI and ETHAN LAGE, v. CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00961-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension of time, to Sept. 5, 2025, within which time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for hybrid conditional class and collective action certification. Given the dual-class certification request, Defendant must address separate factual and legal arguments for each proposed class, which requires additional time to respond thoroughly. As such, the Defendant requests an additional two weeks, to Sept. 5, 2025, within which time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion. No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension, as it is not sought for dilatory purposes. The requested extension will not impact the Court's Sept. 15, 2025, Telephonic Status Conference, where the Court will address the second phase of discovery. Chenega provides facilities support management and consulting services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2KePe4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Trent R. Taylor, Esq. THE WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com ttaylor@wilhitelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan P. Lessmann, Esq. Grant T. Spillers, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-0404 Facsimile: (303) 409-3833 E-mail: Ryan.Lessmann@jacksonlewis.com Grant.Spillers@jacksonlewis.com CIERANT CORPORATION: Gifford Files Suit in D. Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cierant Corporation. case is styled as Melissa Gifford, on behalf of her minor child J.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cierant Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-01345-OAW (D. Conn., Aug. 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cierant Corporation -- https://www.cierant.com/ -- is a distributed marketing automation company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. Reardon Scanlon LLP 45 South Main St., 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 COINBASE GLOBAL: Eisenberg Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michael Eisenberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04460 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. 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07042-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Email: aberry@justice4you.com - and - Brandon Pierce Jack, Esq. CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC 12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Fax: (916) 924-1829 - and - Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com The Defendants are represented by: Bingxue Que, Esq. Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2600 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6000 Fax: (650) 858-6100 COINBASE GLOBAL: Neu Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Benjamin Neu, Keefe John, and all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04243 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. 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07041-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew John Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (708) 529-5418 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2600 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6000 Fax: (650) 858-6100 COINBASE GLOBAL: Shakib Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Allen Shakib, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04243 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. 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07041-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley K. King, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore Walter Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2600 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6000 Fax: (650) 858-6100 CRIMSON WINE: Continues to Defend California Suit ------------------------------------------------- Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the class action lawsuit filed in a California court. On December 23, 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment, and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the matter, and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made as of the date of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. It is at least reasonably possible that the estimate could change in the future and the effect of the change could also be material. CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Chang" Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------- Customers Bancorp, 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 securities class action lawsuit filed by Chun Yao Chang in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On December 2, 2024, a federal securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned Chang v. Customers Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06416-JS, by Chun Yao Chang against Customers Bancorp, Jay Sidhu, its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, and Carla Leibold, its former Chief Financial Officer. The action alleges that Customers Bancorp and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions during the class period of March 1, 2024 through August 8, 2024, and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of Customers Bancorp. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' costs incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs. On January 31, 2025, Chun Yao Chang filed the only application for appointment as lead plaintiff with The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as counsel. On June 24, 2025, the court denied plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead counsel, finding that plaintiff had not made the required prima facie showing that he will be an adequate class representative. Customers Bancorp intends to defend itself against this action. DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle 2020 Fuel Dump Class Suit for $78MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Court News Services reports that Delta has agreed to pay more than $78 million to settle a federal class action over a 2020 fuel dump that doused tens of thousands of homes in LA County, as well as five schools. The settlement -- which is a product of more than three years of mediation and needs to be approved by a federal judge -- includes more than $28 million earmarked for plaintiff attorneys and litigation costs, or just over 30%, according to Delta and the plaintiffs in a court filing. Of the remaining funds, nearly $34 million will go to property owners and nearly $17 million to residents. If every single eligible class member filed a claim, each property owner would be entitled to $888.82, while each resident would get $104.34. The case arises out of Delta flight No. DL89, a Jan. 14, 2020, flight from LAX heading to Shanghai. According to multiple media reports, the aircraft experienced an engine malfunction shortly before takeoff, and the pilots turned the plane around. When air traffic control asked if they wanted to remain over the ocean to dump fuel, which makes emergency landings safer since it lightens a plane's load, the pilots reportedly declined, saying, "We've got it under control. . . . We're not critical." Soon after, while the plane was approaching LAX and flying over neighborhoods near the airport, reports say the pilots jettisoned between 15,000 and 20,000 gallons of fuel, dousing tens of thousands of homes over a five-mile area. At least 56 people were treated for skin and lung irritations, but all injuries were minor and no one was hospitalized. The schools all closed for cleaning, but reopened the next day. As part of mediation, both parties say they commissioned a "laboratory bench study to evaluate the persistence of total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in soil." The study determined "no Jet A petroleum hydrocarbons were detectable after seven days." That test, the parties say in their court filing, will "significantly mitigate the harm property owners might face if they disclosed the fact that their properties were hit by jettisoned fuel to prospective home buyers." Both parties agreed that one issue the plaintiffs may have faced had they taken their case to trial is that nothing distinguished the people who got hit with jet fuel from the people who didn't -- that is, there was little in the way of provable damages. In the court filing announcing the proposed settlement, the parties note that the "plaintiffs' property owner damages theories have rested on largely untested legal arguments: that property owners would be entitled to have the top few inches of soil removed and replaced to get rid of a portion of the jet fuel contaminants that are admittedly below detectable levels or that property owners have a duty to disclose the fact that jettisoned fuel landed on the properties even though any amount that remains is undetectable." "Although jurors could agree with plaintiffs and their experts, they could also side with Delta and reject the notion that class members should be given money so that they can remove an undetectable amount of jet fuel residue and find persuasive Delta's argument that, in practice, homes in the class area do not sell for less than those outside of it," the parties go on to say. "Given this background, the $888.82 per property that property owners in the class would receive, assuming a 100% claim rate, is reasonable." In a written statement, plaintiffs' attorney Filippo Marchino of the X-Law Group said: "The class plaintiffs are pleased that they were able to reach a fair and reasonable resolution for the class, who are owners or residents of approximately 38,000 properties affected by the Jan. 14, 2020, fuel jettison incident at issue. This settlement represents five years of intense and hard fought litigation, and brings very real recovery to the class members both in terms of monetary recovery, as well as non-monetary relief. We are especially pleased to obtain this result for residents of the southeast LA communities, comprised of hard-working families who asked only for respect and just treatment and rightly deserve this result." A number of lawsuits and class actions, including one filed by teachers, were consolidated into one case. In 2023, Delta's motion for summary judgment was dismissed. The case had been heavily litigated in the more than five years since it was filed. According to the court filing, the parties produced more than 418,000 pages of documents in discovery, took more than 50 depositions, and hired 20 experts. [GN] DISH NETWORK: Sept. 11 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned 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 the current class certification and related deadlines, as follows: a. The Plaintiffs shall move for class certification by Sept. 11, 2025. b. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by Nov. 24, 2025. c. The Plaintiffs' reply in support shall be filed by Dec. 26, 2025. DISH operates as a satellite television company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y1g88A 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 ELF BEAUTY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- e.l.f. Beauty, 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 securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. "On March 6, 2025 and April 8, 2025, the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer were named as defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by plaintiffs Luke Rottman and Boston Retirement System. "The complaints in both purported securities class actions allege that Defendants made false or misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek damages and other relief. "On May 28, 2025, the court consolidated the two putative securities class action suits, and appointed Boston Retirement System and Metropolitan Employee Benefit System as lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 23, 2025. Defendants expect to file a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on or around September 5, 2025," the Company said. GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle YouTube Class Action Suit for $30MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Agraz, writing for Law Commentary, reports that Google has agreed to pay $30 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing the company of collecting personal data from children on YouTube without parental consent and using the information to deliver targeted ads. The proposed settlement, filed Monday, August 25, in federal court in San Jose, California, must be approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. Google has denied any wrongdoing. The suit was filed by 34 parents and guardians who alleged that YouTube unlawfully gathered personal information for advertising purposes by enticing children under 13 with cartoons, nursery rhymes, and similar videos. Plaintiffs argued that the practice violated state privacy and consumer-protection laws and that it continued even after Google paid $170 million in 2019 to resolve similar allegations brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James and the Federal Trade Commission. The case has gone through several rounds of dismissal and appeal. A federal judge dismissed earlier versions of the case, ruling that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA, took precedence over the claims. The law requires companies to obtain parental consent before collecting data from children under 13, and parents alleged that Google ignored this requirement, reducing the value of their children's personal information and exposing them to targeted advertising. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that state law claims could proceed alongside federal law. When the case was reassigned to Judge van Keulen, she allowed specific claims to move forward, including intrusion upon seclusion and violations of consumer-protection statutes in several states. She found the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Google's conduct was "highly offensive" because it knowingly violated COPPA. In January, Judge van Keulen dismissed claims against outside content providers such as Cartoon Network, Mattel, DreamWorks, and Hasbro, citing a lack of evidence that they directly participated in data collection. Settlement discussions began soon after and led to the proposed $30 million settlement. The proposed settlement would cover U.S. children under 13 who used YouTube between July 2013 and April 2020. Attorneys estimate the class could include 35 to 45 million children. [GN] LANDS' END: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brown Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00699 (W.D. Wisc. Aug. 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. On Aug. 13, 2025, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a "Notice of Data Security Incident" letter confirming that her PII was affected by a cyberattack on Defendant's information systems, including her name, Social Security number, and mailing address. According to the Notice, the Defendant became aware of the unauthorized activity on Dec. 6, 2024, but did not conclude its investigation until August 3, 2025. The affected data was the data that the Defendant had stored for the employees on its Lands' End-owned devices. The timeline betrays a shockingly ill-prepared cybersecurity posture. Given that Defendant failed in even this most basic requirement, it is likely that the Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects PII, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came to fruition. Because of Defendant's failures, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of privacy and must now face a substantially increase in identity theft and fraud for years to come, says the suit. Plaintiff Caitlin Brown is a resident and citizen of the State of Wisconsin. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all members of the proposed class defined as: "All individuals whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach and to whom Defendant sent a notification letter regarding the Data Breach." Excluded from the Class are the following individuals and/or entities: Defendant and Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. The Defendant is a retailer of clothing, baggage, and furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com MANPOWER OF LANSING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Conrad Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SARA CONRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANPOWER OF LANSING MI, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00976 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 20, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. Accordingly, current and former employees are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of employment, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, asserts the suit. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. The Defendant is a staffing and workforce solutions company that recruits, hires and places workers with client businesses across various industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. lloginov@shamisgentile.com 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 MDL 2566: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Celluci Suit Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Celluci v. Montalvo, Case No. 4:22-cv-40018 (D. Mass., Filed March 1, 2022), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The Celluci case is consolidated in MDL with Lead Case: 4:14-md-02566. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] MDL 3035: Class Settlement in Retirement Fund Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation, Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlements with AMEC Defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc., and -- granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court agrees that the settlement between Plaintiffs and the AMEC Defendants and the settlement between Plaintiffs, the AMEC Defendants, and Newport are fair, reasonable, and adequate; therefore, the settlements are granted final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the motion to award attorney's fees, costs and service awards is granted. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following Class for purposes of rendering judgment on the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement only: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants’ respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Defendants are excluded from the Class. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Amounts (including the interest accruing on the Settlement Amounts prior to distribution), the final total amount to be determined as of the Effective Date, and reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the inception of the case to March 31, 2025, totaling $1,326,003,68. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Representatives service awards in the amount of $20,000 each to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Class. In essence, the settlements provide that the AMEC Defendants will pay $20 million to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against them, and Newport will pay $40 million to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against it. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=duoghX at no extra charge.[CC] MOVE INC: Apaydin Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicki K. Apaydin, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25STCV16779 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07905. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has "installed pixels and other tracking technologies developed by third party advertisers"—namely Meta Pixel—on Defendant's website, Realtor.com. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant aids and abets third party providers in collecting web visitors' information, purportedly without their knowledge or consent, in order to show them targeted advertisements. Based on those allegations, Plaintiff brings a putative class action for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Singer, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. Elizabeth Baldridge, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 239-5100 Email: dsinger@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com ebaldridge@jenner.com NATIONAL FREIGHT INSTITUTE: Cobb Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Cobb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL FREIGHT INSTITUTE, an unknown entity; NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2517264 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02196. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages and Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed at Termination; Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; and Unfair and Unlawful Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison S. Wallin, 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: awallin@littler.com - and - Alvin Arceo, Esq. Valentina Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: aarceo@littler.com vwilson@littler.com NATUZZI FLORIDA: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Yudy Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATUZZI FLORIDA, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A NATUZZI, Case No. 1:25-cv-23852-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.natuzzi.com/us/en. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. NATUZZI, is a company that sells living, dining, and bed furniture, and decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com NEW ERA REAL ESTATE: Deanda Files Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Era Real Estate Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Leticia Deanda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Era Real Estate Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01087-EPG (E.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. New Era Real Estate Solutions LLC provides real estate services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Phillips, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: (310) 598-1628 Email: kphillips@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com NEW ERA REAL ESTATE: Deanda Files Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Era Real Estate Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Leticia Deanda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Era Real Estate Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:25-at-00736 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. New Era Real Estate Solutions LLC offers real estate services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: (310) 751-5928 Email: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com NFCGC CAFE: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------ Yudy Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NFCGC CAFE LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company D/B/A JUAN VALDEZ CAFE, Case No. 1:25-cv-23836-DPG (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://juanvaldezcafestore.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. JUAN VALDEZ CAFE, is a company that sells latte, cappuccino, pastries, ice coffee, espressos, milkshakes, smoothies, and bottled drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com O5 BNG LLC: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------ Yudy Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. O5 BNG, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A QUIKSILVER, Case No. 1:25-cv-23829-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.quiksilver.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. QUIKSILVER, is a company that sells men clothing, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com OAKCHA: Broussard Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oakcha. The case is styled as Kennedi Broussard, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Oakcha, Case No. 3:25-cv-02182-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Oakcha -- https://www.oakcha.com/ -- offer a wide range of scents to suit every mood and occasion.[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 OSHKOSH CORP: Faces La Crosse Class Suit Over Fire Truck Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF LA CROSSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-0125 (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 20, 2025) is a class action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as under Wisconsin antitrust law and common law, against Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to stop their anticompetitive practices, as well as restitution, disgorgement, and civil penalties to the full extent authorized by law. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. Accordingly, fire truck prices have doubled in the last ten years. A fire truck that cost $500,000 in the mid-2010s now costs $1 million. More specialized trucks that used to cost $900,000 now cost more than $2 million. As a result of high prices and long order backlogs, fire trucks that should have been retired after 15 or 20 years are now celebrating their 30th "birthdays" on the front lines. These older trucks break down more frequently and are more difficult to repair than new trucks, leaving gaps in communities' fire protection systems and putting the public in danger. These gaps can have deadly consequences when fires break out and no fire trucks are available to respond. And even communities that have been able to purchase new fire trucks have had to redirect funds from other priorities to cover the price increases. Three fire truck manufacturers -- REV Group, Inc., Oshkosh Corporation, and Rosenbauer America LLC -- are responsible for increasing fire truck prices and perpetuating lengthy backlogs. Together, these three manufacturers control between 70 and 80 percent of the U.S. fire truck market, and they have unlawfully conspired to use their collective market power to suppress the fire truck supply and raise prices, asserts the suit. La Crosse has purchased multiple fire trucks from Manufacturer Defendants for its fire department since 2016. Among these are two Pierce Arrow XT aerial trucks, a Pierce Saber pumper tanker, and a Spartan truck. La Crosse has also purchased a Rosenbauer Panther 4x4 for its airport. REV Group manufactures fire trucks under multiple brand names, including: E-ONE, Inc., Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation, Ferrara Fire Apparatus, Spartan Emergency Response and Spartan Fire Apparatus and Chassis, Smeal Fire Apparatus, and Ladder Tower Company. The dealers nationwide sell fire trucks from these brands across all 50 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erin Dickinson, Esq. Charles Crueger, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 210-3868 E-mail: ekd@cruegerdickinson.com cjc@cruegerdickinson.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Abigail D. Pershing, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: abigailp@hbsslaw.com PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cohen Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JILL COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS, LLC and LA PEROUSE, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-02184 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendants, which collected and stored certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. In their capacity as management services providers, the Defendants store significant sensitive Private Information. Defendants owe a duty to the individuals whose data they obtain and maintain. This duty arises because it is foreseeable that the exposure of Private Information to unauthorized persons, especially to perpetrators of cyberattacks with nefarious intentions, will result in harm to the affected individuals, including, but not limited to: the invasion of their private data, the sale of their Private Information to facilitate identity theft, exposure to scams or phishing attempts, loss of time, economic damages as affected individuals scramble to protect their identities, and/or the countless ways these individuals’ peace of mind is destroyed knowing their information is no longer secured. Accordingly, given the dire consequences of compromised Private Information, individuals expect that their data to be securely protected. Unfortunately, this trust is misplaced and violated when entities, like Defendants, expose themselves to the risk of cyberattacks. Pacific is a management services provider headquartered in El Segundo, California. Pacific provides services to over 70 operating entities and 1,200 clinics, physician groups, and hospitals that service more than 1.4 million patients a year. Those clients "specialize in emergency room, critical and ICU care, hospitalized patients, anasthesia, and psychiatry, as well as [employ] physician assistants (scribes) who handle medical electronic health records (EHR) for the doctors." La Perouse is a billing and coding management company and Pacific's sister company services ranging from MSO, ED/Hospitalist/Anesthesia Management, Telemedicine, and Billing/Coding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave. Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com aferich@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Garrett Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Healthworks, L.L.C. The case is styled as Deidra Garrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Healthworks, L.L.C., La Perouse, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-07796-FLA-BFM (C.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pacific HealthWorks -- https://pacifichealthworks.com/ -- is the leading physician practice management company in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces Consumer Suits over False Advertising -------------------------------------------------------------- BellRing Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2025 that it is facing seven federal actions asserting that some of Premier Nutrition's (Bellring's subsidiary) advertising claims regarding its "Joint Juice" line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplement beverages, which it discontinued in the first quarter of fiscal 2023, were false and misleading. The court has certified individual state classes in each of those cases (except New Mexico). In 2016 and 2017, the ten class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The action on behalf of New Jersey consumers was voluntarily dismissed. Trial in the New York Case was held beginning in May 2022, and the jury delivered its verdict in favor of plaintiff in June 2022. In August 2022, the court entered a judgment in that case in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $12.9M, which includes statutory damages and prejudgment interest, and in August 2023, the court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $7.9 in attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2022, each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award and in December 2023 Premier Nutrition filed its Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the attorneys’ fees award. In August 2024, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the damages award affirming the trial court's decision on liability, vacating and remanding to the trial court for further consideration its decision on calculated damages and reversing the trial court's award of prejudgment interest to plaintiff. Premier Nutrition's subsequent petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was denied in October 2024. On January 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s attorneys' fees award. On February 3, 2025, the trial court entered an order awarding $0.9 in attorneys' fees and costs. On March 10, 2025, the trial court entered an order again limiting statutory damages to $8.3 under the due process clause. Each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award. On March 13, 2025, Premier Nutrition filed a certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's merits decision. In February 2025, the court set a trial date for February 2026 in the Related Federal Action on behalf of the class of consumers in Illinois. Plaintiff filed a motion to apply issue preclusion from certain rulings in the New York Case to the Illinois Case. On May 2, 2025, the trial court entered an order holding that issue preclusion will apply in the Illinois Case on the issues of deceptiveness, materiality, the measure of damages, and the First Amendment, but not on the issues of causation, intent, or punitive damages. BellRing Brands, Inc. is a consumer products holding company operating in the global convenient nutrition category and is a provider of ready-to-drink protein shakes, other beverages and powders. Its primary brands are "Premier Protein" and "Dymatize." PREMIER NUTRITION: Settlement Reached in California Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- BellRing Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2025 that it is facing several consumer suits in California and New York courts. On June 25, 2025, the parties reached a class-wide settlement in principle related to the Joint Juice Litigation for the California suits. In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of consumers against its subsidiary, Premier Nutrition, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition's advertising claims regarding its "Joint Juice" line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplement beverages, which it discontinued in the first quarter of fiscal 2023, were false and misleading. In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class of consumers in this lawsuit. In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California federal class lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2020, and plaintiff's petition for an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit was denied. In September 2020, the same lead counsel re-filed said lawsuit against Premier Nutrition in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging identical claims and seeking restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of the same putative class of California consumers. In March 2023, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Premier Nutrition's motion for judgment based on res judicata, and in May 2023, the court reaffirmed its ruling. In July 2023, Premier Nutrition filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the California Court of Appeal, which writ was denied in March 2024. In November 2023, the court certified the case as a class action. Trial is currently stayed pending the resolution of the appeal in the action on behalf of New York consumers. In January 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for the application of issue preclusion arising from certain rulings in the New York Case. On May 14, 2025, the court entered an order holding that issue preclusion will apply on certain issues. BellRing Brands, Inc. is a consumer products holding company operating in the global convenient nutrition category and is a provider of ready-to-drink protein shakes, other beverages and powders. Its primary brands are "Premier Protein" and "Dymatize." PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKETS MGT., INC, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23819-KMM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 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"). Because Defendant is a store open to the public, each of Defendant’s physical stores is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA. In its physical stores, including the store Plaintiff patronized ibn the Southland Mall, Defendant has installed credit/debit card reading point of sale (“POS”) devices that allow customers to insert, swipe, or input their debit card information, view information displayed on the associated screen, and use a key pad to make and complete purchases using a confidential debit card pin number. The Plaintiff visited and sought to patronize and purchase merchandise from Defendant’s supermarket located at 11336 Quail Roost Drive in Miami. During her visit, Plaintiff attempted to use the store’s available POS device to complete her purchase using her debit card and attempted to access the information displayed on the POS device’s screen by plugging her personal headset into the device. However, Plaintiff was unable to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially pay for her order through the POS device because the device did not have any place for her to plug in her headset, nor was the device configured with screen reader software or tactile feedback that would effectively communicate to Plaintiff the visual information displayed on the POS device’s screen. As a result of Defendant’s credit/debit card reader and POS devices not being fully accessible to, and not being independently and privately usable by, blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unable to fully access and use the devices to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially make her purchases through the devices at the physical supermarket. This left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated and contributed to her sense of isolation and segregation as she was unable to participate in the same shopping experience as provided in the physical supermarket as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with pathologic myopia with central chorioretinal atrophy secondary to her myopia. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, a chain of 43 supermarkets selling groceries, accessories, and other products, including the supermarket.[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 PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Appeals Court Decertifies Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Insurance Journal reports that a federal appeals court has decertified a class of plaintiffs in a South Carolina lawsuit alleging that Progressive Insurance undervalued total-loss vehicles, the latest turn in multiple, similar suits against U.S. auto insurers. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeal found that Lynn Freeman, the proposed lead plaintiff in the South Carolina litigation, had not suffered a real injury. She had accepted the carrier's payment after her crash and did not pay anything out-of-pocket beyond her deductible. Yet, she went ahead with a lawsuit claiming breach of contract by Progressive. The lower court, the U.S. District Court for South Carolina, had certified the class of policyholders. But the appellate court allowed an interlocutory appeal in May. "Because Freeman has failed to show that Progressive's use of Projected Sold Adjustments caused her any injury, she lacks standing," Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote for the majority of the three-member panel of appellate judges. "And without standing, Freeman's claim cannot be typical of the class members' claims. The class therefore should not have been certified." The crux of Freeman's complaint, like others around the country, had to do with how a totaled vehicle is valued. The system used by Progressive looked at comparable vehicle prices. When actual sales prices were unavailable, the insurer utilized a "projected sold adjustment" to determine market value on vehicles, the court explained. Progressive compared Freeman's 2020 Chevrolet Equinox with similar cars, all with fewer miles on their odometers, and arrived at a $20,531 value, close to the other vehicles' values, the court noted. Freeman still owed almost $30,000 on the Equinox, but she held loan payoff and gap insurance coverage through her Progressive policy. Still, after that coverage was applied, she still had about $5,500 left to pay off her car. Freeman's attorneys argued that the sold adjustment had undervalued the woman's car, just as it has for many other motorists. But the appellate judges found that Freeman had little to complain about and that requirements of commonality between proposed class members were not satisfied. "Because Freeman's claim and the claims of all the purported class members are essentially individualized claims requiring mini trials as to each, we conclude that common questions do not predominate and that therefore the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class," the panel noted in the Aug. 25 opinion. Appellate Judge Nicole Berner dissented, contending that the majority of the panel held an erroneous view of the financial impairment to the plaintiffs, that Freeman had suffered "a classic pocketbook injury," and the adjustment was applied to others in the class. "When the Projected Sold Adjustment is applied, it always depresses the payout below the actual cash value," Berner wrote. "That common question unites the class. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class and I would affirm its judgment." The lawsuit is one of many filed against Progressive, State Farm, USAA, Allstate, GEICO and other auto insurers in recent years, alleging widespread undervaluing of totaled vehicles by various methods. Some have succeeded in court or have settled, some have not. Several remain on appeal. In July, Progressive won a similar appeal in Pennsylvania, in which the U.S.3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decertified another class-action lawsuit. [GN] PUBMATIC INC: Hsu Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Sidney Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PUBMATIC, INC., RAJEEV K. GOEL, and STEVEN PANTELICK, Case No. 3:25-cv-07067 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2025), is brought pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On August 11, 2025, after the market closed, PubMatic released its second quarter 2025 financial report. In its report, PubMatic's Chief Financial Officer, Steven Pantelick, revealed that the Company's outlook reflects "a reduction in ad spend from one of its top DSP partners." On this news, PubMatic's stock price fell $2.23, or 21.1%, to close at $8.34 per share on August 12, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: that a top DSP buyer was shifting a significant number of clients to a new platform which evaluated inventory differently; that, as a result, PubMatic was seeing a reduction in ad spend and revenue from this top DSP buyer; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased PubMatic securities during the Class Period. PubMatic is a technology company which enables real time programmatic advertising transactions for advertisers, agencies, and demand side platforms ("DSPs").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com RAMIREZ'S SEAFOOD: Duran Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Lisaury Abreu Duran, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. RAMIREZ'S SEAFOOD ROUTE, INC., RAD AME ABREU, and RAMEL ABREU RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-04742 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), he is entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day his work shift exceeded 10 hours, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. Beginning May 2024 and continuing through the remainder of his employment on or about July 18, 2025, Plaintiff was not paid proper minimum wages and overtime compensation. Upon receiving his wages each week, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a correct and accurate wage statement setting forth, among other things, his correct hours worked, gross wages, deductions, and net wages. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt warehouseman and delivery employee for the Wholesale Business from August 24, 2022, until July 18, 2025. RAMIREZ'S SEAFOOD ROUTE, INC., owns and operates a wholesale seafood distribution business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jepclaw.com REGUS MANAGEMENT: Sanford Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Sanford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV20442 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. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07892. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for unpaid wages, unreimbursed expenses, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, restitution, penalties, and attorney's fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Williams, Esq. John W. Baumann, Esq. Sean Taheri, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street,10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Phone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Email: michaelwilliams@quinnemanuel.com jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com seantaheri@quinnemanuel.com RESTAURANTE FRANCO: Catizone Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA, IMWL ----------------------------------------------------------------- RALPH CATIZONE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. RESTAURANTE FRANCO, INC., an Illinois corporation d/b/a FRANCO'S RISTORANTE, and FRANK RUFFOLO, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-09936 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees their statutory minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance. According to the complaint, the Defendants elected to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, using a tip credit. The Defendants paid hourly wages below the minimum wage and used tips to make up the difference. However, the Defendants committed minimum wage and tip credit violations, including but not limited to paying insufficient direct wages, which invalidated the tip credit and required Defendants to pay Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees, the full minimum wage, says the suit. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are current and former servers, bartenders and tipped employees at the Defendants' Franco's Ristorante restaurant. The Defendant operates Franco's Ristorante located on West 31st Street in Chicago, Illinois and is engaged in selling and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to customers for consumption on and off the premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net RINGCENTRAL INC: Parties in CIPA Suit Inks Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the parties in the lawsuit alleging violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") entered into a settlement agreement. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben ("Reuben") filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 23, 2023. The Court overruled the Company's demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties then engaged in discovery. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") on February 16, 2024. An evidentiary hearing was held on August 2, 2024 and a hearing on the MSJ was held on October 11, 2024, whereupon, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgement. The Court entered judgment in RingCentral's favor on November 5, 2024, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2025. On July 21, 2025, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the Company agreed to pay the plaintiff in exchange for the dismissal of the action and appeal, and all claims and counterclaims alleged therein, with prejudice. The Company accrued the settlement amount during the quarter ended June 30, 2025, and recorded it as a general and administrative expense in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. SAVAGE ENTERPRISES: Green Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tim Green, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SAVAGE ENTERPRISES; SAVAGE CAPITAL, LLC; SAVAGE ELIQUID CORPORATION; DELTA EXTRAX; CHRISTOPHER G. WHEELER; PRESTON WHEELER; AMBYR FREESTONE; BRITTNEY HA WK.INS MIA JENSEN; ABRAHAM I. SAHAGUN; ERNEST CIACCIO; VICTORIA WALSH; MAIT WINTERS; MATTHEW MONTESANO; JON DOUGHERTY; PHARMLAB SD; MAGIC VAPOR, LLC; HERSH ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a BHDISTRO/Vapor World/Vapor 1OO/CBD World/GLASS CITY; PUR ISO LABS, LLC; JOHN DOES 1-100, Case No. 63CV-25-1508-3 was removed from the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00874-BSM. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons "who bought one or more D8 vape pen Products manufactured by Savage, who have a receipt or are identified in either retail Defendant's purchaser database within the appropriate statute of limitations until the date of certification," either generally or in the state of Arkansas.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: J. Andrew Vines, Esq. DOBSON & VINES, PLLC P.O. Box 251763 Little Rock, Arkansas 72225 Phone: (501)490-9906 Fax: (501) 712-4538 Email: avines@dobsonvines.com SIX BROTHERS: Fendley Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Fendley, an individual, and all others similarly situated v. SIX BROTHERS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01441-JHE (N.D. Ala., Aug. 27, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA") as a result of the unlawful discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated and continues to discriminate against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and full, safe and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at the Shopping Center and Restaurant in derogation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has been unable to and continues to be unable to enjoy access to, and the benefits of the services offered at the Shopping Center and Restaurant owned and/or operated by Defendant. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff visited the Shopping Center and Restaurant at issue in this lawsuit and was denied access to the benefits, accommodations and services of the Defendant's premises and therefore suffered an injury in fact as a result of the barriers, that she personally encountered, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from paraplegia and requires a wheelchair for mobility. SIX BROTHERS LLC is the co-owner, lessee and/or operator of the real property and improvements that are the subject of this action, specifically: the Sumiton Square shopping center and Yi Cuisine Chinese Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward I. Zwilling, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD I. ZWILLING, LLC 4000 Eagle Point Corporate Dr. Birmingham, AL 35242 Phone: (205) 822-2701 Email: edwardzwilling@zwillinglaw.com SMITH BROTHERS MOBILE: Gordon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Brothers Mobile Detailing LLC. The case is styled as Giovanni Gordon, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Smith Brothers Mobile Detailing LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02184-CAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Smith Bros Mobile Detailing -- https://sbmobiledetailing.com/ -- provides auto, RV, motorcycle, and boat detailing services throughout San Diego, California.[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 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Marketing Emails ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Southwest Airlines has violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act by sending emails promoting sales and offers with false and misleading time constraints. According to the 15-page lawsuit, Southwest Airlines' promotional emails frequently advertise various time-limited sales, prices, discounts and other offers that the airline always intended to extend beyond the timeframe represented in the initial emails. The complaint alleges that Southwest Airlines employs these misleading time limits to "create the illusion of a good deal" and deceive customers into making purchases "in a hurry," for fear of missing out on the deal. As an example, the complaint cites a promotion Southwest allegedly advertised in February 2025 about a "Promotional Companion Pass." Although a February 20 email claimed that was the "last day" the promotion was available, a February 21 email was sent with the subject line "EXTENDED: Promotional Companion Pass offer ends today, so register now!" the lawsuit relays. According to the case, sending commercial emails with false or misleading subject lines is strictly prohibited in Washington under the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The complaint alleges that Southwest Airlines knew or should have known that it was sending misleading emails to Washington residents because it has access to several sources of information about consumers' addresses or locations, including its own user profiles. The Southwest Airlines class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who, while a resident of Washington state, received from or on behalf of Southwest Airlines an email whose subject line claimed that: -- A particular discount, sale, price or other offer was being extended, even though Southwest always intended to offer the sale through the extension period; -- A discount, sale, price or other offer was just starting, even though it had already been on offer; -- The recipient was being granted "early" access to a sale that was accessible to everyone at the same time; or -- A discount, sale, price or other offer was time-limited or ending when Southwest continued to offer it for a longer period of time. [GN] SPRING ENERGY RRH: Nock TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Robert Nock, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC; RRH Energy Services, LLC doing business as: Richmond Road Holdings, LLC; Richmond Road Holdings, LLC; Case No. 1:23-cv-01042 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Aug. 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02809-RDB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Spring Energy RRH -- https://rrhenergy.us/ -- is an energy company that believes in providing innovative solutions for electricity and natural gas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan Preston, Esq. ETHAN PRESTON 4054 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (972) 564-8340 Email: ep@eplaw.us STATE FARM FIRE: Hall Sues Over Unlawful Policy and Practice ------------------------------------------------------------ Janice Hall and Ellis D. Hall, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00249-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss., Aug. 23, 2025), is brought seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering State Farm to cease its common unlawful policy and practice of calculating actual cash value ("ACV") benefits in a manner that has been prohibited by Mississippi law, and that results in underpayments to policyholders. The specific issue in this case is State Farm's policy and practice of unlawfully depreciating sales tax when calculating ACV benefits payments to policyholders. State Farm has continued to depreciate sales tax on a systematic basis without any lawful justification. In doing so, State Farm is flouting the law and cheating its policyholders, many of whom have just gone through the traumatic experience of losing their home and personal property to fire and other disasters, out of benefits to which they are entitled by law. State Farm's conduct is unlawful, unreasonable, and in bad faith. The Plaintiffs are named insureds under a homeowners property insurance policy issued by Defendant State Farm. After suffering a covered loss to their Mississippi home and its contents in a windstorm, Plaintiffs submitted a claim to State Farm. Plaintiffs have now received ACV benefits payments that were less than what they should have been because State Farm took deductions for depreciation of sales tax. These unlawful acts by State Farm were breaches of Plaintiffs' insurance policy, as well as breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of Mississippi property insurance policyholders who have received ACV payments from State Farm in which sales tax was depreciated, thus resulting in State Farm unlawfully retaining, and Plaintiffs and Class Members never being paid, ACV benefits to which Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled as a matter of Mississippi law, and as a matter of contract, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are insured on homeowners insurance policy issued by Defendant. The Defendant is licensed to issue, and regularly does issue, property insurance in the State of Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David McMullan, Esq. John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square N Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 Fax: (662) 834-2628 Email: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rodolfo William Munoz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS (CT) LLC a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 25STCV22465 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. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07887. The Plaintiff brings various wage and hour arising from his alleged employment with Defendant. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action against Defendants: Failure to pay minimum wages; Failure to pay overtime compensation; Failure to provide meal periods; Failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; Failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; Failure to timely pay final wages at termination; Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert S. Cooper, Esq. BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles CA 90017-2457 Phone: (213) 891-0700 Fax: (213) 896-0400 Email: mlopez@buchalter.com SUPPORT SERVICES: Carmer Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY CARMER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 20, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as an individual claim that Ms. Carmer was illegally terminated in retaliation for engaging in legally protected activity under the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former customer service representatives, fraud analysts, or similar positions, who were compensated on an hourly basis, (CSRs). Accordingly, the Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its CSRs for all pre- and post-shift off-the-clock work. Regardless of the specific job title, or specific account, all CSRs: (1) are paid on an hourly basis; (2) are classified as non-exempt employees; (3) use the same timekeeping system(s); (4) use many (if not all) of the same computer programs; (5) are subject to the same relevant timekeeping and attendance policies; and (6) have the primary job duty of providing assistance to Defendant's customers. The Defendant required its CSRs to begin work prior to their scheduled shifts and perform a number of off-the-clock tasks that were integral and indispensable to their jobs, including booting up computers, logging into numerous software programs, and logging into phones, asserts the suit. When the off-the-clock work is included, the CSRs, even those CSRs who were scheduled and paid for only 40hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours, the suit contends. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a remote Fraud Analyst from approximately December 2021 to July 2025. The Defendant is a technology company that, among other things, provides customer service outsourcing services to clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com TAHOE DONNER: Mecham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tahoe Donner Association, et al. The case is styled as Krystal Rae Mecham, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tahoe Donner Association, Case No. CU0002306 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nevada Cty., Aug. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Tahoe Donner -- https://www.tahoedonner.com/ -- is one of America's largest homeowner's associations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: Jason@tomorrowlaw.com TALPHERA INC: Appeals Court Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on August 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives. Sneed v. Talphera, Inc., --F.4th--, 2025 WL 2406424 (9th Cir. 2025). Plaintiffs alleged the company's marketing slogan for a medication was misleading because the slogan supposedly failed to disclose all the steps for administering the medication. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege falsity and scienter. Plaintiffs' allegations centered on statements made by the company emphasizing that the medication could be administered orally, as opposed to intravenously -- in particular, the slogan "tongue and done." The company's marketing materials with this slogan also included warnings that cautioned the drug could only be administered pursuant to an FDA-approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ("REMS"), which required that the medication be administered in a specialized medical setting by trained staff. Similar statements by the company's CEO also noted that the drug could not be administered in ordinary pharmacies and was distributed and administered pursuant to a REMS program. Nevertheless, the FDA sent the company a letter contending that the company's marketing slogan was misleading, and the company stopped using it. Plaintiffs' allegations relied primarily on the FDA's letter to the company. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs had not established the company made a materially false statement in connection with its marketing slogan. The Ninth Circuit first explained that the slogan would not mislead investors about the process that would need to be followed to administer the drug pursuant to a REMS program. The Court specifically held that a "reasonable investor would not blindly accept a marketing slogan by itself when she has access to other contextual information," including the company's warnings that the drug could only be administered in a medical setting by trained personnel. While plaintiffs also complained that the CEO's description of how the drug was administered was too cursory, the Ninth Circuit pointed to the CEO's statement emphasizing that the medication could only be administered pursuant to a REMS program. Id. The Ninth Circuit noted that "a reasonable investor would not expect minute details of the REMS plan in [the CEO's] TED-like talk and would know that she could find such information elsewhere." The Ninth Circuit also held that the fact the company had received the FDA warning letter concerning its use of its marketing slogan did not establish the company made actionable misrepresentations. The Court distinguished between the audience the FDA is concerned about (patients and medical professionals) and the audience the securities laws are concerned about (reasonable investors). Accordingly, while the FDA may be focused on "disclosure of specific instructions to healthcare providers," the Court explained that the FDA's conclusions on that subject "do[] not make the omission of [such] information relevant for investors." The Court also noted that, in evaluating whether a challenged statement is misleading in connection with an Exchange Act claim, reasonable investors are expected to read entire documents for "caveats and disclaimers," whereas FDA regulations governing advertisements do not allow disclaimers to cure an otherwise misleading statement. Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs also failed to adequately allege scienter, concluding that the individual defendants "most likely made a good-faith determination that the 'Tongue and Done' slogan would truthfully highlight [the drug's] major selling point." While plaintiffs put forward scienter-related allegations attributed to confidential witnesses, the Court observed that few of those witnesses interacted with the named executives, and while one witness claimed to have told certain executives that the slogan "oversimplified" the medication's use, the Court determined that this amounted to nothing more than "a good-faith difference of opinion." And while plaintiffs contended that a finding of scienter was supported because the drug was so important to the company's operations, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs pleaded no facts that would have caused defendants to know the slogan conveyed obviously false information. Id. The Court found it was more probable that the company did not intend to defraud investors, given that its use of the slogan was accompanied by references to the REMS program and restrictions on the drug's use. [GN] TAPESTRY INC: Ransom Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Haven Ransom on behalf of others similarly situated v. TAPESTRY, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU038368C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Aug. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02231-BJC-AHG. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code for failure to pay all wages, pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, pay sick wages, timely pay wages during employment, provide accurate itemized wage statements, pay all wages due upon termination, and unlawful wage deductions. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Laura L. Vaughn, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-557-2900 Facsimile: 310-557-2193 Email: gknopp@proskauer.com lvaughn@proskauer.com TARGET CORPORATION: Kratzert Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation. case is styled as Jeanna Kratzert, Neil Mosher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01171-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Account Receivable. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elena Rodriguez Anderson, Esq. Hugh Baran, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1702 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (646) 759-4501 Fax: (646) 759-4502 Email: anderson@katzbanks.com baran@katzbanks.com - and - Jessica L. Westerman, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 11 Dupont Circle NW-Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 299-1140 Fax: (202) 299-1148 Email: westerman@katzbanks.com TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Cook Suit Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cook v. Telexelectric, LLLP et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-40154 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 22, 2014), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The suit alleges violation of Racketeering (RICO) Act. Telexfree was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Githere Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Githere, et al., v. TelexElectric, LLLP, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-12825 (D. Mass., Filed June 30, 2014), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Telexfree was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Murdoch Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murdoch, et al., v. TelexElectric, LLLP, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-40018 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 24, 2016), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of suit states Diversity -- Securities Fraud. Telexfree was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TELEXFREE: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Darr Suit Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darr v. Telexfree Securities Litigation et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-40004 (D. Mass., Filed Jan. 15, 2016), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of suit states Bankruptcy – Withdrawal. Telexfree was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TICKETMASTER LLC: Curry Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Curry, David Freifeld, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04773 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Aug. 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-03216-KMM-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ -- is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 802-1272 Fax: (206) 299-4184 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP 999 North Northlake Way Suite 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 778-2123 Email: kswope@cpmlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: D. Scott Carlton, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Ste 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 627-0705 Email: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com TIOGA DENTAL: Evans Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------- Makeda Evans, and all others similarly situated v. TIOGA DENTAL & ORTHODONTICS (CELEBRATION POINTE), PLLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00250-RH-ZCB (S.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 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 Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's Website was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 2 U.S.-based dental offices offering a wide range of services, including general dentistry, orthodontics, and cosmetic treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com TOTALLY HOOKED: Saunders Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Saunders, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Totally Hooked, LLC, d/b/a Snooky's Oceanfront, and Edward Bodge, individually, Case No. 2025-CP-26-05182 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Horry County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for District of South Carolina on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-11248-JD. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts two causes of action: Violation of the Fair Labor and Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John F. Connell, Jr., Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 104 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 271-4940 Fax: (864) 271-4015 Email: jconnell@burr.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Bluetooth Echo Defect Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action settlement will resolve a consolidated lawsuit that claimed a defect plaguing the hands-free phone system in certain 2014-2019 Toyota vehicles can cause an echo on the other end of the line when a driver makes or receives a call using the feature. The court-authorized website for the Toyota hands-free phone system class action settlement, which covers over 1.8 million vehicles, can be found at ToyotaEchoSettlement.com. The settlement agreement resolves the Toyota class action lawsuit, which claimed the automaker failed to warn consumers about the apparent echo defect inherent in the following vehicles: -- 2014-2019 4Runner vehicles; -- 2015-2018 Avalon vehicles; -- 2015-2018 Avalon HV vehicles; -- 2014-2019 Highlander vehicles; -- 2014-2019 Highlander HV vehicles; -- 2016-2018 Mirai vehicles; -- 2016-2019 Prius vehicles; -- 2017-2019 Prius Prime vehicles; -- 2015-2019 Prius V vehicles; -- 2014-2019 Sequoia vehicles; -- 2015-2017 Sienna vehicles; -- 2014-2019 Tacoma vehicles; -- 2014-2019 Tundra vehicles; -- 2015 Venza vehicles; and -- 2018-2019 Yaris vehicles. The Toyota settlement covers a class of individuals or entities that, at any time as of August 18, 2025, owned, purchased or leased one of the vehicles listed above in Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon or Washington. According to the official Toyota Bluetooth echo settlement website, eligible class members do not have to do anything to participate in the deal. Under the terms of the settlement, which provides injunctive relief only, Toyota has created an outreach program designed to inform consumers about the alleged echo issue and explain how to fix it by adjusting the volume settings on their cell phone and in their vehicle, the website says. As part of the outreach program, Toyota has established a website -- ToyotaVolumeAdjustmentProtocol.com -- that provides detailed instructions, including a video, about the volume adjustment procedure, the site states. The settlement website shares that Toyota will directly notify current owners or lessees by mail or email with information about the alleged echo problem, volume adjustment instructions and relevant QR codes. Per the site, the outreach program includes an interactive voice response phone number, which consumers can call to hear answers to commonly asked questions, and social media ads that give details about the Toyota settlement and direct class members to the volume adjustment website. Instructions for the volume adjustment procedure will also be made available to Toyota dealers, the website adds. The Toyota settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 27, 2025. Next, the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing on March 2, 2026. According to the site, should the settlement be ultimately approved, class members will release Toyota from liability for injunctive relief but will not waive any claims for monetary or statutory damages, personal injury or wrongful death. [GN] TRIDENT COFFEE: Walsh Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trident Coffee Roasters LLC. The case is styled as Evan Walsh, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Trident Coffee Roasters LLC doing business as: Trident Coffee ESTD MMXV, Case No. 3:25-cv-02211-TWR-AHG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Trident Coffee Roasters -- https://tridentcoffee.com/ -- produces canned cold brew coffee, single-sourced and brewed specially to enhance flavors and lessen the acidity.[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 UACJ AUTOMOTIVE: Behan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Behan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UACJ AUTOMOTIVE WHITEHALL INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00986 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 21, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $20.67. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation structure. For example, Defendant provided Plaintiff and others with Attendance Flat bonus pay ("bonus pay"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 17, 2018 through April 2, 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant is headquartered in Ludington, Michigan, and employs hundreds of hourly employees in multiple states throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Azizan Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Fazail Azizan, and others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 25A-06597-5 was removed from the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Georgia on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04783-MLB. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to assert individual and putative collective action claims under Sections 206 and 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA), for alleged unpaid minimum wages (identified as Plaintiff's "First Claim For Relief") and alleged unpaid overtime wages (identified as Plaintiff's "Second Claim For Relief"), respectively.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard W. Black, Esq. Colby Ellis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3424 Peachtree Road N.E. Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30326.1127 Phone: 404.233.0330 Email: rblack@littler.com cellis@littler.com US HEALTHWORKS: Peralta Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Osvaldo Peralta, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, dba CONCENTRA; CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a Nevada corporation; CONCENTRA INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; CONCENTRA PRIMARY CARE OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2519813 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02185. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Invasion of Privacy; Unlawful Medical Inquiry; Violation of Labor Code Section 432.6 and Government Code Section 12953; Disability Discrimination; Cannabis Discrimination; Aiding and Abetting in Violation of the FEHA; Interference with an Economic Advantage; Violations of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; and Violation of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. Mohammad R. Mojaddidi, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com rabbie.mojaddidi@ogletree.com - and - Frank L. Tobin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: frank.tobin@ogletree.com VALLEY VISTA NURSING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Vista Nursing and Transitional Care, LLC. The case is styled as Johana Sanchez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Valley Vista Nursing and Transitional Care, LLC, CPE HR Inc., Case No. 25STCV25056 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Valley Vista Nursing and Transitional Care is a nursing home in North Hollywood, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com VGW HOLDINGS: Brown Sues Over Illegal Gambling Enterprises ---------------------------------------------------------- John Brown, Trena Ostlund, Cleveland Granderson, Matthew Blatt, Zachary Parker, Karim Laury, and Eve Fields on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VGW HOLDINGS US INC., VGW US, INC., VGW LUCKYLAND INC., LAURENCE ESCALANTE, VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED, VGW MALTA HOLDING LIMITED, VGW MALTA LIMITED, VGW GAMES LIMITED, VGW GP LIMITED, JUMIO CORPORATION, YODLEE, INC., TRUSTLY, INC., and BRIAN CHRISTOPHER MISFUD; Case No. 3:25-cv-07071 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2025), is brought to: recover monies Defendants unlawfully obtained from the spouses and parents of Plaintiffs and Class Members through (or in support of) VGW's illegal gambling enterprises; and enjoin Defendants from continuing to operate or support VGW's illegal casinos. VGW owns and operates (or at all relevant times operated) at least three of the United States' most popular online casinos--Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker ("VGW Casinos")--in numerous states that expressly prohibit such gambling. The VGW Casinos operate largely the same as any other casino: the casinos take and convert gamblers' cash into virtual casino chips or slot machine credits (referred to as "coins"), and then gamblers wager those virtual casino coins in a variety of games of chance, including slot machines, craps, blackjack, and poker. VGW's illegal gambling enterprise is not, and cannot be, operated by VGW alone. The illegal enterprise is only possible with the aid and assistance of multiple partners. VGW runs much or all of its operation through California, and has partnered with certain California-based individuals and companies, which provide essential gambling services to the VGW Casinos. These California partners include: Jumio Corporation; Yodlee, Inc.; Trustly, Inc.; and Mr. Brian Christopher Misfud ("California Partners"). The Plaintiffs and Class Members are spouses and children of gamblers who lost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars or more in real money gambling at the VGW Casinos. Plaintiffs and Class Members have statutory and common law rights to recover the losses from Defendants and bring this action to force Defendants to disgorge or pay over those losses (and other damages) under state and federal laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were unaware that the VGW Casinos were illegal gambling enterprises. VGW Holdings US Inc. is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Caforio, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Erik L. Wilson, Esq. Julian Schneider, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 789-3100 Email: bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com ewilson@susmangodfrey.com jschneider@susmangodfrey.com WIPRO LIMITED: Young Sues Over Failure to Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Duane Young, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WIPRO LIMITED, Case No. 3:25-cv-14949 (D.N.J., Aug. 27, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The Plaintiff and other Associates worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, the Associates, even those Associates who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours. The Defendant's Associates are typically scheduled to work at least eight hours per day (including a half-hour unpaid meal period), five days per week, for up to 40 or more hours in a workweek. In practice, however, the number of hours worked may vary; Associates sometimes work fewer than 40 hours in a given week, and other times they work more. Notably, if Associates strictly follow Defendant's standard schedule, they routinely work more than 40 hours per week due to their off-the-clock work and thus incur overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a remote Customer Service Associate from October 2023 to March 2024. Wipro is a global technology company that, among other things, provides customer service outsourcing services to clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Fax: (248) 436-8453 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com YESCARE CORP: Avila Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, MWHL ------------------------------------------------------------ ADJOUA KRA EVELYNE AVILA, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. YESCARE CORP. and CHS TX, INC. d/b/a/ YESCAR, Case No. 3:25-cv-00944 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 20, 2025) seeks to recover damages against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the form of earned and unpaid time-and-one-half overtime premium wages, statutory liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage Hour Law, and Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law. From December 2022, through July 30, 2024, the Defendants jointly employed the Plaintiff as a Reentry Coordinator at a detention facility in Hanover, Maryland. While employed, the exact number of hours Plaintiff worked varied slightly from week to week. While employed, the Plaintiff regularly and customarily worked more than 40 hours per week. She regularly and customarily worked hours over 40 hours that should have been paid as overtime hours, asserts the suit. CHS, as a wholly owned subsidiary of YCC, operated as a continuation of Corizon's former business operation under YCC's "YesCare" branding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. Edith Thomas, Esq. Thomas Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com ethomas@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: LeBlanc Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Adult Institute, Inc. The case is styled as Annaalicia Marie LeBlanc, as individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Young Adult Institute, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0011697 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." YAI -- https://www.yai.org/ -- previously known as the Young Adult Institute, is an organization serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: kagnew@diversitylaw.com ZEALTHY INC: Perez Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zealthy, Inc. The case is styled as Sonia Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zealthy, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02280 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Zealthy -- https://www.getzealthy.com/ -- is a healthcare platform offering accessible and affordable healthcare services.[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 ********* 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 ***