250903.mbx

250903.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 176 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Knollmeyer Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Miller Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Pearson Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Sankari Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Seager Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Wallis Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Anderson Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Clendenin Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Donston Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Gile Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Heslet Alleges 3M COMPANY: Huckaby Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Husband Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Montealegre Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Mora Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Morse Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Murray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Rains Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Rogers Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Rowell Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Saucedo Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Smail Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Smith Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Sordiff Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Terry Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Vladimirov Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Weeks Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Winters Files Suit in D. South Carolina 52 LOUNGE: Honores Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ACADEMY BUS: Louis Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ACADIA LAPLACE: Hamm Allowed Leave to File Opposition Reply AKZO NOBEL: Warner Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ALALA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Reingold Balks at Audiovisual Work Purchases AMAZON: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Return Policy Suit Due Dec. 1 AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Class Cert Briefing Extended to Sept. 17 AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Dismiss Cohen Class Action AMMO INC: Barrile's Bid for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Tossed ANNE ARUNDEL: Court Consolidates Actions ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION: Fact Discovery Due April 30, 2026 AVANTIC MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pagan Says AZEK COMPANY: Lucien Class Suit Seeks Equal Access to Website BARRACO'S PIZZA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says BAYCARE HEALTH: Tracks Website Visitors' Personal Info, Crespi Says BESTWAY USA: Faces Piceno Class Suit Over Defective Ground Pool BOTH INC: Court Narrows Claims in Dail Suit BOYNE USA: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing Until Sept. 11 BUILT BRANDS: Adds Junk Fees to Consumer Purchases, Malone Alleges CALIFORNIA: Krieger Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. CENTRAL MAINE: Fails to Pay Nurses' Proper OT Wages, Gagnon Says CHENEGA GLOBAL: Must File Class Cert Response by Sept. 5 CINCO SPIRITS: Faces Haschemies Suit Over Falsely Marketed Tequila CIRCUIT CITY: Hippe Bid for Default Judgment Partly OK'd CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Goldovsky Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification COLLADO REST CORP: Espinal Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation COMMERCIAL SPECIALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Data Breach Suit COMMUNITY BRIDGES: Faces Lazaro Class Suit Over Bonus Pay Scheme CONNECTED INTERNATIONAL: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONSERVATIVE DAD'S: Hennessy Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia COPY MBA LLC: Pearson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California COSMOPOLITAN STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Siri Alleges COVENANT AVIATION: Does not ProperlyPay Security Guards, Suit Says CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES: Overshown Files Suit in M.D. Florida CPAP MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal & Health Info, Edwards Says CROCS INC: Ravizee Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation CSX TRANSPORTATION: Filing for Class Cert in Webb Due Dec. 22 CURBSURE LLC: Kincaid Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia CVS PHARMACY: Faces Foreman Suit Over Mislabeled Antifungal Liquid DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes DARREN INDYKE: Court OK's Bid to Amend Class Action Complaint DAVITA INC: Barboza Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI DIGITAL INSURANCE: Bland Seeks More Time to File Response DIGITAL INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 17, 2026 DISH NETWORK: Class Cert Filing Extension Referred to Judge Prose DOLLAR TREE: Filing for Class Cert in Godines Due Sept. 10, 2026 DOXO INC: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Mundle Suit to 9th Cir. DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Certification Due June 1, 2026 DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mable Extended to Dec. 4 EATON CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Due July 8, 2026 EDDIE BAUER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 30, 2026 EMIRATES: Deadline to File Opposition Extended to Sept. 8 ENHANCED SPIRITS: Kraus Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA EPISOURCE LLC: Nelson Suit Removed to C.D. California ER CARPENTER: Marrow's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ESTEE LAUDER: Parties Seek to Extend Time to Complete Discovery EVENT TICKETS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gershzon Suit EXCEL FITNESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kessler Says EXP REALTY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Usanovic Due Oct. 22 EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend "Wilhite" Securities Suit EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bowden Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania FAST LANE: Honorio Class Action Suit Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA FCA US: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Biederman Due Feb. 11, 2026 FELLINI SOHO: Bid for Class Certification Under NYLL Claims OK'd FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 3 Postponed FIRSTCREDIT INC: Friedman Balks at Unfair Debt Collection Practices FLATED LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges FOREST & EINSTEIN STAFFING: Damian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FOSTER GARVEY: Default Judgment Bid Filing Extended in Celucci FOX TELEVISION: Cabrera Suit Removed to N.D. California FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Taborda Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Anderson Sues Over Data Breach FUSED LOGISTICS: Ruiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GARDA CL: Class Settlement in Tanza Suit Has Preliminary Approval GATE GOURMET: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. California GEMJ CHEBHEAR: B & T Supplies Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida GENERAL MOTORS: McKee Suit Removed to D. New Jersey GIVENCHY CORPORATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOETTL HOME SERVICES: Burciaga Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime GOOD SPORT: Faces Hampton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GRUNT STYLE: Hennessy Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas HCC SERVICE: Callejas Suit Removed to C.D. California HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Hall Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania HELMS ORGANIC LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HELPLINE YOUTH COUNSELING: Mayers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HHS ENVIRONMENTAL: Osting Seeks Proper Premium Wages Under FLSA HIGH 5: Faces Peach Class Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling HOMEBOT INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HORMEL FOODS: Lenway Suit Removed to D. Minnesota HUNTER WARFIELD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Richards Sues Over Unprotected Info HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: McCarty Files Suit in S.D. California HYATT CORPORATION: Corners Suit Removed to S.D. California HYDROMAX USA LLC: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington INOTIV INC: Doyal Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI INOTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Merrell Says INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Sermeno Suit Removed to C.D. California INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in New Mexico IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir.. Affirms Win in Driver Pay Class Action JEG'S AUTOMOTIVE: Meyer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio JERRY HOSTETTER: Batman Investments Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania JT THORPE INDUSTRIAL: Ceja Suit Removed to C.D. California JURA INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges KEYCORP: Mendez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington KING LASIK INC: Franky Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington KRAFT HEINZ: Horne Sues Over Mislabeled Turkey Bacon Products KRISTI NOEM: C.M. Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida L PERRIGO: Wins Appeal Over Sculptor's Missed Deadline Bid L'OREAL USA INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LANCESOFT INC: Difalco Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey LANDCARE USA: Heredia Suit Removed to S.D. California LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Products not "Made In USA," Cooney Contends LB ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges LEAFFILTER NORTH: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid LIFEMD INC: Faces Johnston Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop LIFETIME VALUE CO: Dawkins Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. LJUBLJANA INTER: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 19 LOADED CAFE LB: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LOCKHEED MARTIN: Solomonov Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania LOS REYES GRILL: Fendley Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Voids Class Certification in Mental Health Suit LOVEBONITO USA: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Garner Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LUCY COOPER'S: Court Certifies Foley Collective Action LX HAUSYS: Court Stays All Proceedings in Torres Suit Until Nov. 30 MAPD HELPDESK LLC: Jonathan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida MAPLECOVERAGE LLC: Hand Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan MARIO'S AIR: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Jones Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MARYLAND: Fitch Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court MCCORMICK & CO: Defeats Initial Challenge to Product Labeling Suit MCRT RESOURCES: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MEDQ INC: Klepper Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. MERCK & CO: Cronin Securities Suit over "Gardasil" Ongoing META PLATFORMS: Filing of Confidential Docs Under Seal Sought META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes MI CASA: Pardini Seeks Conditional Certification MICHAEL E. FRANKLIN: Dodiya Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. MICHELS CORP: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Beyer Suit OK'd in Part MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Buehler Suit Removed to D. Kansas MIDEA AMERICA CORP: Bradshaw Suit Transferred to S.D. New York MISSION ROCK: Popat Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Humphries Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: Guarino Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup NATURE REPUBLIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims NEST BEDDING: Faces Tower Suit Over Website's Unlawful Pricing NORTHERN INDIANA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Skonieczny Says NPAS SOLUTIONS: Court OKs $429,600 Atty Fee Award in TCPA Case NUTEX HEALTH: Faces Bhagava Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Doe Suit Says OONI INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges OREGON: Settlement Must Include All Kids in Care, 9th Cir Says ORVILLE'S APPLIANCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says OTTER.AI INC: Faces Walker Class Suit Biometric Data Collection PACIFIC COAST: Carrillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Hoga Class Suit Says PARKWAY MOTORS: Sisodia Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey PARTY PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says POINTCLICKCARE TECHNOLOGIES: Levine Sues Over Unprotected Info POMEROY LIVING: Perrin Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Martinez Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri RALPH LAUREN: Loses Bid to Move ADA Website Accessibility Case S&C TECHNOLOGIES: Maxwell Sues Over Age Discrimination in Workplace SELECTQUOTE INC: Nov. 5 Conference on Lead Plaintiff Bids SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Settlement in Kobor Data Breach Suit Has Final OK SPROUT SOCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suits STANLEY BLACK: Court Approves Dismissal of Class Action Claims TMC HEALTHCARE: Desman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, AWA UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Rosenblit Over Unearned Monthly Premiums VGW HOLDINGS: Faces Peach Class Suit Over Alleged Online Gambling WORK IQ LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WORLDSTAFF USA: Franganito Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages XIN LA: Pichol Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT wages Under FLSA, NYLL ZOMA SLEEP: Evans Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ********* 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Knollmeyer Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PENNY KNOLLMEYER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11400-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. Plaintiff Heslet was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from severe pain and discomfort, emotional distress, the loss of daily functions, and economic loss, including, but not limited to, present and future medical expenses, lost earnings and future lost earning capacity, all of which are a direct result of Defendants' liability producing conduct, the suit says. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Miller Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINETTE MILLER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 22, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' fluorochemical products, Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress were directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ fluorochemical products, the suit says. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Pearson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM PEARSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11393-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 23, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' fluorochemical products, Plaintiff was diagnosed with liver cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress were directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ fluorochemical products, the suit says. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Sankari Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ LOANNE SANKARI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11401-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' fluorochemical products, Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress were directly and proximately caused by Defendants' fluorochemical products, the suit says. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Seager Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Seager, on behalf of William Seager v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11361-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 22, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. Ms. Seager is a resident and citizen of Atchison County, Kansas. William Seager, deceased, was formerly a resident of Atchison County, Kansas. William Seager regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career as a firefighter and volunteer firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the suit says. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, 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 SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANY, LLC (f/k/a MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC); MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS, INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; 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.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie M. Myers, Esq. Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq. Brooke F. Cohen COHEN HIRSCH, LP 5256 Peachtree Rd., Suite 195-E Atlanta, GA 30341 Telephone: (678) 268-4683 Facsimile: (678) 669-1520 E-mail: carrie@cohenhirsch.com andrea@cohenhirsch.com brooke@cohenhirsch.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Wallis Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER WALLIS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 22, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' fluorochemical products, Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress were directly and proximately caused by Defendants' fluorochemical products, the suit says. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Anderson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY ANDERSON, et al., v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23801 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complain, 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, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he 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. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have been exposed to greater than normal background levels of PFAS chemicals and precursors, including but not limited to PFOS and/or PFOA. PFAS products and their precursors have been linked to serious medical conditions including, but not limited to, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, ovarian cancer, lymphoma, thyroid disease, thyroid diseases, kidney disease, ulcerative colitis, infertility, and pregnancy induced hypertension. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include LINYALE SHANTEL BAGLEY; SAMUEL BELLAMY; DARIAN BOWMAN; PAULA BUSHMAN; BERTHA HENRY; JOSEPH DAVID HOCK; JAMES THOMAS JONES III; PATRICK MICHAEL KELLY; DAVID CHARLES MADRID; JOSEPH MAKI; PAUL MELANSON; NICOLE PERRY; TIMOTHY GOLD RANDOLPH; JOHNATHAN REBHOLZ; RON SMITH; STEVEN CARL WAIT; WESLEY WHITMAN, as Parent on behalf of A.W., a Minor Child; and BRILEY WHITMAN. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., 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. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. 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.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES 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; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Frank, Esq. C. David Durkee, Esq. THE DOWNS LAW GROUP, P.A. 3250 Mary Street, Suite 307 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 444-8226 Facsimile: (305) 444-6773 E-mail: ddurkee@downslawgroup.com jfrank@downslawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Clendenin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALAN CLENDENIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11402-RMG (D.C., Aug. 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. The Plaintiff was exposed to the Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. As a result of the Plaintiff's exposure to Defendants' fluorochemical products, he was diagnosed with liver cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress were directly and proximately caused by Defendants' fluorochemical products, contends the suit. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Donston Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CUBBY DONSTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11404-RMG (D.C., Aug. 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. 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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. As a direct and proximate result of his exposure to AFFF/Component Products, Plaintiff Donston was diagnosed with kidney cancer and has suffered and continues to suffer from severe pain and discomfort, emotional distress, the loss of daily functions, and economic loss, including, but not limited to, present and future medical expenses, lost earnings and future lost earning capacity, all of which are a direct result of the Defendants' liability producing conduct. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Gile Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA N. GILE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11363-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 22, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC FIRE SERVICE PLU, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Heslet Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK HESLET v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11389-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 23, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (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, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. Plaintiff Heslet was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from severe pain and discomfort, emotional distress, the loss of daily functions, and economic loss, including, but not limited to, present and future medical expenses, lost earnings and future lost earning capacity, all of which are a direct result of Defendants' liability producing conduct, the suit says. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Huckaby Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lisa Huckaby, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902765.00 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-01360-GMB. 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: Husband Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is styled as Christian Husband, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11460-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: Montealegre Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is styled as Astrid Montealegre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11471-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: Mora Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is styled as Dahlia Mora, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11472-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: Morse Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Curt Morse, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. 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.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-11212-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 extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF 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 are made up of a thermal liner, a moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF and/or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions regarding the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products, caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. By 2008, Plaintiff was diagnosed with KIDNEY CANCER. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, the effects of his illness, which was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. 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 and/or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's Firefighting career. 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/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his career as a Military Officer and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gale D. Pearson, Esq. Majed Nachawati, Esq. John W. Raggio, Esq. NACHAWATI LAW GROUP 310 4th Avenue South, Suite 5010 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (214) 890-0711 Email: gpearson@ntrial.com 3M COMPANY: Murray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- William F. Murray, Jr., as the administrator of the Estate of William J. Murray, and other 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 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. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:25-cv-11241-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 20, 2025), is brought for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") 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. 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 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 William F. Murray, Jr. is the son of William J. Murray (the "Decedent"), who 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. 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 3M COMPANY: Rains Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cynthia Rains, 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. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01373-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. The Plaintiffs assert claims against all Defendants for negligence, battery, abnormally dangerous activity, fraudulent concealment, nuisance, wantonness, strict liability - statutory, strict liability - restatement, and inadequate warning.[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: Rogers Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Paul Rogers, 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-10730-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: Rowell Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as David Rowell, Jr., 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-10768-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: Saucedo Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is styled as Joaquin Saucedo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11474-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: Smail Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Raymond Smail, 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-10634-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: Smith Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Toby Smith, 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-10755-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: Sordiff Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Raymond Sordiff, 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-10642-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: Terry Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Timothy Terry, 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-10793-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Vladimirov Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Vanjuan Vladimirov, 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-10832-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Weeks Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Ralph L. Weeks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11522-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 26, 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: Winters Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Larry L. Winters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11452-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: Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP PO Box 2590 Georgetown, SC 29442 Phone: (843) 546-2408 Email: gsulpizio@edbelllaw.com 52 LOUNGE: Honores Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- STEYCY HONORES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. 52 LOUNGE LLC d/b/a 52 LOUNGE BAR & RESTAURANT, RG ENTERPRISES ENTERTAINMENT INC. d/b/a THERAPY LOUNGE RESTAURANT & SPORT BAR, 7100 BERGENLINE LLC d/b/a COPACABANA NITE CLUB and ROBERT GUZMAN and BERKIS GUZMAN (D.N.J., August 25, 2025) is a civil action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all similarly situated cashiers, bartenders and servers who worked for Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The action seeks to remedy the Defendants' systemic exploitation of low-wage workers, particularly immigrant women, through wage theft, failure to maintain safe working conditions, and maintaining a workplace permeated by harassment and abuse. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as all damages allowed by law, including but not limited to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff also brings individual and class claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, for sexual harassment and her unlawful termination, and also under the under New Jersey common law for negligence and emotional distress. The Plaintiff further asserts individual claims under New Jersey common law, including negligence and infliction of emotional distress, as well as claims under the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act based on Defendants' failure to ensure a safe and responsible alcohol service environment. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cashier and then as a bartender from on or about April 14, 2024 until September 6, 2024. 52 LOUNGE LLC d/b/a 52 LOUNGE BAR & RESTAURANT is engaged in the restaurant businesss. Defendant R. Guzman is a person engaged in business in Hudson County, who is sued individually in his capacity as an owner, officer and/or agent of 52 Lounge, RG Enterprises, and 7100 Bergenlin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com ACADEMY BUS: Louis Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- MICKAEL LOUIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ACADEMY BUS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 6:25-cv-01649 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 2025) is an action brought pursuant by the Plaintiff against his previous employer for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants on or around May 2022. At the time of his termination, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Bus Driver at the Academy Bus LLC Orlando Terminal located at 1155 Elboc Way Winter Garden, Florida. The Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief, including liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under the FLSA. The Defendant owns, controls, and operates the Academy Bus LLC in the state of Florida including the location where Plaintiff was employed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 Email: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com ACADIA LAPLACE: Hamm Allowed Leave to File Opposition Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, and JOYE WILSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC, and OCHSNER-ACADIA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for leave to file reply to the Defendants' second memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' reply in shall be immediately filed into the record in the above-captioned proceeding. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RLJdv1 at no extra charge.[CC] AKZO NOBEL: Warner Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN WARNER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01053-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 21, 2025) is a collective and class action complaint against Akzo for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee as defined by the FLSA, most recently in the position of Machine Operator at Defendant's facility in Reading, Pennsylvania. The Defendant is engaged in the production of numerous paints and coatings within the United States and globally. The Defendant operates a manufacturing facility in Reading, Pennsylvania. The Defendant currently owns, operates, and/or manages over 30 manufacturing sites, technology offices, and/or business offices across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com ALALA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alala, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10054 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through Roti.com, the suit contends. Accordingly, Alalastyle.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Roti Restaurants excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Alalastyle.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Alala.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- DESTINY PEREZ, JOURDAN RAVENELL, and FATOUMATA CISSOKO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL, Case No. 1:25-cv-04738 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2025) seeks all available relief for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and unlawful retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. While working as security guards for Allied in New York, the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class and/or Collective were not paid the minimum wage for all hours worked, were not paid overtime wages at time and a half when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, were not paid wages weekly, and suffered retaliation, including termination, when they complained about these unfair labor practices, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs are aware of other security guards for Allied who have experienced the same pay issues, including failure to pay wages earned and failure to pay earned wages timely on a weekly basis, failure to pay overtime wages at time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and retaliation for making complaints concerning unlawful labor practices, the suit added. The Defendant is in the business of providing security services in New York and worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com - and - Richard Cardinale, Esq. 26 Court Street, Suite 1504 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (718) 624-9391 E-mail: richcardinale@gmail.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Reingold Balks at Audiovisual Work Purchases ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA REINGOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01601 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violates the California Digital Property Rights Transparency Law, California Business & Professions Code. On its website, the Defendant tells consumers the option to "buy" or "purchase" digital copies of these audiovisual works. But when consumers "buy" digital versions of audiovisual works through Amazon's website, they do not obtain the full bundle of sticks of rights traditionally think of as owning property. Instead, they receive "non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license" to access the digital audiovisual work, which is maintained at Defendant's sole discretion. When one "buys" a hard-copy DVD of the Director's Cut of Django Unchained, they "own" it. They can place the DVD in the shelf below their TV stand, and rest assured the DVD will not vanish into thin air with the passage of time. If they wish to view the movie 5 or 10 years later, they can plug the DVD into their DVD player, the Director's Cut of the movie will still play. The Plaintiff purchased a digital copy of Bella and the Bulldogs - Volume 4 on Defendant's website on May 19, 2025, for $17.79, after applying a $3.00 credit. Prior to making this purchase, she encountered a purchase flow substantially similar to the one depicted in this complaint. Amazon sells and rents movies and tv shows on its streaming platform, Amazon Prime Video, through its website, Amazon.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 837-4717 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stafan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com AMAZON: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Return Policy Suit Due Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01372-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead entered an order on stipulated motion to extend deadlines: Event Deadline Deadline for filing any motion to Oct. 10, 2025 compel discovery related to class certification: End of fact discovery: Nov. 10, 2025 Deadline for motion for class certification: Dec. 1, 2025 deadline for disclosure of any expert report(s) supporting class certification: Deadline for depositions of Plaintiffs' Jan. 22, 2026 experts: Deadline for Depositions of Amazon's Experts: Mar. 23, 2026 Class certification hearing: TBD Amazon is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNxbFh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alicia Cobb, Esq. Matthew Hosen, Esq. Nolan Anderson, Esq. Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq. Adam Wolfson, Esq. Justin C Griffin, Esq. Alyssa G. Olson, Esq. Joshua Courtney, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7075 Facsimile: (206) 905-7100 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com justingriffin@quinnemanuel.com alyolson@quinnemanuel.com joshuacourtney@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com nolananderson@quinnemanuel.com - and - Aaron M. Zigler, Esq. Lawrence Ashe, Esq. Nidya S Gutierrez, Esq. ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC 308 S. Jefferson Street | Suite 333 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 673-8427 E-mail: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com larry@ziglerlawgroup.com nidya@ziglerlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian D. Buckley, Esq. Deena J.G. Feit, Esq. Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. Mary Griffin Sims, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 401 Union Street, 5th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-4510 Facsimile: (206) 389-4511 E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com dfeit@fenwick.com jwakefield@fenwick.com mgriffin@fenwick.com AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Class Cert Briefing Extended to Sept. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Middleton, et al., v. Amentum Government Services Parent Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456 (D. Kan., Filed Oct. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order granting Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. -- Deadline for class certification briefing is extended to Sept. 17, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.) Amentum provides global technical and engineering services. The Company offers aviation support services, training, and contractor logistics.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Dismiss Cohen Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK COHEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION D/B/A ACURA FINANCIAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:25-cv-22924-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order dismissing the Complaint, pursuant to the "first-filed rule." The motion is made on the grounds that the claims brought by Plaintiff Patrick Cohen in this action are the same as the claims already being litigated against AHFC in a putative class action filed nearly a year and a half ago and venued in the Southern District of California, styled Quintin Shammam v. American Honda Finance Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv 00648-H-VET ("Shammam Action"). Alternatively, the Court should stay this action pending the resolution of Shammam Action or transfer this action to the Southern District of California. On April 5, 2024, Quintin Shammam filed a complaint against AHFC in the Southern District of California, asserting two causes of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following nationwide TCPA class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom American Honda Finance Corporation placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a person who then had an American Honda Finance Corporation account, (3) in connection with which American Honda Finance Corporation used, or caused to be used, an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from four years prior to the filing of this complaint through the date of class certification." Acura offers a variety of service contracts, maintenance plans and protection coverage. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uDrMhF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. John M. Marees II, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD. 1400 Marsh Landing Pkwy., Suite 109 Jacksonville, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 892-6936 Facsimile: (904) 298-8350 E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com jmarees@messerstrickler.com AMMO INC: Barrile's Bid for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arias Larmay, v. AMMO Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02619-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order that the Magistrate Judge's R&R is accepted and adopted as the Order of this Court. Furthermore, the Court entered an order: -- Denying Barrile's "Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel," Scarborough's "Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel," and Sommerville's "Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel; -- Granting Cherches and Zvagelsky's "Motion for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of their Selection of Counsel;" and -- Approving Cherches and Zvagelsky's selection of counsel, with Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC appointed as co-lead counsel and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. as liaison counsel for the class. Cherches and Zvagelsky are net purchasers because they bought more stock during the putative class period than they sold. Their losses exceed any profits from their options; therefore, it was speculative that they would face a unique defense that they are net gainers since they are net losers under the LIFO method. In sum, Judge Willett's finding that Movants Cherches and Zvagelsky were not subject to unique defenses is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court will therefore accept her recommendation as the Order of this Court. On Nov. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed Motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in this class action matter and approving their selection of lead counsel. Ammo is designer, manufacturer and marketer of performance-driven and innovative ammunition products, in the sporting industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=feRVtS at no extra charge.[CC] ANNE ARUNDEL: Court Consolidates Actions ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernard v. Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-02290 (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George L. Russell, III entered an order that Correa's Motion to Consolidate Actions and Appoint Leadership and Executive Committee is: -- granted in part as to consolidation and appointment of proposed interim co-lead counsel and liaison counsel, and -- denied in part as to the appointment of proposed executive committee without prejudice. Wilson's Motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. to the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied as moot. The risks of prejudice and possible confusion are low because the cases in their early stages. Moreover, no putative class members oppose consolidation or assert any burdens or expenses causes by consolidating. Accordingly, the Court finds that combining the cases serves the purposes of Rule 42(a) and will consolidate all related class actions into a single action. On or around July 14, 2025, Defendant Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A. allegedly issued a notice to the Plaintiff Natalia Correa and others, informing them that an unauthorized third-party may have gained access to certain parts of its IT system between Feb. 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025. Anne offers comprehensive medical, pediatric, surgical, and aesthetic dermatology services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U5Zgah at no extra charge.[CC] ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION: Fact Discovery Due April 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Navarro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Anschutz Exploration Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00093-ABJ (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Alan Johnson entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Motions for leave to amend or add additional Oct. 17,2026 Parties: -- Fact Discovery for Class Certification: April 30, 2026 -- Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure: May 29, 2026 -- Defendant's Expert Disclosure: July 31, 2026 Anschutz is a private oil and gas company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hF0FOr at no extra charge.[CC] AVANTIC MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pagan Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DAWN O'HARA PAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVANTIC MEDICAL LAB, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-14907 (D.N.J., Aug. 26, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On June 10, 2025, the Everest Ransomware group added a listing for Defendant to its leak site, accompanied by a one-week countdown clock and four screenshots containing patient information as proof of its claims that it had obtained sensitive Private Information stored in Defendant's IT Network. On July 3, 2025, Everest leaked 31 GB of patient files. Upon information and belief, the following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, address, telephone number, Social Security number, medical record number, referring doctor, health insurance, medical, and financial information. To date, the Defendant has yet to provide any notice to impacted patients about the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a full-service clinical laboratory headquartered in Edison, New Jersey, that services hospitals, hospital staff physicians, and the entire New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com gklinger@milberg.com AZEK COMPANY: Lucien Class Suit Seeks Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR LUCIEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE AZEK COMPANY INC.; AZEK EXTERIORS, LLC (d/b/a AZEK Exteriors); AND DEMAND FOR JURY TIMBERTECH LIMITED (d/b/a TimberTech); STRUXURE OUTDOOR, LLC (d/b/a StruXure); ULTRALOX INTERLOCKING TECHNOLOGY, LLC (d/b/a Ultralox); INTEX MILLWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC (d/b/a INTEX Millwork); RETURN POLYMERS, INC. (d/b/a Return Polymers), Case No. 1:25-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) alleges that the Defendants' failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate these websites in a manner that is fully accessible to -- and independently usable by -- blind and visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law , and the New York Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind individual diagnosed with Stargardt's Disease, a progressive retinal condition that severely impairs central vision. He asserts multiple barriers when accessing Defendants' website. AZEK is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, owning and operating multiple subsidiaries in the building products industry, including but not limited to AZEK Exteriors, TimberTech, StruXure, Ultralox, INTEX Millwork, and Return Polymers. Each subsidiary maintains its own public-facing website (the Websites), which offer consumers nationwide -- including in New York—access to information, product specifications, purchasing pathways, and other services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. James, Esq. Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: Mjames@employeejustice.com jon@norinsberglaw.com BARRACO'S PIZZA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barraco's Pizza, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09946 (N.D. Ill., August 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against Barraco's Pizza for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.barracos.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiff searched on Google for local Italian restaurants and came across the Defendant's website. However, during her visit, she encountered accessibility issues that made the process impossible to complete. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Barraco's Pizza's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Barraco's Pizza, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of traditional and specialty pizzas, pasta, steaks, chicken dishes, and seafood, with pickup and delivery options, catering services, and private event hosting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BAYCARE HEALTH: Tracks Website Visitors' Personal Info, Crespi Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- sLUIS ANGEL HEREDIA CRESPI, LYNETTE DAVIS, and MARTIN FORERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, Case No. 8:25-cv-02245 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2025) arises from BayCare's collection and disclosure of Website visitors' sensitive personal health information and electronic communications to Google without prior notice and consent, through tracking mechanisms embedded in the Defendant's website, www.baycare.org, in violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act, and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Through its Website, BayCare allows visitors to search for physicians and various medical facilities, explore health services, pay for care, enter their patient portal, and register for support groups, courses, and other programs. Unbeknownst to Website visitors, BayCare has knowingly implemented two tracking technologies owned by Google on its Website: the Google Analytics 4 Tracker and the DoubleClick Tracker. When Website visitors search for doctors or medical specialists, research treatment locations, seek information about specific medical services or conditions, or interact with other health-related content, BayCare procures Google through the Trackers to intercept these electronic communications without consent. This includes the interception of: (a) the names, specialties, and locations of physicians from whom visitors are seeking treatment; (b) the medical facilities where visitors are seeking treatment; (c) the types of medical services or procedures visitors are seeking; and (d) search queries entered by visitors into the Website’s search bar, the suit says. BayCare is a leading not-for-profit healthcare system across West Central Florida. Formed in 1997, BayCare is one of the largest employers in the Tampa Bay area, with nearly 33,000 employees, 16 hospitals, and hundreds of outpatient locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. James M. Dore, Esq. 6232 N. Pulaski, No. 300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 550-3775 E-mail: danschlade@gmail.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com BESTWAY USA: Faces Piceno Class Suit Over Defective Ground Pool --------------------------------------------------------------- PETE PICENO and SHANNON GANNON, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. BESTWAY USA INC., BESTWAY (HONG KONG) INTERNATIONAL LTD., and BESTWAY INFLATABLES AND MATERIAL CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-07878 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2025) is a class action for damages and equitable relief arises from false claims made by the Defendants about the safety of their products, the Coleman Power Steel Above Ground Pool, the Power Steel Above Ground Pool, and the Steel Pro Above Ground Pool. The Defendants' advertisement of the Product features claims related to ease of use, and consumers purchased the product expecting a safe, easy-to-set-up above ground pool. Consumers who purchased the Product discovered through a recall notice that the Product posed a serious safety hazard to users that required significant user updates to combat. Specifically, to address the safety concerns posed by the external strap of the Product, the owner must spend substantial time and effort to obtain a repair kit and modify the external strap that holds the pool together, says the suit. The false claims led Plaintiffs and Class Members to purchase defective products that did not perform as advertised and posed substantial danger to consumers. Additionally, the Plaintiffs and all Class Members have to drain all water from the Product before completing repairs. These updates require substantial effort on the part of the owner and result in meaningful expenses, the suit contends. The Defendant manufactures outdoor leisure products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Luke Landers, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 27001 Agoura Rd., Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301 Telephone: (310) 692-8385 E-mail: llanders@hilgersgraben.com BOTH INC: Court Narrows Claims in Dail Suit ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN DAIL, et al., v. BOTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Jamar K. Walker entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Count VI. The motion is denied as to Counts I and III–V and as to the request to strike allegations related to the 80/20/30 Final Rule. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part with modifications and denied in part. The motion is granted with modifications as to Counts I and II. The Court conditionally certifies the proposed Virginia Minimum Wage Collective, which is defined as: "All hourly tipped Golden Corral employees who were employed by defendants at the Williamsburg (Store No. 800) and Newport News (Store #844) restaurants at any time within the three years preceding the filing of the plaintiffs' complaint through the final disposition of this matter who were paid less than the federal minimum wage for all hours worked." The Court also conditionally certifies the proposed Virginia Overtime Collective, which is defined as: "All hourly Golden Corral employees who were employed by defendants at the Ruther Glen (Store No. 647), Fredericksburg (Store No. 688), Volvo Parkway (Store No. 721), Williamsburg (Store No. 800), Virginia Beach (Store No. 810), Newport News (Store No. 844), and Manassas (Store No. 2462) restaurants at any time within the three years preceding the filing of the plaintiffs' Complaint through the final disposition of this matter who worked in excess of 40 hours per week." Class certification is denied as to Counts III–V and denied as moot as to Count VI. The parties are ordered to meet and confer about the form and manner of notice to ensure that it conforms with the Court's conditional certification decision. The notice forms shall include a disclaimer explicitly stating that the Court does not encourage or discourage participation in this suit. The parties are further ordered to submit a proposed notice plan, along with any unresolved issues to the Court on or before Sept. 4, 2025. Both is a bank holding company owning or controlling one or more banks. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fiklN at no extra charge.[CC] BOYNE USA: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing Until Sept. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA HORNBECK, et al., v. BOYNE USA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00682-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' oral motion for an extension of time to file their new motion for class certification. The deadline is extended until Sept. 11, 2025. The Court further entered an order that a status conference is set for Sept. 18, 2025, at 9:00 AM. Parties may file a proposed schedule or motion for consideration at the status conference no later than Sept. 17, 2025. Boyne owns and operates mountain resorts. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u60mWB at no extra charge.[CC] BUILT BRANDS: Adds Junk Fees to Consumer Purchases, Malone Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER MALONE and KRISTIE ROACH on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BUILT BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01161-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2025) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Built Brands arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts. When consumers browse products on Built Brands, Built Brands advertises the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement for either free or flat rate shipping. Those pricing representations are false, however, because Built Brands surreptitiously adds junk fees to consumer purchases, including a so-called "Product Protection" fees, the suit says. Accordingly, the assessment of these fees is deceptive and unfair, since: (a) Built Brands sneaks these fees into consumers shopping carts; (b) the fees are nothing more than an additional cost for shipping, rendering Built Brands’ promise for "free" or flat-rate shipping false; (c) the fees themselves are deceptively named and described; and (d) the fees provide no added value to consumers and reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, would not knowingly choose to pay them, absent Defendant's deception. The Plaintiffs seeks damages and, among other remedies, public injunctive relief that fairly allows consumers to decide whether they will pay shipping costs. The Defendant is a food retailer headquartered in American Fork, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Sarah M. Levin, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com slevin@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (317) 695-1712 E-mail: tyler@jefirm.com CALIFORNIA: Krieger Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY KRIEGER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Kimberly Krieger, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eric Banks, in his official capacity as Chair of the California Public Employee Relations Board, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08589-SVW-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint is filed against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act. On Nov. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint. On Dec. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On Dec. 6, 2024, Intervenor-Defendant United Teachers Los Angeles filed a motion for judgment on partial findings. On July 21, 2025, Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss and Intervenor-Defendant's motion for judgment on partial findings. The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Krieger, et al. v. Banks, et al., Case No. 25-5326, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 30, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KIMBERLY KRIEGER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shella Sadovnik Alcabes, Esq. Rebekah Schultheiss, Esq. FREEDOM FOUNDATION P.O. Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 Defendants-Appellees ERIC BANKS, in his official capacity as Chair of the California Public Employee Relations Board, et al. are represented by: J. Felix De La Torre, Esq. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 1031 18th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 - and - Joseph Eckhart, Esq. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2206 Oakland, CA 94612 - and - Connie Lee Michaels, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 2049 Century Park, E., 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES is represented by: Scott A. Kronland, Esq. Matthew John Murray, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 - and - Michael Plank, Esq. Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. BUSH GOTTLIEB 801 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 950 Glendale, CA 91203 CENTRAL MAINE: Fails to Pay Nurses' Proper OT Wages, Gagnon Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE GAGNON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL MAINE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00423-LEW (D. Maine., August 20, 2025) is a class and collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maine Employment Practices Act, and the Maine Minimum Wage and Overtime Law, and their supporting regulations. Named Plaintiff Gagnon asserts that she worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek in one or more workweeks, without receiving the correct payment of overtime premiums in those workweeks within the relevant periods. Plaintiff Gagnon brought this suit on behalf of herself and other current and former nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants employed by CMHC who worked at any CMHC facility. Central Maine Healthcare Corporation is a hospital operating within the Central Maine Healthcare System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Clifford, Esq. CLIFFORD & CLIFFORD, LLC 10 Moulton St., Fifth Floor Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 613-9465 E-mail: james@cliffordclifford.com - and - Andrew P. Cotter, Esq. CLIFFORD & CLIFFORD, LLC 10 Moulton St., Fifth Floor Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 613-9465 E-mail: andrew@cliffordclifford.com - and - Peter Mancuso, Esq. Andrew Schmidt, Esq. Pamela Lee, Esq. BOREALIS LAW, PLLC 97 India Street Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 619-0884 E-mail: peter@maineworkerjustice.com CHENEGA GLOBAL: Must File Class Cert Response by Sept. 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kalantari, et al., v. Chenega Global Protection, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00961 (D. Colo., Filed March 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response as to30 motion to certify class action and collective action. The Defendant's response is now due on or before Sept. 5, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Chenega provides facilities support management and consulting services.[CC] CINCO SPIRITS: Faces Haschemies Suit Over Falsely Marketed Tequila ------------------------------------------------------------------ NABIL HASCHEMIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINCO SPIRITS GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-23864 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant on behalf of all consumers that have purchased falsely marketed tequila from Defendant's Cincoro tequila brand. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets the Cincoro tequila brand as "the gold standard in tequila," stating "[at] Cincoro, our journey begins with the meticulous hand-selection of the highest quality, mature 100% Tequilana Blue Weber agaves from both the Highlands and Lowlands of Jalisco." The Plaintiff and others similarly situated paid premium prices for the Products in reliance on Defendant's representations that the Products were created from 100% Blue Weber agave. The Product's "sleek design is further enhanced by the iconic, hand-polished stopper, inscribed with 'Share Truth.'" According to Defendant, "this phrase embodies the essence of Cincoro's mission to create moments of genuine connection and authenticity through the shared experience of exceptional tequila." CINCO SPIRITS GROUP, LLC is a U.S. based spirits company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Maland, Esq. Robert M. Stein, Esq. Sandra E. Mejia, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Miami Tower, Suite 2900 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 577-4177 E-mail: servicedanielmaland@rvmrlaw.com servicesandramejia@rvmrlaw.com dmaland@rvmrlaw.com rstein@rvmrlaw.com smejia@rvmrlaw.com CIRCUIT CITY: Hippe Bid for Default Judgment Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as XINYUE HIPPE, v. CIRCUIT CITY CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00298-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court grants the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for the defendant's violation of Title III of the ADA and her request for nominal damages for the defendant's negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court denies the plaintiff's motion to the extent it seeks class damages, compensatory damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief for the defendant's negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court awards the plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages. The court will issue a separate injunction in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). The court orders that by the end of the day on Sept. 10, 2021, the plaintiff must submit a fee petition and supporting documentation for costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred. The balance of hardships between the parties weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Absent an injunction, the plaintiff will continue to be unable to purchase products from the defendant’s website. If the court issues the injunction the plaintiff seeks, the defendant will be required to expend some costs to bring its website into compliance with the ADA. The injunction the plaintiff seeks will serve the public interest by making the defendant's website more accessible to visually impaired individuals. The court has found that the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction. On Feb. 28, 2025, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant had violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), because the website circuitcity.com is not formatted to allow a legally blind customer like the plaintiff to access its content. Circuit is an American consumer electronics retail company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lwtAUZ at no extra charge.[CC] CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Goldovsky Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX GOLDOVSKY, GLYNN FRECHETTE, JOHN KRUPEY, and KRISTIN SCHARF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK, Case No. 4:25-cv-00923-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) appointing the Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs propose a Class defined as follows: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired interests in any of the FIC Partnerships identified on Exhibit 1 to the Plaintiff's Original Class Action Complaint, from March 27, 2019 through May 31, 2023, inclusive ("the Class Period")." Excluded from the Proposed Class are: (a) Roy Hill, Clean Energy Technology Association, Inc. (“CETA”), Eric Shelly, and Freedom Impact Consulting, LLC (“FIC”); (b) directors and officers of CETA and FIC; Mauricio J. Rauld, (c) Premier Law Group, Timothy B. Gertz, and PV Advisors, PLC; (d) promoters of the FIC Partnership interests, including those persons referred to as "Syndicators" or the "Inner Circle"; (e) all entities identified as "Related Parties" on Exhibit 1 to the Complaint; (f) for all entities in sub-parts a-e, above, their officers, directors, managers, managing members, members, subsidiaries, affiliates, employees, agents, successors or assigns; (g) for all natural persons in sub-parts a-f, above, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, agents, affiliates, successors or assigns, and any entity in which they or their immediate families have or had a controlling interest, including their family limited partnerships, family limited liability companies, and (h) any persons or entities who recovered their entire investment and/or made a profit from their purchase or other acquisition of any of the interests in the FIC Partnerships. Citizens offers a variety of banking solutions, including checking accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, business loans and more. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fU5BOY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com - and - Patrick Zummo, Esq. Lisa Gerling Zummo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK ZUMMO 950 Echo Lane, Suite 333 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 651-0590 E-mail: pzummo@zoomlaw.com lzummo@zoomlaw.com COLLADO REST CORP: Espinal Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Edison Espinal, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees v. COLLADO REST CORP and JOSE COLLADO, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-04734 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), including the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and the related provisions of Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation. The Defendants were required, under NYLL and NYCRR, to compensate the Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations under NYLL and NYCRR, the Defendants willfully and knowingly compensated Plaintiff at only $15 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from October 2020 until March 15, 2025, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a deli clerk, under the direct supervision and control of Defendant. The Defendants owned and operated ROSE DELI & NEWSPAPER INC., a corporate entity principally engaged in Nanuet, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Email: info@StillmanLegalPC.com COMMERCIAL SPECIALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the purported class action case captioned as Rodney Silveira, individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Commercial Specialty Truck Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:25-048-DCR (E.D. Ky.), Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The court found that Plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue most claims arising from a data breach but dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment. The case may proceed on claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment, while claims for breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment are dismissed. Plaintiff Rodney Silveira was formerly employed by Bridgeport Truck Manufacturing, which was later acquired by Defendant Commercial Specialty Truck Holdings, LLC ("CSTH"). CSTH is a specialty vehicle manufacturer based in Cynthiana, Kentucky that operates through several brands including Continental Micers, E-Z Pack Trucks, One Source Parts, and Dynamic Towing and Manufacturing." On August 13, 2024, CSTH became aware of suspicious activity occurring within its network. However, it was not until February 11, 2025, that Silveira received a data breach notice explaining that his personal identifiable information and protected health information may have been exposed in the breach. By then, the PII/PHI was not merely accessed and viewed by cybercriminals but was also downloaded and stolen, as the data breach notice explained that certain files and folders were copied from the CSTH environment without authorization on or about August 7, 2024. The notorious ransomware group INC Ransom took credit for the data breach and posted confidential documents from E-Z Pack, a subsidiary of CSTH, to its dark web website. The cybercriminals accessed CSTH's systems for at least a week before CSTH uncovered the breach. During that time, the hackers had access to CSTH's former and current employees PII/PHI, including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and medical information. Despite the broad swath of data exposed, CSTH waited six months before notifying the individuals affected by the breach. Since the data breach, Silveira has seen a dramatic increase in spam text messages--about 20 to 30 per day--to be about loans. He understands this to mean that his PII has already been placed in the hands of cybercriminals" as he has not taken out any such loans. The data breach has necessitated greater supervision of his personal data and added ongoing stress, fear, and anxiety. Silveira brought this purported class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. He originally asserted claims against CSTH for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), breach of implied contract (Count III), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IV), invasion of privacy (Count V), unjust enrichment (Count VI), breach of fiduciary duty (Count VII), breach of confidence (Count VIII), violation of Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count IX), and declaratory judgment (Count X). The Defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Plaintiff lacked standing and failed to state a claim on all counts. Silveira voluntarily withdrew his claims for negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of confidence, and violation of Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The court found that Plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue his claims. The court noted that the irreducible constitutional minimum for standing requires: (1) injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The court held that allegations of a substantial risk of harm, coupled with reasonably incurred mitigation costs, are sufficient to establish a cognizable Article III injury at the pleading stage, applying the Sixth Circuit's decision in Galaria v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. The court found that Silveira alleges that his PII/PHI has already been stolen by hackers, as evidenced by CSTH's own admission and INC Ransom's post on the dark web containing confidential documents from E-Z Pack, CSTH's subsidiary. The court concluded that this injury is concrete since there is no need for speculation where Plaintiffs allege that their data has already been stolen and is now in the hands of ill-intentioned criminals. The court also found that Silveira satisfied traceability because he alleges his injuries are fairly traceable to CSTH's failure to protect his PII/PHI from cybercriminals. Negligence (Count I): The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. The court found that the Plaintiff's negligence claim meets the pleading standard for causation for the same reasons outlined in the standing analysis. Regarding damages, the court noted that Kentucky law allows recovery in tort of damages for mental anguish, which Silveira claims. Breach of Implied Contract (Count III): The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. The court found that the Plaintiff presents a scenario where implying a contract in law is appropriate. Specifically, he claims that CSTH collected and maintained the PII/PHI of current and former employees as a condition of their employment, and those employees understood that CSTH would employ reasonable measures to protect their sensitive information. The court held that where an employer requires an employee to provide such information, and the employer allegedly fails to secure that information, a contract should be implied to allow the plaintiff recovery. Invasion of Privacy, Intrusion upon Seclusion (Count V): The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. The court noted that Courts have repeatedly held that being aware of the risk of data breaches and failing to implement appropriate policies is sufficient to state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion." The court found that CSTH's argument that the Plaintiff cannot show an intrusion because he cites no facts indicating his sensitive data were actually disseminated is a nonstarter. Unjust Enrichment (Count VI): Unjust Enrichment (Count VI): The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. CSTH argued that providing his personal information to CSTH is not a sufficient benefit to support a claim for unjust enrichment. However, Silveira cited similar cases where courts found that a plaintiff conferred a benefit to a defendant by performing labor in connection with employment and where the defendant was enriched by the savings in costs that should have been reasonably expended to protect the PII." The court found that like the plaintiffs in those similar actions, Silveira has sufficiently pled this claim. Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count VII): The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim. The court found that there are no Kentucky cases that stand for the proposition that CSTH owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty to protect his data. The court noted that because Silveira did not respond to this challenge, the court need not delve further. Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief (Count X): The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim. The court found that other than asserting that injunctive relief is necessary to ensure that CSTH patches the holes in its deficient data security," the Plaintiff does not provide sufficient justification for declaratory or injunctive relief. The court noted that such relief is likely futile because the horses (Silveira's PII/PHI) are already out of the barn (allegedly stolen by cybercriminals)." This case was filed as a purported class action, with Plaintiff Rodney Silveira seeking to represent himself individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated. The court's order does not contain any ruling on class certification, as the case is still in the motion to dismiss stage. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UyGk5y from Pacermonitor.com. COMMUNITY BRIDGES: Faces Lazaro Class Suit Over Bonus Pay Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edith Lazaro, individually and for others similarly situated v. Community Bridges, Inc., an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-03132-SMB (D. Ariz., Aug. 27, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Community Bridges. According to the complaint, Community employed Lazaro as one of its Hourly Employees. He and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. Community pays them by the hour. But Community does not pay Lazaro and the other Hourly Employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, Community pays Lazaro and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (Community's "bonus pay scheme"), asserts the suit. Community's bonus pay scheme violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate Lazaro and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration—for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Further, Community thus fails to timely pay all earned wages due on designated paydays and upon termination of employment, in violation of the Arizona Wage Act. The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: All hourly Community employees who were paid a bonus not included in their regular rate of pay during the last three years through final resolution of this action (the FLSA Collective Members). The putative AWA class of similarly situated employees is defined as: All hourly Community employees who worked in Arizona and were paid a bonus not included in their regular rate of pay during the last one year through final resolution of this action (the Arizona Class Members) Community is a behavioral healthcare provider in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 Facsimile: (602) 926-1479 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com CONNECTED INTERNATIONAL: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connected International, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kiana Rodrigues, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Connected International, Inc., MSTMA, Inc., a corporation d/b/a Connected Sam Francisco, Sacramento Community Cannabis Collective d/b/a Connected Sacramento, Stockton Business Strategies d/b/a Connected Stockton, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0011754 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Connected International provides logistics services, shipping services, and domestic logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY PC 2453 Grand Canal Blvd. Stockton, CA 95207 Phone: 209-477-3833 Fax: 209-473-4818 Email: vjkozina@mayallaw.com CONSERVATIVE DAD'S: Hennessy Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conservative Dad's LLC. The case is styled as Michael Hennessy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conservative Dad's LLC doing business as: Ultra Right Beer, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04845-AT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Conservative Dad's LLC doing business as Ultra Right Beer, LLC -- https://ultrarightbeer.com/ -- offers American Beer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 26 Grand Georgian Ct. Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com COPY MBA LLC: Pearson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Copy MBA, LLC. The case is styled as Elisabeth Pearson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Copy MBA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02185-BJC-MSB (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. Copy MBA, LLC -- https://www.copymba.com/ -- offers copywriting training.[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 COSMOPOLITAN STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Siri Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MILSI SIRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSMOPOLITAN STAFFING SERVICES, LLC; CENTURION STAFFING GROUP, LLC; MARQUIS STAFFING GROUP, LLC; ELITE PERSONNEL GROUP, LLC; COSMOPOLITAN MEDICAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-999; and CRIEL DE MESA, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-14787 (D.N.J., Aug. 20, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Siri was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse worker. Cosmopolitan Staffing Services, LLC provides a platform for job seekers to find exciting career opportunities across various fields such as engineering, finance, nursing, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. James Jackson, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 COVENANT AVIATION: Does not ProperlyPay Security Guards, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chad Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. Covenant Aviation Security, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02620 (D. Colo., August 20, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado state law and the Civil Wage Theft Ordinance, codified in the Denver Revised Municipal Code arising from alleged unlawful labor practices. The complaint alleges that throughout the relevant time period of this action, the Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards have been denied payment for all hours worked, including overtime, and were denied meal and rest periods in compliance with the laws. The Plaintiff, Class, and Collective members also performed work before clocking in and after clocking out for which they were not compensated. The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate the FLSA because of the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and the Collective members, be paid at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single workweek, says the suit. Plaintiff Duncan has been employed as a security guard by Defendant since September 2024. He is currently employed by Defendant and holds the same job position. Covenant Aviation Security, LLC provides airport security and screening services in Colorado and across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES: Overshown Files Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc. The case is styled as Juwan Overshown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00948 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc. -- https://cpapmedical.com/ -- specialize and focus on sleep therapy for active duty & retired military service members and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CPAP MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal & Health Info, Edwards Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIANE EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00950 (M.D. Fla., August 20, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's wrongful disclosure of Plaintiff's and approximately 90,133 Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. From December 13 through December 21, 2024, criminal hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII and PHI stored therein. Although the data breach took place in the said dates, the Defendant waited nine months before finally notifying affected individuals that their private information was compromised in August 2025 -- diminishing Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased and imminent risk of identity theft and other harms the data breach caused, 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 data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant who obtain healthcare products and services from Defendant. CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc. is a healthcare services company that provides sleep apnea equipment and related services to patients, who are typically active or retired military and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CROCS INC: Ravizee Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Ravizee, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CROCS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-02657 (D. Colo., Aug. 25, 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 and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not include Defendant’s shift differential pay, Bonus Pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration for overtime rates as required by the FLSA. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that included shift differential pay, Bonus Pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As non-exempt employees, Defendant’s hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their “regular rate” of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an equipment operator for Defendant in Dayton, Ohio from December 2023 through January 8, 2025. The Defendant has multiple locations throughout the United States located in Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Filing for Class Cert in Webb Due Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN WEBB, et al., v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00211-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Hanly Ingram entered an order granting the joint motion to extend certain deadlines, and amending the Court's scheduling order as follows: Per Rule 26(a)(2), no later than Sept. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff shall disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used at trial, accompanied by written reports signed by the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert witnesses and/or written summaries consistent with Rule 26(a)(2)(C), as applicable, all compliant with the rule. These disclosures need not be filed in the Court record. No later than Oct. 21, 2025, the Defendant shall provide same. Supplementations under Rule 26(e) are due no later than thirty (30) days after the party becomes aware of the need for supplementation. All fact discovery shall be completed on or before Aug. 15, 2025, with the sole exception that the inspection of the failed wheel bearing from the derailed train by the Plaintiffs' experts may occur after Aug. 15, 2025, at a date mutually agreed upon by the parties. All expert discovery related to class certification shall be completed on or before Nov. 21, 2025. The inspection of the failed wheel bearing from the derailed train by Plaintiffs' experts may occur after Aug. 15, 2025 at a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. No later than Dec. 22, 2025, counsel for the parties shall file any class-certification motions with responses thereto in accordance with the local rules. CSX is a Class I freight railroad company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vcNoaK at no extra charge.[CC] CURBSURE LLC: Kincaid Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curbsure, LLC. The case is styled as Martin Kincaid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Curbsure, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00236-WMR (N.D. Ga., Aug. 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CurbSure -- https://welcome.curbsure.com/ -- offers simple, reliable car insurance with personalized coverage options and free roadside assistance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE, P.A. - GA 26 Grand Georgian Ct. Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CVS PHARMACY: Faces Foreman Suit Over Mislabeled Antifungal Liquid ------------------------------------------------------------------ William Foreman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., a Rhode Island Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02147-WQH-AHG (S.D. Cal., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's antifungal liquid treatment is advertised as a treatment for nail fungus. However, the active ingredient Tolnaftate is ineffective against nail fungus. The Food and Drug Administration even requires a disclaimer on anti-fungal treatments containing tolnaftate that the product is not effective on nails. The Defendant misleadingly advertises that its Maximum Strength Anti Fungal Liquid product is a treatment for nail fungus. The Product name and package is clear -- Anti-Fungal (with a picture of perfect toenails) -- every reasonable consumer will immediately assume the Product is a nail fungus treatment, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's antifungal liquid from a local retailer for treatment of his toenail fungus. Before his purchase, the Plaintiff saw and reviewed Defendant's advertising claims on the packaging, and he made his purchase of the antifungal product in reliance thereon. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is an American multinational consumer goods corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nisha Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 393-3677 E-mail: nisha@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED APC 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600-6051 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 550-4005 Facsimile: (619) 550-4006 E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKIKO FUKAYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DAISO CALIFORNIA LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) and (3). The proposed injunctive class consists of: "People who purchased Tiramisu and/or Caramel product from a Daiso retail store and resided in the State of California, Arizona, Washington, Nevada, Texas, New Jersey, or New York from Oct. 1, 2019, through Jan. 10, 2023." The suit contends that class certification is appropriate because the Plaintiff satisfies all of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff purchased Tiramisu from Daiso's Daly City store. After suffering a severe allergic reaction in the parking lot of the store, she removed the English translated ingredient sticker label and learned that the Japanese language label contained tree nuts when the translated English ingredient sticker label did not. The case involves the sale of imported prepackaged food products that had mislabeled and mistranslated ingredient sticker labels from Japanese to English. Daiso sells numerous products from Japan in retail stores in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gb0tO6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Jabagchourian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C. 1650 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 437-6840 Facsimile: (650) 403-0909 E-mail: ara@arajlaw.com DARREN INDYKE: Court OK's Bid to Amend Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE 3, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01204-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order granting Doe's motion to amend the complaint. Given that defendants will need to conduct additional discovery, and both parties will need to revise their briefs accordingly, Doe's motion to certify the class and the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the class claims are denied without prejudice, as is Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony on class-wide damages, the Court says. Mr. Indyke served as general counsel to family offices, serial entrepreneurs, investors, and other ultra-high-net-worth clientele. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LTBlzo at no extra charge.[CC] DAVITA INC: Barboza Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------- Tiana Barboza and Lisette Velante, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DAVITA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02633 (D Colo., Aug. 21, 2025), is brought against DaVita for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated DaVita patients' and employees' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"), including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, images Of written checks, health insurance-related information, and other identifiers internal to DaVita, as well as certain clinical information, such as health conditions, treatment information, and certain dialysis lab test results. This class action is brought on behalf of current and former patients and employees whose Private Information was compromised in a data breach that took place between March 24, 2025, and April 12, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). Plaintiffs and Class members were not notified Of the Data Breach until they received data breach letters (the "Notice") on or about August 5, 2025--four months after their Private Information was first accessed. As a result of Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information, Plaintiffs and Class members suffered costs and expenses associated with the time spent and the loss of productivity from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate the release of personal data, as well as emotional grief associated with constant monitoring of personal banking and credit accounts. The Data Breach was caused and enabled by Defendant's violation of its obligations to abide by best practices and industry standards concerning the security of patients' and employees' records and Private Information, Defendant failed to comply with security standards and allowed their patients' and employees' Private Information to be compromised. Therefore, the corresponding harm caused to Plaintiffs and Class members could have been prevented or at the very least, mitigated after the Data Breach occurred. There has been no assurance offered by Defendant that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began using Defendant's services between 2014 and 2015. DaVita, based in Denver, Colorado, is a leading provider of kidney care and dialysis services that serves thousands of patients nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H street, NE, suite 302 Washington D.C. 20002 Phone: 202-470-520 Fax: 202-800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com DIGITAL INSURANCE: Bland Seeks More Time to File Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BLAND, v. DIGITAL INSURANCE, LLC, d/b/a One Digital, Case No. 7:25-cv-00050-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the deadline to file a motion for class certification from Aug. 20, 2025 to April 17, 2026. Digital provides insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VllljJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com DIGITAL INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 17, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BLAND, v. DIGITAL INSURANCE LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-00050-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification filed August 19, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on or before April 17, 2026. Digital is a property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5dEnBA at no extra charge.[CC] DISH NETWORK: Class Cert Filing Extension Referred to Judge Prose ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owen-Brooks v. DISH Network Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01168 (D. Colo., Filed May 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order referring the Plaintiffs second unopposed motion for extension to file motion for class certification to Mag. Judge Susan Prose. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. DISH operates as a satellite television company.[CC] DOLLAR TREE: Filing for Class Cert in Godines Due Sept. 10, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA GODINES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01743-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an amended pretrial scheduling order: All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action and shall be completed by March 10, 2026. All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the Court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at class certification not later than April 10, 2026. The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by Sept. 10, 2026. The parties are responsible for ensuring that all motions are filed to allow for proper notice of the hearing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules. Dollar is a discount variety store in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6WqaMt at no extra charge.[CC] DOXO INC: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Mundle Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOXO, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Douglas Mundle, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Doxo, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00893-TSZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleged that the Defendants willfully frustrated consumers' desires for cost-effective, timely and secure online payments by injecting their Doxo website between consumers and the legitimate online payment portals of consumers' service providers, saddling consumers with worthless subscriptions, junk fees, unnecessary payment delays and the added risk of mailed payments. On May 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and motion to stay, which Judge Thomas S. Zilly denied on Aug. 7, 2025. After considering the totality of the parties' actions, the Court concludes that the Defendants' extended silence and delay in moving for arbitration constitutes a waiver of any right to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the Defendants have waived any right to arbitrate the Plaintiffs' claims. The appellate case is entitled Mundle, et al. v. Doxo, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-5314, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 30, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DOUGLAS MUNDLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Derek W. Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. Thomas Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Defendants-Appellants DOXO, INC., et al. are represented by: Courtland L. Reichman, Esq. REICHMAN JORGENSEN LEHMAN & FELDBERG, LLP 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 - and - David King, Jr., Esq. REICHMAN JORGENSEN LEHMAN & FELDBERG, LLP 1909 K. Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 - and - Roger Mulford Townsend, Esq. TOWNSEND LEGAL, PLLC 380 Winslow Way, Suite 200 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Certification Due June 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA DELLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03746-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an amended order as follows: 1. The deadline for substantial completion of document production is Oct. 27, 2025; 2. Each Party shall serve affirmative expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use in its case-in-chief), if any, on or before Feb. 2, 2026; 3. Each Party shall serve rebuttal expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use to rebut an expert opinion from its opponent), if any, on or before March 16, 2026; 4. The Parties shall complete all discovery by April 13, 2026; 5. Motions for summary judgment and class certification, if any, shall be filed by June 1, 2026. Drexel is a private research university. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v922vp at no extra charge.[CC] DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mable Extended to Dec. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL MABLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00117-RH-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert L. Hinkle entered an order revising the schedule as follows: 1. The joint motion to revise the schedule is granted. 2. The plaintiff's deadline for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosures is extended to Oct. 16, 2025. The Defendant's deadline is extended to Nov. 13, 2025. The deadline for a rebuttal expert disclosure is extended to Nov. 26, 2025. 3. The deadline for filing any motion for class certification is extended to Dec. 4, 2025. Duke operates low-voltage, medium-voltage, and high-voltage lines across Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VHZUKf at no extra charge.[CC] EATON CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Due July 8, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB SCHLESINGER, ANDREW SMITH, JASON THOMAS, PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, LLC, GORDON KIRK; TAUNI DOSTER, STEVE WATKINS; and WILLIAM DOHERTY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EATON CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00157-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Richard Story entered an order granting joint motion for entry of schedule relating to class certification: Date Deadline Aug. 18, 2025 Fact discovery limited to class certification issues opens May 1, 2026 Fact discovery limited to class certification issues closes June 3, 2026 Rebuttal expert reports due (can only respond to issues raised in the affirmative expert reports) June 26, 2026 Deadline to depose rebuttal experts July 8, 2026 The Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification and support memorandum July 15, 2026 Any Daubert briefs on class certification experts shall be filed Aug. 12, 2026 Eaton files its opposition to class certification Aug. 19, 2026 Daubert opposition briefs due Sept. 9, 2026 The Plaintiffs file their reply in support of certification Eaton is a multinational power management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wLmT1J at no extra charge.[CC] EDDIE BAUER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 30, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01106 (W.D. Wash., Filed July 16, 2020), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting stipulated motion to extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification. -- Class Certification Motion to be filed by June 30, 2026 -- Class Certification Opposition due by Sept. 30, 2026 -- Class Certification Reply due by Aug. 14, 2026 The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Eddie is an American outdoor recreation brand and chain store.[CC] EMIRATES: Deadline to File Opposition Extended to Sept. 8 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Farah, et al., v. Emirates et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order extended deadlines as follows: -- The Defendants' deadline to file their papers in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, is Sept. 8, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply papers in further support of the motion is Oct. 24, 2025. In light of these developments, the parties submit the instant request, which will afford them sufficient opportunity to complete the briefing of the Motion while accommodating the revised Staley trial schedule and the intervening religious holidays in September and October 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1sN62O at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Evan B. Citron, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-4030 Telephone: (212) 545-4069 Facsimile: (212) 972-3213 E-mail: evan.citron@jacksonlewis.com ENHANCED SPIRITS: Kraus Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- GUILHERME KRAUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ENHANCED SPIRITS LLC d/b/a TROPICAL LIQUEURS and BILLY THOMPSON, Case No. 4:25-cv-01273 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 25, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages plus interest (pre-judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, emotional distress damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiff for all worked hours including overtime compensation as required by federal law. During the relevant period, the Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because of his complaints concerning wages since he was paid $7.00 per hour when all other Defendants' employees earned at least or more than the minimum wage, for which Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of Missouri during the period of about November 16, 2023 through March 2024. The Plaintiff began working with Defendants as a bartender in or around November 16, 2023. ENHANCED SPIRITS LLC d/b/a TROPICAL LIQUEURS serves frozen cocktails.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meir Rubinov, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 640-8123 Facsimile: (718) 715-1750 E-mail: mrubinov@consumerattorneys.com - and - Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423-2327 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimiles: (718) 489-4155 E-mail: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc EPISOURCE LLC: Nelson Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jordan Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Case No. 25STCV23482 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. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07833. The Plaintiff's allegations are identical to the allegations made by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, arise from the same Cyberattack, and deal with the same questions of fact and law. Plaintiff's allegations are entirely subsumed by the allegations made by Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com ER CARPENTER: Marrow's Bid for Class Certification Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAROYA MARROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. E.R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC., d/b/a CARPENTER CO., Case No. 8:23-cv-02959-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order as follows: 1. No later than Sept. 2, 2025, Marrow must submit evidence proving that she has standing to sue. 2. Marrow's motion for class certification is denied. The Court says that Marrow fails to convince, on the current record, that she has Article III standing. She also fails to demonstrate that issues common to either proposed class predominate over individualized standing issues. Saroya Marrow alleges that E.R. Carpenter Co., her former employer, failed to provide a sufficient notice of continuing healthcare coverage, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Marrow moves to certify this case as a class action. Marrow was employed by Carpenter until March 9, 2022, when she was terminated for reasons other than gross misconduct. While she was employed, Marrow obtained medical insurance for herself under Carpenter's health plan. The two classes are defined as: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by the Defendant, in the form attached to this Motion as Exhibit C, during the applicable four year statute of limitations period as a result of a qualifying event, as determined by Defendant, and (2) did not elect continuation coverage." "All Florida participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by Defendant, in the form attached to this Motion as Exhibit C, during the applicable four-year statute of limitations period as a result of a qualifying event, as determined by the Defendant, and (2) did not elect continuation coverage." ER operates as a chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7wgY6W at no extra charge.[CC] ESTEE LAUDER: Parties Seek to Extend Time to Complete Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of certain deadlines in the civil case management plan and scheduling order, dated April 17, 2025. The Parties request an extension of remaining discovery deadlines by approximately five months. The existing Scheduling Order provides for Defendants to substantially complete document production by September 24, 2025 and for the Parties to complete all fact discovery by December 18, 2025. The schedule was entered before the Parties had exchanged initial disclosures or discovery requests. Since that time, the Parties have engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the appropriate scope of Lead Plaintiffs’ 36 requests for production to each Defendant. The existing Scheduling Order provides for Defendants to oppose class certification on September 25, 2025, approximately thirteen weeks after Lead Plaintiffs’ June 27, 2025, substantial completion deadline. Lead Plaintiffs produced documents on June 27, 2025 and July 2, 2025, and produced additional documents pursuant to follow up requests by Defendants on August 4, 2025. Estee is a manufacturer and marketer of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3F2osL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James T. Christie, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jchristie@labaton.com The Defendants are represented by: Barry H. Berke, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 EVENT TICKETS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gershzon Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mikhail Gershzon, Plaintiff v. Event Tickets Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-04142-RS (N.D. Cal.), Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court ruled that Defendant has established a valid arbitration agreement whose scope encompasses Plaintiff's claims, and that Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant waived its right to enforce the agreement. Therefore, Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted and the action is stayed pending completion of the arbitration proceedings. This dispute arises out of a ticket purchase Plaintiff made via Defendant's site. Plaintiff alleges Event Tickets Center's business is essentially a scam, overcharging consumers for tickets and sometimes selling outright counterfeits. Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendant, asserting claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of United States residents and a proposed subclass of California residents who purchased tickets from Defendant's website. To purchase a ticket, Plaintiff needed to navigate to the checkout webpage, which displayed a notice informing the user that by placing an order, he was agreeing to Event Tickets Center's terms and policies. The terms included the company's privacy policy, which contained a binding arbitration agreement and class action waiver. Plaintiff filed his class action complaint against Defendant on July 9, 2024. Defendant filed its answer on September 30, 2024, asserting multiple affirmative defenses, but omitting any claim of arbitrability. In October, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement where Defendant shared it would oppose any motion for class certification and might file a motion for summary judgment after responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Defendant also requested a jury trial. Defendant produced 24 responsive documents in response to two sets of requests from Plaintiff. In March of this year, parties met and conferred about alleged deficiencies in Defendant's productions. Defense counsel did not mention arbitration at that point. Defendant, with the court's permission, substituted counsel on March 20, 2025. During a subsequent meet and confer, Defendant declared its intention to compel arbitration and subsequently filed this Motion on May 23, 2025. Defendant now moves to compel arbitration, contending Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass are bound by Event Tickets Center's arbitration agreement. Plaintiff concedes that the agreement is valid and enforceable as to his claims but argues that Defendant has waived its right to compel arbitration. The court found that Defendant has demonstrated a binding agreement to arbitrate. In his opposition to Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, Plaintiff does not contest the validity or scope of the agreement. Plaintiff does not oppose the conclusion that Event Tickets Center's checkout page provided reasonable notice of the terms of service, and that Plaintiff clicked a button unambiguously manifesting assent to those terms. The language of the arbitration agreement is broad enough to clearly encompass Plaintiff's putative class claims. The crux of this motion is Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant waived the right to enforce the arbitration agreement. Defendant admits its awareness of the arbitration provision. Therefore, the only question remaining is whether Event Tickets Center committed intentional acts inconsistent with its rights under that agreement. Plaintiff contends Defendant engaged in intentional acts because Defendant waited for ten months after the filing of the complaint to compel arbitration. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts Defendant has actively participated in the early stages of litigation. Since Plaintiff filed his complaint in July 2024, Defendant (1) answered the complaint with no mention of the arbitration clause, (2) stipulated to a protective order to facilitate class--wide discovery, (3) answered discovery requests, (4) filed a joint Rule 26(f) report, which included a request for a jury trial and Defendant's intent to file a summary judgment motion, (5) sought the transfer of a related matter to this court, (6) Did not, throughout a case management conference and several meet and confers, raise its intent to compel arbitration with either Plaintiff or the court. Although Defendant has waited nearly a year to file a motion to compel, its actions, in totality, do not merit waiver. Defendant's actions taken as a whole, were consistent with the intent to arbitrate, and therefore it has not waived its right to enforce the agreement. The court found that Defendant's ten months of delay, while not dispositive, do not support a finding of waiver. Notably, Defendant never sought a decision on the merits of the case prior to moving to compel arbitration. Defendant has not attempted two bites at the apple, as is the concern in other cases of waiver. Defendant's actions beyond delay are insufficient to establish waiver. Defendant merely responded to, but never propounded, discovery requests. The court noted that Defendant's other actions, including its request for a jury trial and its potential intent to file a motion for summary judgment, without more, are not inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. Taken as a whole, Defendant's actions throughout the past ten months have not demonstrated purposeful delay or intentional abandonment of the agreement. Therefore, Defendant has not waived its right to compel arbitration. The action is hereby stayed pending completion of the arbitration proceedings. Any party may move to reopen upon completion of the arbitration or for other good cause shown. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZ3V6l from Pacermonitor.com. EXCEL FITNESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kessler Says ---------------------------------------------------------- SEYCHELLE KESSLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EXCEL FITNESS CONSOLIDATOR, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01348 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2025) arises out of the data breach wherein an unauthorized actor accessed the Defendant's computer systems and that Defendant discovered on Jan. 17, 2025. 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 employment relationship with Plaintiff and Class Members. Accordingly, such sensitive information includes, but is not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. The Defendant received the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as a condition of their employment with the Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII 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. According to the letter that Defendant sent to Class Members, Defendant admits an unauthorized actor unlawfully accessed certain personal information from its network. The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII. The Defendant is a franchisee of Planet Fitness with over 160 gym locations in multiple states, including Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWPPD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, 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 sukert@kolawyers.com EXP REALTY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Usanovic Due Oct. 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY USANOVIC, v. EXP REALTY LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00687-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Deadline to complete discovery on class Oct. 8, 2025 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiff's class Oct. 22, 2025 certification motion (to be noted for reply brief deadline): Deadline for the Defendant's opposition Nov. 19, 2025 to class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply brief Dec. 22, 2025 in support of class certification: Exp is an independent real estate brokerage in the world. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X8C1NJ at no extra charge.[CC] EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend "Wilhite" Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Expensify, 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 styled Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR. On November 29, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR, naming us, two of our executive officers and two of our former directors as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchase or acquired our stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading statements in the offering documents filed in connection with our IPO. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On January 29, 2024, three shareholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Putative Class Action. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on March 11, 2024. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the lead plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed May 10, 2024, naming six of our current board members as additional defendants. Amended Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on July 9, 2024. The lead plaintiff's opposition was filed on September 6, 2024, and the Amended Defendants' reply was filed on October 18, 2024. On December 30, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation that the Amended Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The lead plaintiff and Amended Defendants each filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation on January 21, 2025, and responses to the objections on February 4, 2025. On March 24, 2025, the court adopted, with certain modifications, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation. The defendants intend to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and vigorously defend against the claims in the Putative Class Action. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bowden Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Garrett Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., et al. Case No. 2025-3625 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00261. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1973, (“ERISA”), because the claims relate to the administration of benefits under certain Plaintiffs’ employee benefit plans; and the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie Friedman, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1801 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Ste 1000 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: 202.378.2300 Email: Julie.friedman@huschblackwell.com - and - Tanya M. Maerz, Esq. Melissa Baris, Esq. Christopher Smith, Esq. 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Phone: 314.480.1500 Fax: 314.480.1505 Email: tanya.maerz@huschblackwell.com melissa.baris@huschblackwell.com chris.smith@huschblackwell.com FAST LANE: Honorio Class Action Suit Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ GERALDO OTAVIO HONORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAST LANE COLLISION CENTER, INC., alias, and SEYLIN NHEAN, an individual Case No. 1:25-cv-12372 (D. Mass., Aug. 27, 2025) seeks compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees and costs, and other equitable relief arising out of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was a victim of the Defendants' common policy and practices, which violated his rights under the FLSA and Massachusetts laws by not paying him the proper wages he was owed for the overtime hours he worked. The Plaintiff asserts his rights and remedy grave and rampant violations committed by the Defendants over the course of several years. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Fastlane specialized in vehicle repair and painting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. Ana Barros, Esq. ODU LAW FIRM, LLC 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 E-mail: Odu@odulawfirm.com abarros@odulawfirm.com FCA US: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Biederman Due Feb. 11, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK BIEDERMAN, et al., v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06640-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order setting the following class certification deadlines: Cummins Produces Organizational Chart: Aug. 1, 2025 Submission of Discovery Dispute Joint Letters: Aug. 29, 2025 Written Discovery Substantial Completion: Oct. 20, 2025 Begin Expert Discovery: Oct. 20, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 11, 2026 Class Certification Opposition: Apr. 27, 2026 Class Certification Reply: July 11, 2026 FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JjdwlO at no extra charge.[CC] FELLINI SOHO: Bid for Class Certification Under NYLL Claims OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANCE ERICKSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FELLINI SOHO CORP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01344-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to their claim under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) section 196-d and denying as to their remaining claims. -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class discovery; The Plaintiffs have 120 days from the date of this Opinion and Order to complete class discovery. The Clerk of Court is directed to (1) close the motion at ECF No. 38 and (2) amend the caption on ECF to replace the name of Plaintiff "Everett Heather" with "Hannah Everett." The Plaintiffs have made no allegations as to the type of work done by other tipped food service employees, a category that may encompass a variety of roles that involve different levels of physical activity. Thus, on the record before the Court, it's unclear that the "resolution of some of the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member's case as a genuine controversy can be achieved through generalized proof" and that "these particular issues are more substantial than the issues subject only to individualized proof," the Court says. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "All tipped food-service employees (other than managers) who worked for the Defendants at the Fellini Coffee food establishments in Soho, Chelsea[,] and the West Village at any time on or after Feb. 14, 2019." The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly withheld portions of all tipped employees' tipped wages, paid them on a biweekly basis rather than a weekly basis, and did not provide them with wage notices and statements as required by New York state law. Erickson worked as a barista and server at two Fellini establishments, located in Soho and the West Village, from September 2024 to January 2025. Fellini operates coffeeshops in Manhattan, New York. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uD2jWQ at no extra charge.[CC] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 3 Postponed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an endorsed order postponing the class certification hearing set for Sept. 3, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., to be reset as necessary. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Fidelity is an American multinational corporation which offers a wide range of financial products and services.[CC] FIRSTCREDIT INC: Friedman Balks at Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FirstCredit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-06896 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2025) arises from the Defendant's debt collection efforts that attempted and/or was directed towards the Plaintiff which violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffered a concrete harm by receiving a collection letter for a debt that he obviously does not owe, which in turn led him to become angry, confused, and scared. These violations by Defendant were unconscionable, knowing, willful, negligent, and/or intentional, and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violations, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant's collection efforts with respect to the debt caused Plaintiff to suffer concrete and particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the legally protected right not to be misled or treated unfairly with respect to any action for the collection of any consumer debt, the suit alleges. FirstCredit, Inc. is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined and used in the FDCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@SteinSaksLegal.com FLATED LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. FLATED LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07090 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://flated.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Flated online retail store, as well as the Flated interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FOREST & EINSTEIN STAFFING: Damian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Danielle Damian, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc., Elizabeth Frome d/b/a The Job Shop, The Job Shop, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 25CV010817 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc. is categorized under Temporary Employment Contractors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com FOSTER GARVEY: Default Judgment Bid Filing Extended in Celucci -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cellucci, et al., v. Foster Garvey, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-10304 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 8, 2023), 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. Foster Garvey is a full-service law firm.[CC] FOX TELEVISION: Cabrera Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maximiliano Cabrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV132673 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-07228. On July 18, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this wage and hour class action by filing a class action complaint which asserts claims under the California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David H. Stern, Esq. Alex E. Spjute, Esq. Matthew J. Goodman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: dstern@bakerlaw.com aspjute@bakerlaw.com mgoodman@bakerlaw.com FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Taborda Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Jhonny Taborda, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23794-RKA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Freedom Mortgage Corporation -- https://www.freedommortgage.com/ -- provide mortgage servicing to homeowners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott David Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (561) 569-6283 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Anderson Sues Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Virgina Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02754-EA (D. Md., Aug. 21, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted FAS with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach discovered on January 20, 2025 that Defendant recently disclosed to Plaintiff and Class Members. Its investigation revealed that there was unauthorized access between October 27, 2024 and January 13, 2025. (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Despite FAS's duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and previous patients, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach, wherein there was unauthorized access to FAS's computer systems and files were copied. The Data Breach occurred in part because of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for treatment with Defendant. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now exposed to cybercriminals. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt and timely notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former patient of Defendant. FAS is a nationwide health care services company that operates nursing facilities, long-term acute care hospitals, hospice agencies and centers for the developmentally disabled.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com FUSED LOGISTICS: Ruiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fused Logistics LLC, et al. The case is styled as Emmanuel Sandoval Ruiz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fused Logistics LLC, MMG Executives LLC, Michelle Renae Bagalayos, Miguel Angel Garcia, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0011657 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Fused Logistics, LLC is an Elite 3rd Party Logistics provider that was founded with a vision to provide a quality and seamless customer service experience.[BN] GARDA CL: Class Settlement in Tanza Suit Has Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Anthony Tanza, Michael S. Bosman, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Garda CL Atlantic, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-4394 (JMA) (AYS) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joan M. Azrack of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement. The Court amended its January 19, 2024 order based on subsequent events and filings. For good cause shown, the motion for preliminary approval was granted. The Court preliminarily found that the proposed Settlement Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for settlement purposes only. The Court certified the following Rule 23 Class: All individuals who, as of January 23, 2015, were employed by Garda CL Atlantic, Inc. at its Central Islip, NY branch. The Defendant must provide the Settlement Administrator with a spreadsheet listing the names and last known addresses of the Settlement Class Members within 10 days after the date of this Order. The Court granted approval to Named Plaintiffs Anthony Tanza, Michael S. Bosman, Gary E. Sobek, Carmela Symanski, Lana Bongiovi, Jimmy Adkins, Michael Boneta, Dennis Delucie, Albert Velazquez, and William Shannon to serve as Class Representatives with respect to the settlement. Named Plaintiffs Charles Engel and Alexander Cioffi have died, and their claims were dismissed without prejudice to the rights of their living spouses to receive notice of the settlement and claim their respective settlement shares. Named Plaintiffs Fred Smith, Glenny Adon, and Justin Griffin were proceeding pro se and were unresponsive to counsel's efforts to contact them. Their claims were dismissed without prejudice to their right to receive notice of the settlement and claim their respective settlements. Named Plaintiffs Robert T. Giani, Dieter Kern, and James Hetti are proceeding pro se and shall be sent notice of the settlement with the right to claim their respective settlement shares. The Court appointed Kyle Pulis of Scott Michael Mishkin, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The proposed settlement set forth in the Agreement was preliminarily approved as modified by Defendant's April 29, 2025 letter, which consented to amendment of the release to carve out John Rossi's wage-and-hour claims under the New York Labor Law. The Agreement appears to be fair, reasonable and adequate upon preliminary review. Rust Consulting was approved as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing to consider final approval of the settlement, attorney's fees, and service awards will be held on December 10, 2025, at Central Islip, New York, 11722. The parties must file a motion for final approval no later than 14 days before the Fairness Hearing. The Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit and Fairness Hearing was approved by the Court. Any Class Member who does not wish to participate in the settlement may request exclusion by submitting a signed request that must be postmarked within 60 days following the initial mailing date. Class Members who wish to assert objections at the Fairness Hearing must do so first in writing. Such statements must be signed and notarized by the objector, include their address and telephone number, and be received by the Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel, and Defendant's counsel within 60 days after the Mailing Date. The Court preliminarily approved service awards of $1,000 for Named Plaintiffs Anthony Tanza, Michael S. Bosman, Robert T. Giani, Gary E. Sobek, Carmela Symanski, Lana Bongiovi, Jimmy Adkins, Michael Boneta, Dieter Kern, Dennis Delucie, Albert Velazquez, James Hetti, Charles Engel, Alexander Cioffi, Barry Dubrow (through his Estate), and William Shannon can seek service awards. All members of the Settlement Class who do not timely and properly exclude themselves will be bound by all terms of the Agreement if finally approved. If 10% or more of the Rule 23 Class members elect to be excluded, the Defendant has the right to void the Agreement. All proceedings in this action are stayed until further order of the Court, except those necessary to carry out the terms of the Agreement. A copy of the Court's amended order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v2iJ9p from Pacermonitor.com. GATE GOURMET: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lisa Moore, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GATE GOURMET, INC., a Delaware Stock Corporation, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CU037695 was removed from the San Diego Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02156-JES-MMP. On behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action. They are: 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 reimburse business expenses; failure to pay all wages owed at termination; failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements; unfair competition based on the same alleged Labor Code violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian Berry, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Dominic Sbrocca, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: Tel: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com dominic.sbrocca@morganlewis.com GEMJ CHEBHEAR: B & T Supplies Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as B & T Supplies, Inc. doing business as: B and T Supply doing business as: Biggest Book.com, et al., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. GemJ Chebhear Grat, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-11241 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-23855-RAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bruce Alan Weil, Esq. Marshall Dore Louis, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2800 Bank of America Tower Miami, FL 33131-2144 Phone: (305) 539-8400 Fax: 539-1307 Email: bweil@bsfllp.com mlouis@BSFLLP.com - and - Robert George Keefe, Esq. U.S. District Court - N.D. Fla. 111 North Adams St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 585-3414 Email: robertkeefe12@gmail.com GENERAL MOTORS: McKee Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kevin McKee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Case No. UNN L 002808 25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-14861. The Plaintiff alleges that the windshield wipers on his vehicle have an unspecified defect that causes the wipers to intermittently fail. The Plaintiff alleges that the purported defect also affects other 2023-2024 model year vehicles and seeks to represent a putative nationwide class defined as: "All persons in the United States who purchased or leased a 2023 or 2024 GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe, Chevrolet Suburban, Cadillac Escalade, or Cadillac Escalade ESV." On behalf of himself and the putative class and subclass, Plaintiff asserts a single count against GM for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"). The Plaintiff seeks "all remedies permitted under the MMWA, including actual damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas C. Regan, Esq. Brian C. Deeney, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 800 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: 973-577-6260 Email: Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com Brian.Deeney@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Krista L. Lenart, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 2723 South State Street, Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: 734-214-7660 Email: KLenart@dykema.com - and - Eric C. Tew, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100 West Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202-906-8629 Email: etew@dykema.com GIVENCHY CORPORATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Givenchy Corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-03380-PJS-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 27, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.givenchy.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, shoes, handbags and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GOETTL HOME SERVICES: Burciaga Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Burciaga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOETTL HOME SERVICES, LLC d/b/a GOETTL AIR CONDITIONING AND PLUMBING, Case No. 3:25-cv-00443 (D. Nev., Aug. 21, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without pay for all of his overtime hours. For example, during each of the weeks of February 6, 2022, March 20, 2022 and April 17, 2022, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours (at least 60 or more hours), five to ten hours each week of which were without compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Technician in Vista, California. Goettl is a provider of HVAC and plumbing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Phone: (775) 284-1500 Fax. (775) 703-5027 Email: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Meireles, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com GOOD SPORT: Faces Hampton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. The Good Sport, Inc., d/b/a The Backpacker, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09956 (N.D. Ill., August 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against The Good Sport for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://backpackeroutdoors.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 12, 2025, the Plaintiff began her online search for retailers that specialized in outdoor apparel and came to a post linked directly to Defendant's website. Curious, she accessed the website and tried to explore their offerings. However, as she tried to browse and navigate through the website, she encountered numerous accessibility barriers. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, added the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Good Sport's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Good Sport, Inc., d/b/a The Backpacker, operates the website that offers a variety of apparel, footwear, accessories, camping equipment, travel gear, and backpacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law GRUNT STYLE: Hennessy Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grunt Style, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Hennessy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grunt Style, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01032 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Grunt Style, LLC -- https://www.gruntstyle.com/ -- aims to deliver the highest quality, most patriotic apparel on the planet.[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 HCC SERVICE: Callejas Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emely Callejas, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. HCC SERVICE COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV20879 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-07951. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Untimely Paid Wages; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Andrea F. Oxman, Esq. Trevor R. Witt, Esq. Sawyer C. Stephens, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Andrea.Oxman@jacksonlewis.com Trevor.Witt@jacksonlewis.com Sawyer.Stephens@jacksonlewis.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Hall Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Services Group, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04908 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Healthcare Services Group (HCSG) -- https://www.hcsgcorp.com/ -- is an experienced leader in managing housekeeping, laundry, dining, and nutritional services within the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com HELMS ORGANIC LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Helms Organic LLC. The case is styled as Jose L. Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Helms Organic LLC, Case No. 25STCV25209 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Helms Organic LLC doing business as Happsy -- https://happsy.com/ -- offers more natural, non-toxic mattress that goes beyond the strictest organic mattress standards.[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 HELPLINE YOUTH COUNSELING: Mayers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Helpline Youth Counseling, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kennethia Queshia Mayers, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. JVS SOCAL, Case No. 25STCV24359 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Helpline Youth Counseling, Inc. (HYC) -- https://www.hycinc.org/ -- has eliminated barriers to self-sufficiency by empowering Southeast Los Angeles and Long Beach youth and families Since 1971.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com HHS ENVIRONMENTAL: Osting Seeks Proper Premium Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA OSTING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Texas limited liability company a/k/a Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01333 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant failed to properly calculate the Plaintiff's premium pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from June 5, 2024 through April 10, 2025. The Defendant is headquartered in Dripping Springs, Texas, and employs thousands of hourly employees in numerous states throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com HIGH 5: Faces Peach Class Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling ----------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY PEACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00848-KGB (E.D. Ark., Aug. 21, 2025) seeks damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief individually on behalf of the other Class members, each of whom are Arkansas residents who have paid and lost money or other things of value on High5casino.com. High5 owns and operates a popular, internet-based casino website called www.Highcasino.com. Accordingly, gambling is heavily regulated and mostly outlawed in Arkansas. Yet High5casino.com is accessible and operational in Arkansas. High 5 does not operate to promote or market another product or service; High5casino.com is the product or service, asserts the suit. High5casino.com operates indefinitely and not for a fixed period of time.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C Tab Turner, Esq. TURNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A 4705 Somers Ave., Suite 100 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: (501) 791-2277 Facsimile: (501) 791-1251 E-mail: Tab@tturner.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan Martin, Esq. Trent Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.mat1in@beasleyallen.com Trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor# 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 - Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: joel@skclassactions.com HOMEBOT INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Homebot, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03365-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 25, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (buyers.homebotapp.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 (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers a homeownership online platform for loan officers, real estate agents, banks, and more, which provide services, including but not limited to, financial insights, mortgage rate information, homeownership resources and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HORMEL FOODS: Lenway Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Lenway, Dalia Cruz Ayala, Juan Cruz Gastelum, and Jason Novak, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Hormel Foods Corporation, Case No. 50-CV-25-1464 was removed from the Third Judicial District Court, Mower County, Minnesota, to the United States District Court for District of Minnesota on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-03320. The Plaintiffs' claim under Minnesota's ESST statutes presents a federal question because it is completely preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Samantha M. Rollins Murphy, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP Avery Brooks Bennett #0504041 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 766-7000 Fax: (612) 766-1600 Email: Samantha.murphy@Faegredrinker.com Avery.bennett@Faegredrinker.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew Blizzard, et al., v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03374-ABA (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the response deadline to: -- respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes, -- appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and -- appoint class counsel by three (3) weeks until Sept. 11, 2025. On Aug. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify classes against defendants, appoint named plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoint class counsel. Hunter is a third-party debt collection company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MS3W0V at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph Mack, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH S. MACK Baltimore, MD 21209 Telephone: (443) 423-0464 E-mail: joseph@macklawonline.com - and - Ingmar Goldson, Esq. THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (240) 780-8829 E-mail: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com - and - Matthew W. Fogleman, Esq. 2200 Research Boulevard, Suite 560 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (301) 424-7490 Facsimile: (301) 424-7470 E-mail: mfogleman@roncanterllc.com HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Richards Sues Over Unprotected Info ----------------------------------------------------------- DAMON RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION d/b/a HUNTINGTON HOTEL GROUP, Case No. 3:25-cv-02254-N (N.D. Tex., Aug. 21, 2025) is a class action against HHG for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including names and Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, by collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, HHG has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite HHG's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's data storage network and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about December 12, 2024. The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept. After HHG discovered the Data Breach in December 2024, it conducted an investigation which determined that some data may have been acquired on Dec. 12, 2024. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as December 12, 2024, Defendant did not conclude its investigation into the Data Breach until July 18, 2025. The Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until July 31, 2025. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. Huntington Hotel Group is a hotel management and development company that owns, operates, and manages hospitality properties across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219-6212 Telephone: (214) 855-1850 E-mail: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: McCarty Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hurley International LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kyle McCarty, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hurley International LLC, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02117-JO-SBC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hurley, Inc. -- https://www.hurley.com/ -- is an American company that sells clothes and accessories marketed towards surfing and swimming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Gregory Braden, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (858) 313-1850 Email: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com HYATT CORPORATION: Corners Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Corners, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION dba PARK HYATT AVIARA, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU038008C was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02176-H-SBC. The Plaintiff alleges wage and hour claims on behalf of himself and a "Class" of California individuals, which Plaintiff defines as "all current and former non-exempt employees of any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing 4 years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the certified class action is provided to the class."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com HYDROMAX USA LLC: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jeffrey Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYDROMAX USA LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21725-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01621. The Plaintiff alleges that he seeks “statutory damages of $5,000 to Plaintiff and each Class member” and “attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to pursuant to RCW 49.58.070 and RCW 49.58.110.”[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul J. Bruene, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104-4076 Phone: 206.332.1380 Email: pbruene@bakerlaw.com INOTIV INC: Doyal Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ---------------------------------------------------------- Laramie Doyal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INOTIV, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00046 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 21, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure information and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable ("PII" or "Private Information") and protected health information ("PHI" and collectively with "PII", "Private Information") that was, upon information belief, compromised in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant collects and maintains the sensitive, non-public Private Information of individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, as part of 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. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose Private Information was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a contract research organization that provides a comprehensive range of scientific services to support the discovery and nonclinical development of new drugs, medical devices, and other chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com INOTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Merrell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INOTIV, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00047 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 25, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that the Defendant publicly disclosed in August 2025. 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. On Aug. 8, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a cybersecurity incident that encrypted certain elements of its IT Network. Accordingly, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Qilin, a ransomware group, accessed Defendant's IT network and stole 176 gigabytes of data. Additionally, Qilin claims to have stolen around 162,000 of Defendant's files and published and/or made available for purchase the Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information on the dark web. On Aug. 8, 2025, the Defendant issued a public disclosure through Form 8-k to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for research operations with Defendant, says the suit. INOTIV, INC is a contract research organization for drug discovery and nonclinical development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Sermeno Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Josue Sermeno, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01499068-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01892. The Complaint purports to assert six categories of labor code and wage order violations against IP on a class-wide basis, stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Specifically, the Complaint alleges causes of action under the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron F. Olsen, Esq. Alexander A. Schindler, Esq. Jeffrey M. Nellis, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: aolsen@fisherphillips.com aschindler@fisherphillips.com jnellis@fisherphillips.com INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------------- Intrepid Potash, Inc., 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 itself against the wage class action lawsuit pending in a New Mexico Court. "On November 6, 2024, we were served with a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in New Mexico. The suit alleges that Intrepid and Intrepid Potash-New Mexico, LLC violated the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to properly compensate employees for putting on and removing personal protective equipment. The complaint seeks all unpaid wages for putting on and removing PPE for all class members, which is alleged to exceed $5.0 million. The lawsuit is still in the early stages and we are vigorously defending against the claims. We have not recorded a loss contingency related to this matter," the Company stated. IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Iovance Biotherapeutics, 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 with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 15, 2025, two putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Sundaram v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-04177 and Farberov v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-04199, naming the Company and certain of the Company's officers as defendants. The complaints purport to assert claims against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The Sundaram action is on behalf of persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between August 8, 2024 and May 8, 2025, and the Farberov action is on behalf of persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025. Each putative class action arises out of the Company's quarterly disclosure of financial results on May 8, 2025, and the decline in the price of the Company's common stock the following day, and involve allegations that during the respective class periods, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's expected revenue for fiscal year 2025, which the plaintiffs claim artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock. The actions seek compensatory damages and costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including attorneys' fees. J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir.. Affirms Win in Driver Pay Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Willie Williams, LaDon Cline, and Paul Contreras, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 24-933, 24-2970 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., in a wage and hour putative class action brought by former employees alleging that the company's compensation scheme violated the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs are three California-based truck drivers who were employed by J.B. Hunt beginning in 2019. In July 2020, they filed a putative class action against J.B. Hunt in the Superior Court of California, alleging failure to pay all wages for non-driving time in violation of Sections 1194, 1196, and 226.2; failure to provide meal breaks in violation of Sections 226.7, 512, and 558; failure to provide rest breaks in violation of Section 226.7; failure to indemnify for all necessary expenditures in violation of Section 2802; failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Sections 226(a), 226(b), and 226(e); late pay and waiting time penalties in violation of Sections 200-03; and unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The case centered on J.B. Hunt's Driver Pay Plan implemented in December 2018. Under this compensation scheme, employees were paid on neither a pure hourly basis nor a pure piece-rate basis. Rather, employees received hourly pay for all hours worked from the start of the day to the end of the day, including time spent on pre-route and post-route paperwork, pre-trip and post-trip inspections, fueling, and training activities. Then, on top of hourly pay, employees were paid an activity-based bonus amount. The Driver Pay Plan operated according to a specific formula: "Hourly Pay + Activity-Based Bonus Amount = Total Compensation." However, J.B. Hunt's "activity-based bonus amount" was not simply the sum of all eligible activity pay. Rather, J.B. Hunt calculated its "activity-based bonus amount" by subtracting hourly pay from total eligible activity pay (the raw sum of all eligible activity pay. The calculation worked as follows: Total Eligible Activities - Hourly Pay = Activity-Based Bonus Amount. When the difference between total eligible activity pay and hourly pay was negative -- meaning hourly pay was higher than total eligible activity pay -- then J.B. Hunt simply paid the employee their hourly pay and no additional bonus for that pay period. The district court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in its entirety and granted summary judgment to J.B. Hunt on all causes of action except the cause of action for reimbursement under Section 2802 and the UCL and PAGA claims predicated on that cause of action. The court found that the Driver Pay Plan was lawful and qualified for the safe harbor of Section 226.2(a)(7) because it always paid Plaintiffs at least the minimum wage for all hours worked in addition to compensating them on a piece-rate basis for certain eligible activities. The remaining claims proceeded to trial, where the district court bifurcated the trial, with the first phrase to be focused on the Section 2802 claim and held in front of a jury and the second phase, if necessary, to be focused on the UCL and PAGA claims and to be held in front of the court. After three days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of J.B. Hunt. The Court of Appeals addressed Plaintiffs' primary argument that the Driver Pay Plan violated California Labor Code Section 226.2. Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. held that the Driver Pay Plan qualified for the safe harbor of Section 226.2(a)(7), which requires that an employer "pays an hourly rate of at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked" in addition to paying any piece-rate compensation. The Appeals Court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the compensation scheme was really a piece-rate scheme improperly masquerading as a hybrid scheme. The Court stated: Rather, the scheme initially pays for all hours worked and then adds any applicable bonus compensation on top of that hourly pay. Nothing in Section 226.2 prohibits an employer from paying an hourly wage of at least the minimum wage and then adding bonus pay based on a formula that considers hours worked in addition to paying any piece-rate compensation. The Appeals Court emphasized that J.B. Hunt paid its employees an hourly wage for "all hours worked," whether or not those hours were "productive" or "nonproductive." It then supplemented that pay -- when employees were eligible -- with a piece-rate-based bonus. Regarding Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid off-the-clock work, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The court found "Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the second element: whether J.B. Hunt knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were performing such off-the-clock work." The Appeals Court noted that under California law: "[a] plaintiff may establish liability for an off-the-clock claim by proving that (1) He performed work for which he did not receive compensation; (2) That defendants knew or should have known that plaintiff did so; but that (3) the defendants stood idly by." Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014)(quoting Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 543,548 (E.D. Cal. 2010)) The Appeals Court concluded that Plaintiffs' speculation that J.B. Hunt could have compared PeopleNet log-in/log-out times with Plaintiffs' overall time spent working is insufficient to demonstrate that J.B. Hunt should have known that such off-the-clock work was occurring. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the wage statement claims under Section 226. The court found that for the same reasons detailed above, Plaintiffs' claims on this ground fall at the second hurdle: they cannot show that any wage statement violations as to total hours worked were "knowing and intentional." The Court of Appeals reviewed several trial court evidentiary rulings and found no abuse of discretion. The Appeals Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by improperly limiting evidence, testimony, and argument as to Plaintiffs' individual claims; by excluding evidence that J.B. Hunt changed its reimbursement policy; or by failing to provide adequate jury instructions. Regarding the exclusion of evidence about other drivers' cell phone use, the Appeals Court stated: "It was not illogical for the district court to determine that allowing evidence of J.B. Hunt's potential liability as to other drivers would have confused the jury as to the precise issue it needed to decide." The court also upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding J.B. Hunt's policy change after the lawsuit was filed, noting that under Rule 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove culpable conduct. Finally, the Appeals Court affirmed the district court's award of costs to J.B. Hunt. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs to J.B Hunt following the district court's denial of the parties' cross-motions to retax. The court found that all the depositions were reasonably necessary for trial preparation, given that all the people deposed testified at trial and several were cross-examined about their testimony for impeachment purposes. Therefore, the depositions were necessarily obtained for use in the case" within the meaning of federal law. The Court of Appeals concluded: "The district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to J.B. Hunt. Nor did it abuse its discretion as to its evidentiary rulings and its formulation of the jury instructions. Finally, it did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to J.B. Hunt. We therefore affirm. A copy of the Court of Appeals Judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4GFwr4 from PacerMonitor.com JEG'S AUTOMOTIVE: Meyer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeg's Automotive, Inc. The case is styled as Melissa Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jeg's Automotive, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00974 (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. JEGS High Performance -- https://www.jegs.com/ -- is the second largest mail order company of automotive equipment in the United States.[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 JERRY HOSTETTER: Batman Investments Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jerry Hostetter, et al. The case is styled as Batman Investments LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jerry Hostetter, Mir Jafer Ali Joffrey also known as: Buck Joffrey, Randall Leaman, David Zook, Case No. 5:25-cv-04911 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex E. Rogers, Esq. 425 New Commerce Boulevard Wilkes-Barre, PA 18706 Phone: (570) 262-8250 Fax: (570) 824-7845 Email: arogers@bedwickandjones.com JT THORPE INDUSTRIAL: Ceja Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julio Cesar Diaz Ceja aka Antonio Gomez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JT THORPE INDUSTRIAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 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-07949. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: 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: Ian G. Robertson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: irobertson@littler.com - and - Alexandria Rafizadeh, 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: awitte-rafizadeh@littler.com JURA INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. JURA, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07092 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://shopjura.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Shop Jura online retail store, as well as the Shop Jura interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KEYCORP: Mendez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maryori Garcia Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEYCORP, a foreign profit corporation; KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21548-2 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-01646. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of the following putative class (the "Class"): All current and former employees of [Key] who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from July 24, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Ms. Garcia seeks $5,000 in statutory damages per putative class member, based on an alleged restriction from having additional jobs, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed, purportedly in violation of RCW 49.62.070.[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. Lauren Titchbourne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Phone: 206-693-7057 Fax: 206-876-5309 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com KING LASIK INC: Franky Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against King Lasik, Inc. P.S. The case is styled as Meghan Franky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. King Lasik, Inc. P.S., Case No. 2:25-cv-01633 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. King LASIK -- https://www.kinglasik.com/ -- is the Top Laser Eye Surgery Center serving the Seattle and Portland Areas at affordable prices and with unmatched experience of LASIK surgeons.[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 KRAFT HEINZ: Horne Sues Over Mislabeled Turkey Bacon Products ------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN HORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Case No. 6:25-cv-01630 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2025) seeks to address the alleged deceptive and misleading business practices of Kraft regarding the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its Turkey Bacon Products, both within the state of Florida and throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant has inadequately and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff, by failing to disclose on the packaging that the Products may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes: -- 12-oz. Vacuum-packed packages of "Oscar Mayer Turkey BACON ORIGINAL" and universal product code (UPC) "071871548601" printed on the packaging under the barcode, "use by" dates ranging "18 JUL 2025" to "02 AUG 2025," and lot code "RS40." -- 36-oz. Packages containing three 12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "Oscar Mayer Turkey BACON ORIGINAL" and universal product code (UPC) "071871548748" printed on the packaging under the barcode, "use by" dates ranging "23 JUL 2025" to "04 SEP 2025," and lot codes "RS19," "RS40," or "RS42." -- 48-oz. Packages containing four 12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "Oscar Mayer Turkey BACON ORIGINAL" and UPC "071871548793" printed on the packaging under the barcode and "use by" dates ranging "18 JUL 2025" to "04 SEP 2025," and lot codes "RS19," "RS40," or "RS42." Accordingly, the Products contain Listeria monocytogenes, a pathogen which may lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk of severe infection poses significant concerns for pregnant individuals, infants, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. These populations are particularly vulnerable to serious complications and fatalities associated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes is responsible for causing the infection Listeria. Foodborne listeriosis is one of the most dangerous and life-threatening foodborne diseases.3 Individuals categorized within high-risk groups for Listeria include pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. These populations exhibit a heightened risk of developing severe symptoms, with a mortality rate ranging from 20% to 30%. Consequently, Listeria poses a significant public health concern that necessitates careful attention and preventive measures. Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant to sell products that are safe and free from known harmful substances, including Listeria monocytogenes, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated rightfully anticipate that the meat products they purchase will be free from, or will not present a risk of containing, any knowingly harmful substances that could lead to severe illness or pose life-threatening risks. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes the Products throughout the United States. Defendant created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, packaging, and labeling of its Product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Wright, Esq. Kelly Mata, Esq. WILLIAM WRIGHT The Wright Law Office, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com kellymata@wrightlawoffice.com KRISTI NOEM: C.M. Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as C.M., Michael Borrego Fernandez, J.M.C., E.R., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Florida Keys Immigration; Law Offices of Catherine Perez PLLC; Sanctuary of the South; U.S. Immigration Law Counsel; Victoria Slatton on behalf of N.M.B. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Garrett Ripa, Field Office Director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operation's ("ERO") Miami, Florida Field Office, in his official capacity; Ronald DeSantis, Governor of the State of Florida, in his official capacity; Sherea Green, Director of the Corrections and Rehabilitation Department of Miami- Dade County, Florida, in her official capacity; Kevin Guthrie, Executive Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, in his official capacity; Florida Division of Emergency Management; Sirce Owen, Acting Director of EOIR, in her official capacity; Executive Office for Immigration Review, Case No. 1:25-cv-23182 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00747-SPC-KCD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Kristi Noem is an American politician serving since 2025 as the 8th United States secretary of homeland security.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Godshall, Esq. Daniel Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA 4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: 786-363-2714 Email: agodshall@aclufl.org dtilley@aclufl.org - and - Paul R. Chavez, Esq. Christina LaRocca, Esq. AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 2200 NW 72nd Ave. P.O. Box No 520037 Miami, FL 33152 Phone: 786-218-3381 Email: pchavez@aijustice.org clarocca@aijustice.org - and - Eunice H. Cho, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St. N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-548-6616 Email: echo@aclu.org - and - Corene T. Kendrick, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 343-0770 Email: ckendrick@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org The Defendants are represented by: Chad C. Spraker, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2110 First Street., Suite 3-137 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Phone: (239) 461-2245 Fax: (239) 461-2219 Email: Chad.Spraker@usdoj.gov - and - Marlene Rodriguez, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2339 Phone: (305) 415-3440 L PERRIGO: Wins Appeal Over Sculptor's Missed Deadline Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Perrigo Institutional Investor Group, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Sculptor Master Fund Ltd; Sculptor Enhanced Master Fund Ltd v. Joseph C. Papa; L Perrigo Company Plc; Judy Brown; Laurie Brlas; Gary M. Cohen; Marc Coucke; Jacqualyn A. Fouse; Ellen R. Hoffing; Michael R. Jandernoa; Gerald K. Kunkle, Jr.; Herman Morris, Jr.; Donal O'Connor, Civil Action No. 24-2861 (3d Cir.), Circuit Judge Krause of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment denying Sculptor's motion to opt out of a securities class action after missing the deadline by three-and-a-half years. The Court affirmed: "Sculptor had the opportunity to opt out early in this litigation, but it failed to do so. Having made that mistake, it has to live with the consequences. Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires it to be given a second chance years later. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court's judgment." Perrigo is the world's largest manufacturer of over-the-counter healthcare products. In April 2015, Mylan N.V. -- a then-competing drug manufacturer -- announced an unsolicited tender offer to purchase Perrigo for $205 per share, which is approximately a 25% premium over the price at which Perrigo's shares traded at that time. Perrigo's board demurred and encouraged shareholders to reject the offer and that Mylan twice increased its offer to approximately $227 per share and $246 per share. During the course of fending off the offer, Perrigo and its officers made allegedly material misrepresentations and omissions about Perrigo's business performance. After the close of the tender offer, Perrigo announced worse-than-expected earnings, previously undisclosed asset impairment charges, and the need to restate every financial statement it issued between April 2015 and May 2017 due to GAAP errors amounting to over $1 billion in misstatements. As a result, Perrigo's share value declined precipitously, dropping more than 62%. The District Court certified the class in November 2019. Later, in July 2020, the Court approved a class action notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B) to be sent to class members informing them about the pendency of the Roofer's class action and their right to opt out of the class. The notice contained specific instructions requiring class members to send a signed letter by mail stating that the member "request exclusion" from the Classes. The notice included detailed requirements for the exclusion request. Class members had until December 3, 2020 to opt out. Plaintiff Sculptor Master Fund admits it knew about the notice and instructions for requesting exclusion. The opt-out deadline came and went, and Sculptor never submitted an exclusion request. The Court noted that neither Sculptor nor Perrigo realized this mistake at the time and that both parties carried on litigating Sculptor's individual action. Over the next three-and-a-half years, Sculptor proceeded as if it had opted out of the Roofer's class action, and Perrigo, assuming that was the case, undertook the following actions: -- Moving to dismiss Sculptor's individual action as untimely after the conclusion of the opt-out period; -- Providing the District Court with a status update of opt-out actions, one of which was Sculptor's; -- Sending the District Court a joint letter with opt-out plaintiffs (including Sculptor) regarding a discovery schedule for opt-out actions; -- Deposing Sculptor's Rule 30(b)(6) designee; -- Serving Sculptor with expert reports; and -- Identifying Sculptor as one of the opt-out actions from the Roofer's class action in its annual 10-K reports filed with the SEC from 2020 to 2024. On April 2024, class counsel and Perrigo sought approval of a proposed settlement of the class action. The District Court preliminarily approved the settlement, which included a provision requiring all class members pursuing individual actions to dismiss those actions within 30 days of the preliminary approval or risk forfeiting participation in the settlement. At that point, Sculptor's failure to opt out came to light. Sculptor advances three arguments on appeal: (1) That a class member may opt out of a class action by providing a "reasonable indication" of its intent to opt out, and that Sculptor did so here; (2) That, if the "reasonable indication" standard does not apply, Sculptor has demonstrated "excusable neglect" to permit its untimely request for exclusion; and (3) That the class action notice does not satisfy due process. Rejection of Reasonable Indication Standard The Court firmly rejected Sculptor's first argument: "We disagree and decline to adopt this 'reasonable indication' standard. The Court explained its reasoning: Rule 23's opt-out feature turns on a class member's 'affirmative request to be excluded,' in other words, whether a class member has in fact requested exclusion. But Rule 23 does not fix how a class member must request exclusion—that decision is left to the district court to fill in." The Court emphasized practical concerns: Endorsing the "reasonable indication" standard thrusts on district courts the task of resolving "dozens or hundreds of difficult questions" -- each necessitating its own factfinding -- to determine whether class members are in or out of the class at any point during the pendency of the action. The Court concluded that, because Rule 23 requires a district court to prescribe the way for class members to request exclusion, they have to follow those instructions in order to opt out—a mere "reasonable indication" of an intent to opt out will not do. The Court applied the four Pioneer factors to evaluate whether Sculptor demonstrated excusable neglect. The Court found that the first factor tilts against Sculptor because its long-overdue opt-out notice threatened to derail Perrigo's settlement with the class. By the time that Sculptor moved for exclusion, the District Court had already provisionally approved the proposed settlement which included, and whose figures were based on, Sculptor's claims. The Court determined the second factor strongly disfavor Sculptor: "The opt-out deadline in the Roofer's class action was December 3, 2020. Sculptor did not move for leave to opt out until July 1, 2024. That three-and-a-half-year delay is substantial and cuts against characterizing Sculptor's neglect as 'excusable.'" The Court found the third factor also weighed against Sculptor: "After the expiration of the opt-out period, counsel for the class, at the direction of the District Court, filed a list of parties who had opted out to pursue individual actions against Perrigo. Several class members who intended to opt out noticed that their actions did not appear among those listed and expeditiously moved to be excluded after the opt-out deadline. The court noted that this flurry of activity immediately after the opt-out deadline should have alerted Sculptor's former counsel to at least check the Opt-out list. The Court acknowledged the Good Faith Factor favored Sculptor: "Nothing in the record suggests Sculptor failed to timely opt out to gain a tactical advantage or that its failure was intentional." The Court rejected Sculptor's challenge to the adequacy of the class notice: "Here, the class notice satisfies this standard. The Court noted that no fewer than three times, the notice cautioned class members about the consequences of class certification" and concluded: "Read together, the Notice's statements are clear such that a reasonable person would understand that continued membership in the class would result in being bound by all orders and judgments, including settlement. The Court concluded with its affirmance: In light of the record and the District Court's thoroughly reasoned opinion weighing the Pioneer factors, the District Court did not err—much less abuse its discretion—by concluding the balance of factors disfavors Sculptor. Thus, Sculptor has not demonstrated that its neglect was excusable, and it may not opt out of the class at this late stage. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vwubt8 from PacerMonitor.com L'OREAL USA INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shannon Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., a foreign profit corporation; SALONCENTRIC INC., a foreign profit corporation; DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation doing business as KIEHL'S SINCE 1851, LUXURY BEAUTY STORE, and "L'OREAL; "L'OREAL TRAVEL RETAIL AMERICAS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; "L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21267-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01603. 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 McNabb, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-682-2308 Facsimile: 206-682-7908 Email: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com mmcnabb@fisherphillips.com LANCESOFT INC: Difalco Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lancesoft, Inc. The case is styled as Ian Difalco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lancesoft, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-14835 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LanceSoft -- https://www.lancesoft.com/ -- provides Global Workforce Solutions with a human touch and a comprehensive recruiting organization, addressing the complex workforce challenges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (989) 574-5262 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com LANDCARE USA: Heredia Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kevin Ivan Resendiz Heredia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANDCARE USA, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Case No. 25CU033444C 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-02218-GPC-DEB. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted 8 purported causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; 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: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Andrew W. Russell, Esq. Julianne G. Park, Esq. Charles J. Urena, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Phone: 310.315.8200 Facsimile: 310.315.8210 Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com arussell@mcguirewoods.com jpark@mcguirewoods.com curena@mcguirewoods.com LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Products not "Made In USA," Cooney Contends -------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH COONEY, ERNESTINE SMITH, ROGER BONKOWSKI, CRYSTAL TUTHILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAROSE INDUSTRIES LLC d/b/a ROSEART and CRA-Z-ART, Case No. 2:25-cv-14855-CCC-LDW (D.N.J., Aug. 22, 2025) contends that Roseart lied to the American people when it falsely, deceptively, misleadingly, and unlawfully labeled its U.S.A. GOLD, U.S.A. TITANIUM, Write Dudes, Made in America, and Cra-Z-Art American Premium pencil products as MADE IN USA, knowing that consumers will pay a premium price for products made domestically. According to the complaint, the Defendant has benefited significantly from its false, deceptive, misleading, and unlawful Made in the United States Claims, unjustifiably increasing its market share and maximizing its profits at the expense of consumers who are willing to pay a premium for Made in the United States products. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms and accordingly bring this class action lawsuit individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated who purchased Defendant's Products that were falsely, deceptively, misleadingly, and unlawfully labeled and marketed as Made in the United States (or variations thereof) during the applicable statute of limitations period. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative nationwide class, a subclass of residents of New York, and a subclass of residents of California. LaRose is an American toy, arts & crafts, and stationery company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martin P. Schrama, Esq. Stefanie Colella-Walsh, Esq. STARK & STARK PC 100 American Metro Blvd. Hamilton, NJ 08619 Telephone: (609) 895-7261 E-mail: mschrama@stark-stark.com scolellawalsh@stark-stark.com - and - Karen Dahlberg O'Connell, Esq. Christopher Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 157 Columbus Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (347) 395-5666 E-mail: karen@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com LB ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LB ENTERPRISES, LLC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06988 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://fazitbeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Fazit Beauty online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LEAFFILTER NORTH: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01080-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline Mehalchick entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on a date to be determined by the court and set forth in any forthcoming case management order issued by this Court. LeafFilter provides gutter protection solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zp9ueR at no extra charge.[CC] LIFEMD INC: Faces Johnston Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ TYLER JOHNSTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFEMD, INC., JUSTIN SCHREIBER, and MARC BENATHEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-04761 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded LifeMD securities between May 7, 2025 and August 5, 2025, inclusive. On May 6, 2025, after the market opened, LifeMD issued a press release entitled "LifeMD Reports First Quarter 2025 Results and Raises Full-Year 2025 Guidance." The registration statements were materially false and misleading at the time they were made because Defendants recklessly issued heightened 2025 guidance, as Defendants did not properly account for increased customer acquisition costs in its RexMD business, as well as customer acquisition costs associated with selling drugs designed to treat obesity, such as Wegovy and Zepbound, asserts the suit. On Aug. 5, 2025, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release entitled "LifeMD Reports Second Quarter 2025 Results." This announcement quoted the Defendant Benathen as stating that due to "some temporary challenges facing our Rex MD business," which he claimed were "largely resolved," that the Company was "revising our full year 2025 guidance for revenue and adjusted EBITDA to reflect the full-year impact of these issues, while still anticipating strong year-over-year growth in both metrics." On this news, the price of LifeMD common stock fell $5.31 per share, or 44.8%, to close at $6.53 on August 6, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LifeMD offers telemedicine, access to laboratory and pharmacy services, and treatment across more than 200 conditions, including primary care, men's and women's health, weight management, and hormone therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com LIFETIME VALUE CO: Dawkins Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lifetime Value Co. LLC. The case is styled as Steven Dawkins, Michael Franklin Illinois residents, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. The Lifetime Value Co. LLC, Case No. 2025LA001084 (Ill. Dist. Ct., DuPage Cty., Aug. 27, 2025). The Lifetime Value Co. -- https://www.ltvco.com/ -- is an information services technology platform comprising a portfolio of brands that provide easy access to information to help make all of life's decisions, big and small.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: Patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com LJUBLJANA INTER: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allison Klein v. Ljubljana Inter Auto d.o.o., et al., Allison Klein et al. v. Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs shall file their renewed motion no later than Aug. 29, 2025. The Defendants' opposition shall be filed no later than Sept. 19, 2025. The Plaintiffs' optional reply shall be filed no later than Oct. 3, 2025. On Nov. 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs Klein, Lee, and Wu filed this action because of issues they experienced with their Porshe Macan vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eS6RjY at no extra charge.[CC] LOADED CAFE LB: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loaded Cafe LB, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Yasmina Vasquez a/k/a Sandy Pinto Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loaded Cafe LB, Inc., Case No. 25STCV24427 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Loaded Café -- https://loadedcafe.com/ -- serves the best breakfast, brunch, and Mexican food in town.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Garcia, Esq. PATTON, SULLIVAN, BRODEHL LLP 12647 Alcosta Blvd., Ste. 430 San Ramon, CA 94583-5182 Phone: 925-600-1800 Fax: 925-600-1802 - and - Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP 316 W 2nd St., Ste. 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3537 Phone: 213-814-4940 Fax: 213-814-2550 Email: shoham@soloukisavoy.com grant@soloukisavoy.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Solomonov Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Boris Solomonov, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Case No. 25-cv-5096 was removed from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01544-MEM. The Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged failure to pay overtime under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard L. Etter, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One PPG Place, Suite 1900 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412.394.3390 Fax: 412.232.1799 Email: rick.etter@ogletree.com - and - Lee E. Tankle, Esq. (ID No. 315783) OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 995-2831 Fax: (215) 995-2801 Email: lee.tankle@ogletree.com LOS REYES GRILL: Fendley Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Fendley, an individual, and all others similarly situated v. LOS REYES GRILL LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01442-MHH (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 Restaurant owned and/or operated by Defendant. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff visited the 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 to access, that she personally encountered, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from paraplegia and requires a wheelchair for mobility. LOS REYES GRILL LLC, is a domestic limited liability company, registered to do business and, in fact, conducting business in the State of Alabama.[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 LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Voids Class Certification in Mental Health Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as B.B., by and through her mother, P.B.; D.D., by and through his mother, P.D.; E.E., by and through his mother, P.E.; G.G., by and through her mother, P.G., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Michael Harrington, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health; Louisiana Department of Health, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 24-30244 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacates and remands the district court's class certification order. Before: Circuit Judges Ho, Engelhardt, and Douglas. The Court of Appeals vacated the class certification because the definition of those services is too vague to support an ascertainable class. The case involves Medicaid-eligible children in Louisiana who claim the State isn't providing statutorily required mental health services. The matter is a certified class action lawsuit. The district court initially certified the class to include children who had been recommended intensive care coordination, crisis services, and intensive behavioral services. However, this Court of Appeals subsequently vacated that certification for lack of specificity in these terms in A.A. ex rel. P.A. v. Phillips, 2023 WL 334010 Following the initial remand, parties have stipulated to definitions of intensive care coordination and crisis services, so intensive behavioural services are the only category left in dispute. The district court again certified the class, setting out two steps for defining intensive behavioral services. First, such services must consist of therapeutic interventions delivered to children and families in their homes and other community settings to improve youth and family functioning and prevent out-of-home placement in inpatient or psychiatric residential treatment facility settings. Second, intensive behavioral services must also involve one of 10 specified components or interventions The Court of Appeals concluded that the definition of intensive behavioral services set forth by the district court on remand is still too 'amorphous or imprecise' to permit a class action. The Court explained that it is elementary that in order to maintain a class action, the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable. Regarding the first prong of the definition, the Court stated that a countless number of medical treatments are delivered to avoid 'placement in inpatient . . . settings.' And there is no clear line between what supports 'youth and family function' and what does not. For the second prong, the Court found that four of the ten specified interventions present similar line-drawing challenges, specifically identifying: 1. Improvement of self-management of symptoms; 2. Support of the development, maintenance, and use of social networks, including the use of natural and community resources; 3. Support to address behaviors that interfere with a child's or youth's success in achieving educational and vocational objectives in school; and 4. Implementation of risk reduction and crisis prevention strategies. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case, stating: We leave it in the capable hands of the district court to determine more precise and administrable criteria for class membership." The Court noted that because Defendants' other claims depend on the definition of the class and subsequent proceedings, we do not address them now. Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas dissented, writing: This is an undeniably difficult case, as evidenced by the now back-to-back decisions of our court vacating and remanding on the issue of class ascertainability. Douglas disagreed with the majority's conclusion. Douglas argued that the majority opinion dissects the district court's adopted definition of intensive behavioral services into a two--pronged test when nothing in the district court's decision suggests that its definition imposes separate, disjunctive requirements. The dissent emphasized that all 10 interventional components provide objective criteria upon which the court may readily identify class members and that the district court can mechanically determine whether a person qualifies as a member of the class by looking to that person's medical records. Circuit Judge Douglas concluded: "Because the district court's conclusion was not based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, nor would all reasonable persons reject the district court's view, I would hold that it did not abuse its discretion in adopting this definition of intensive behavioral services. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The decision was filed on August 12, 2025, and is designated as not for publication under 5th Cir. R. 47.5. A copy of the per curiam decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H2ws3L from Pacermonitor.com. LOVEBONITO USA: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOVEBONITO USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09949 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.lovebonito.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. LoveBonito USA, LLC retails women's apparels. The Company operates an online portal that offers dresses, tops, bottoms, outerwear, one-piece, shoes, bags, and other fashion accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Garner Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathryn Garner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, et al., Case No. 25-2-22121-1 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. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01592. The Complaint is brought under the California Labor Code for missed meal and rest periods, unpaid wages and overtime, inaccurate wage statements, and waiting-time penalties.[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, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: mrkelly@seyfarth.com LUCY COOPER'S: Court Certifies Foley Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACI FOLEY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LUCY COOPER'S, LLC (a/k/a Lucy Cooper's Texas Ice House, Case No. 5:24-cv-01356-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order as follows: 1. The Court certifies a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act as follows: "All current and/or former employees of the Defendant who work(ed) as bartenders and/or servers at the Defendant's location at 16080 San Pedro Avenue, San Antonio, Texas 78232 at any time between Aug. 1, 2023 and Aug. 1, 2025 (hereafter the "Putative Collective Action Members")." 2. The Court approves the Notice, Consent form, and Client Data Sheet (collectively the "Notice Packet") provided as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the Motion. 3. No later than 21 calendar days after the date of this Order, The Defendant shall disclose the full names, last known addresses, last known email addresses, and dates of employment of the Putative Collective Action Members (the "Contact Information") to the Plaintiff's counsel. The Contact Information shall be produced in a usable electronic format. 4. No later than 21 calendar days from Plaintiff's counsel's receipt of the Contact Information from Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel shall mail, via United States Postal Service First Class Mail, and where possible also e-mail, the Notice Packet to each of the Putative Collective Action Members identified by Defendant as required by this Order. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fXOhmN at no extra charge.[CC] LX HAUSYS: Court Stays All Proceedings in Torres Suit Until Nov. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SINUHE CABRERA TORRES; PEDRO DOMINGUEZ BALDERAS; and ANGEL MANUEL SANTILLAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LX HAUSYS AMERICA, INC.; CL GLOBAL, LLC; and TOTAL EMPLOYEE SOLUTION SUPPORT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01283-MLB-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Regina Cannon entered an order granting parties joint motion to stay all proceedings while they pursue private mediation. 1. All proceedings and deadlines in this case are stayed through Nov. 30, 2025. 2. The limitations period for all putative collective class member FLSA claims shall be tolled from Aug. 4, 2025 through Nov. 30, 2025. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is denied without prejudice to refiling in the event mediation is unsuccessful. 4. On or before Nov. 30, 2025, the parties must file a joint status report advising the Court regarding the mediation outcome and anticipated progress of this matter. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parties must include a proposed scheduling order with revised deadlines for class certification, discovery, and dispositive motions. LX manufactures and markets building materials. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xH4wdL at no extra charge.[CC] MAPD HELPDESK LLC: Jonathan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAPD Helpdesk LLC. The case is styled as Bahr Jonathan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAPD Helpdesk LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81057-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) Help Desk -- https://www.cms.gov/mapd-helpdesk -- offers technical and functional support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com MAPLECOVERAGE LLC: Hand Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MapleCoverage LLC. The case is styled as Zachary Hand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MapleCoverage LLC doing business as: Maple, Case No. 1:25-cv-00991 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MapleCoverage -- https://welcome.maplecoverage.com/ -- is a trusted auto insurance provider.[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 MARIO'S AIR: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELENA GERMAIN, individually and on behalf of all others, similarly situated, v. MARIO'S AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING, INC., SEHS HVAC MARIO'S, LLC AND WHITWILD MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00671-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an enlargement of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, through and including Sept. 15, 2025. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on March 11, 2025. Mario's offers a wide range of heating and air conditioning services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=io5A9d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq. ZERMAY LAW P.A. 1762 Windward Way Sanibel, FL 33957 E-mail: zach@zermaylaw.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com Mike@kalg.com The Defendants are represented by: Joelle Bordeaux, Esq. ENGLANDER FISCHER 721 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 898-7210 Facsimile: (727) 898-7218 E-mail: jbordeaux@eflegal.com - and - Charles A. Carlson, Esq. OLDER LUNDY KOCH & MARTINO 1000 West Cass Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 254-8998 Facsimile: (813) 839-4411 E-mail: ccarlson@olderlundylaw.com lsingleton@olderlundylaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Jones Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Linda Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-20960-1 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-01613. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "All current and former employees of Marriott International, Inc. who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from July 18, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class." The Complaint sets forth the following cause of action: Violation of Washington's Noncompetition Law.[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: Jason E. Murtagh, Esq. Christopher M. Cascino, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY LLP One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 239-8700 Fax: (619) 702- 3898 Email: jason.murtagh@bipc.com christopher.cascino@bipc.com MARYLAND: Fitch Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ KENNETH FITCH, et al. filed on August 18, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. _______, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dated May 20, 2025, in the case captioned Kenneth Fitch, et al., Petitioners vs. State of Maryland, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02817-PJM. Petitioners, retired state employees, filed a complaint alleging that their employer, the State of Maryland, breached a statutory unilateral contract to provide state subsidized prescription drug benefits in retirement. The District Court found a contract existed for certain State retirees. The Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that a contract was not created based on the unmistakability doctrine. Six months after Petitioners appealed, Maryland established the Qualified Resident Program that will provide access to and subsidize state and federal healthcare programs for illegal aliens. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners KENNETH FITCH, et al. are represented by: Deborah Holloway Hill, Esq. P.O. Box 43207 Nottingham, MD 21236 Telephone: (410) 428-7278 Email: dhill@dahhlaw.com MCCORMICK & CO: Defeats Initial Challenge to Product Labeling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the putative class action lawsuit captioned as Darrnell McCoy, Plaintiff v. McCormick & Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00231-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff brings this putative class action under various California consumer and common laws, alleging the label Crafted and Bottled in Springfield, MO, USA, appearing at times with American flavor in a bottle, on Defendant's packaging for French's mustard products is misleading because such products contain foreign-made components. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On July 11, 2025, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. Specifically, the magistrate judge: (1) Declined to incorporate by reference every statement contained within two YouTube video links provided in a footnote to Plaintiff's complaint; (2) Found the safe harbor provisions contained within California's Made in the U.S.A. statutory scheme are not preempted by federal law; (3) Determined Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead that his claims are not barred by those safe harbor provisions; and (4) Recommended that Defendant's motion be granted with leave to amend. On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the magistrate judge's findings. Plaintiff only objected to the magistrate judge's conflict preemption analysis. According to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. Plaintiff argued that a conflict exists between the FTC's all or virtually all standard and the percentage-based final wholesale value of the foreign ingredients" standard set forth in California's safe harbor provision. According to Plaintiff, an inconsistency arises because the federal standard takes into account "the amount of foreign ingredients in the products and their importance to consumers, while California's scheme look at the final wholesale value of the foreign ingredients and whether such ingredients can be obtained domestically." Plaintiff's argument relied on the FTC's 2021 final rule stating that percentage--based, bright--line rules could allow deceptive unqualified claims in circumstances where the low cost of the foreign input does not correlate to the importance of that input to consumers." The FTC provided an example of "watches that incorporate imported movements" noting that consumers may be misled because, although the cost of an imported movement is often low relative to the overall cost to manufacture a watch, consumers may place a premium on the origin and quality of a watch movement. The Court found Plaintiff's argument relies on a false premise - that the percentage--based bright line rules codified into California's safe harbor provision fail to capture the concern the FTC highlights. The Court stated it does not read the safe harbor provision so narrowly. Under California's scheme, a product may be lawfully labeled as Made in the U.S.A. if no more than five percent of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product is obtained from outside the United States. By focusing on "value" instead of "cost" the California safe harbor provision allows for consideration of how important a consumer might perceive the foreign input is to the overall value of the product. Thus, the Court agreed with the magistrate judge that the FTC's watch case example does not establish that California's 5-10% safe harbor thresholds are inconsistent with the federal all or virtually all federal standard. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's suggestion that the Findings and Recommendations erred by reasoning that simply because both statutes allow for some amount of foreign ingredients there is no inconsistency." The Court found this to be a false premise, noting the logic of the Findings and Recommendations is more nuanced. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 11, 2025 are adopted in full. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file any first amended complaint within 21 days of the date of service of this order. The Court advised that failure to file a first amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court's order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zot5b2 from Pacermonitor.com. MCRT RESOURCES: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MCRT Resources LLC, et al. The case is styled as Everett Moore, II, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MCRT Resources LLC, Mill Creek Residential Services LLC, Case No. 25STCV25168 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." MCRT Resources LLC doing business as Mill Creek Residential -- https://millcreekplaces.com/ -- develops, builds, acquires and operates high-quality rental communities in desirable locations coast-to-coast.[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 MEDQ INC: Klepper Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MEDQ, Inc. The case is styled as Sharon Klepper, Shelby D. Franklin, Cheri Ramey, Jana Harrison, and Debra Everett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDQ, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-6048 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Oklahoma Cty., Aug. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as " Civil relief more than $10,000: Negligence General." medQ -- https://www.medq.com/ -- is a provider of imaging software & service solutions to the healthcare industry that helps deliver quality & cost-effective service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. 0205 N. Pennsylvania Okc, OK 73120 MERCK & CO: Cronin Securities Suit over "Gardasil" Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 2025, a putative class action was filed against Merck and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned "Cronin v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al.," purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of Merck common stock between February 2022 and February 2025. Plaintiff alleges that Merck violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding demand for "Gardasil/Gardasil 9" in China. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees and costs. On April 7, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation staying the defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint until after a lead plaintiff is appointed and requiring the parties to confer and jointly propose deadlines for amending and responding to the complaint within 14 days of the lead plaintiff appointment. Lead plaintiff motions were filed on April 14, 2025, and remain pending. Merck & Co., Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Rahway, New Jersey. META PLATFORMS: Filing of Confidential Docs Under Seal Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file documents under seal. The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order allowing them to file under seal excerpts and quotations from documents containing information designated as either Confidential or Highly Confidential -- Attorney's Eyes Only The Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons" standard applies. As to documents designed by Defendant or third parties, Plaintiffs submit this request only to comply with their obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and the protective order issued in the case, and Plaintiffs take no position at this time on the propriety of other parties' confidentiality designations, or whether they meet the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fL3vVZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02216 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com mliskow@4-justice.com RPeterson@4-Justice.com eservice@4-justice.com - and - Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 15, 2026, will move the Court for an order granting their motion to certify the proposed classes: 1. The Nationwide Pen Register Classes -- H&R Block.com "All individuals in the United States who visited the website H&R Block.com from Jan. 15, 2019, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under California Penal Code section 638.51. All Plaintiffs seek to be the class representatives for this class. -- TaxAct.com "All individuals in the United States who visited the website TaxAct.com from Aug. 25, 2015, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under California Penal Code sections 638.51. The Plaintiff Katrina Calderon seeks to be the class representative for this class. 2. The Nationwide Eavesdropping Classes -- H&R Block.com: "All individuals in the United States who visited the website H&R Block.com from Jan. 15, 2019, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under California Penal Code sections 632 and 635. All Plaintiffs seek to be the class representatives for this class. -- TaxAct.com: "All individuals in the United States who visited the website TaxAct.com from Aug. 25, 2015, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under California Penal Code sections 632 and 635. The Plaintiff Katrina Calderon seeks to be the class representative for this class. 3. The California Wiretapping Classes -- H&R Block.com: "All individuals in California who visited the website H&R Block.com from Jan. 15, 2019, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under California Penal Code sections 631(a) and 635. The Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Katrina Calderon seek to be the class representative for this class. -- TaxAct.com: "All individuals in California who visited the website TaxAct.com from Aug. 25, 2015, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under California Penal Code sections 631(a) and 635. Plaintiff Katrina Calderon seeks to be the class representative for this class. 4. The Nationwide UCL Public Injunctive Relief Classes -- H&R Block.com: "All individuals in the United States who visited the website H&R Block.com from Jan. 15, 2019, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. All Plaintiffs seek to be the class representatives for this class. -- TaxAct.com: "All individuals in the United States who visited the website TaxAct.com from Aug. 25, 2015, to June 30, 2023." This class seeks certification of claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. The Plaintiff Katrina Calderon seeks to be the class representative for this class. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- appointing the Plaintiffs Kayla Housman, Tiffany Bryant, Katrina Calderon, and Jane Doe as class representatives, and -- Appoint Lori G. Feldman of George Feldman McDonald, PLLC and Neal Deckant of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of claims for damages under Rule 23(b)(3) and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AzgP79 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02216 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com mliskow@4-justice.com RPeterson@4-Justice.com eservice@4-justice.com - and - Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com MI CASA: Pardini Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander Pardini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Mi Casa Su Casa, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00796-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification. Mi Casa did not pay its hourly employees the overtime wages they were owed under Arizona law. Mi Casa uniformly failed to factor into its hourly employees' overtime rates any alternate, higher compensation rate, shift differentials, or non-discretionary bonuses, such that their overtime premiums were at least 1.5x their regular rate of pay. Instead, Mi Casa simply paid them at their same hourly rate for the job they were performing (the equivalent of straight-time-for-overtime for these hours). By failing to pay its hourly employees the proper overtime they were owed, Mi Casa flagrantly violated the AWA. Pardini seeks class certification of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to allow his coworkers -- other hourly Mi Casa workers in Arizona who were subject to the same alleged illegal pay practices described above -- to recover any backwages they may be owed, along with treble damages, due to Mi Casa's numerous and systemic wage violations. Pardini's evidence easily satisfies all of Rule 23’s requirements, and the Court should certify this class action and order notice to be sent to the putative class members. Mi Casa is a hospitality company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Qp5zx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com MICHAEL E. FRANKLIN: Dodiya Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael E. Franklin, et al. The case is styled as Seetal Dodiya, and all others similarly situated v. Michael E. Franklin; Anuraag Agarwal; Denise M. Faltischek; Ira J. Lamel; Irwin D. Simon; Martin E. Franklin; Michael F. Goss; Ozark Holdings LLC; Sababa Holdings Free LLC; Steven M. Cohen; Sweet Oak Merger Sub, LLC; Whole Earth Brands, Inc.; Case No. 2025-0932-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., Aug. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Zenith Electronics LLC -- https://zenith.com/ -- is a leading US technology development and licensing company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. Eric J. Juray, Esq. Kirsten M. Valania, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-6500 Email: ceamato@prickett.com ejjuray@prickett.com kmvalania@prickett.com - and - Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. Jason M. Avellino, Esq. Tayler D. Bolton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 467-2660 Email: clyons@rgrdlaw.com javellino@rgrdlaw.com tbolton@rgrdlaw.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David A. Knotts, Esq. Michaela Park, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Phone: (484) 258-1585 MICHELS CORP: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Beyer Suit OK'd in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Amanda Beyer, Plaintiff v. Michels Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-514-pp (E.D. Wis.), Chief District Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court ordered that Counts I, II and III of the third amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed this case in April 2021, alleging that the defendant failed to compensate employees for time worked before their scheduled shift, failed to count as hours worked the time during which their lunch breaks were interrupted and failed to include annual bonuses in computing their regular rate for overtime pay. The case has a complex procedural history. The Plaintiff filed multiple amended complaints after the court granted motions to dismiss earlier versions. During a May 17, 2024 status conference, the court opined that the proposed third amended complaint was so unclear that it was 'difficult, if not in some places impossible, to figure out which claims apply where and to whom and even how many claims there are. The court granted Plaintiff leave to file a corrected version and warned that this was Plaintiff's last shot to craft an intelligible complaint. The Plaintiff alleged she worked as an inventory specialist from September 2019 to April 2021 and regularly began working 15 to 45 minutes prior to her scheduled start time of 6 a.m." She claimed that supervisors could adjust punch--in times and that Defendant's payroll software would round these adjusted times rather than original punch--in times, resulting in employees receiving credit for fewer hours worked per week than they actually worked, depriving them of overtime pay. The third amended complaint contained four counts: 1. Count I: Failure to Properly Compensate Employees Whose Jobs Required Them to Use Their Michels Assigned Computers on a Daily Basis; 2. Count II: Unlawful Rounding of Supervisor Approved/Adjusted Punch-in and Punch-out Times; 3. Count III: Unlawful Payroll Deduction of Meal Time Worked: Defendant violated the FLSA and Wisconsin law by rounding meal period punches and deducting employees' hours worked for meal periods shorter than 30 min.; and 4. Count IV: Individual Claim for Meal Periods that were Interrupted by Work: Alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to recover under the FLSA and Wisconsin law for her meal periods that were interrupted by work. The Defendant argued that Counts I and II of the complaint are impermissibly 'vague and confusing' and that the Plaintiff "repeatedly uses the phrase 'supervisor approved/adjusted time' without explaining what the term means. The Defendant contended that it is unclear whether the plaintiff is bringing rounding claims based only on supervisor adjusted punch times or on all punch times. The Defendant also argued that the complaint is unintelligible due to errors and confusing language throughout and that the allegations are too long and written in a convoluted way that requires effort to decipher. The court applied the standard that all a complaint must do is state a plausible narrative of a legal grievance that, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief." However, the court noted that where the lack of organization and basic coherence renders a complaint too confusing to determine the facts that constitute the alleged wrongful conduct, dismissal is an appropriate remedy. Count I Dismissal: The court found that Count I "does not clearly describe the time for which the defendant allegedly failed to compensate its employees." The court explained that the count presents three possible claims: challenging the rounding practice, the practice of supervisors editing punch-in times, or the failure to compensate employees for time spent logging into computers before their workday began. The court noted that adding allegations about rounding and editing punch-in times into the same count has made it unclear what claim(s) the plaintiff wants to pursue and what claims the defendant must defend against." The court emphasized that "each of the three possible claims would require different discovery and different defenses." Additionally, the court found that Count I fails to identify the Wisconsin law the defendant allegedly violated, noting this was another regression from the second amended complaint. Count II Dismissal: The court determined that Count II fares no better because the allegations supporting Count II are confusing and inconsistent. This claim divides employees into two buckets: (1) employees who did not have a computer and/or whose jobs did not require them to use a computer on a daily basis; and (2) employees who had a computer and whose jobs required them to use a computer on a daily basis. The court noted it was unclear whether the claim challenges only supervisor edited punches or all punches. Count III Dismissal: The court found Count III also is unclear because the plaintiff alleges multiple meal break claims under the same heading. The court stated it cannot determine how that alleged policy relates to rounding" and concluded that it is not clear what claim the plaintiff is pursuing in Count III. Count II is especially confusing regarding the computer users, because Count I also challenges the defendant's alleged practice of editing punch-in times and alleges that employees were working prior to their assigned start times. Count IV Survives: The court allowed Count IV to proceed, noting that while unnecessarily wordy and, in places, confusing, it seems to present only a single claim that matches the heading. Because the Plaintiff has had several opportunities to draft a proper complaint, the court dismissed the class claims with prejudice. The court ordered that the defendant must answer Count IV of the third amended complaint by the end of the day on Sept. 2, 2025. A copy of the Court's case is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fCIW2H from Pacermonitor.com. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Buehler Suit Removed to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashley Buehler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. JO-2025-CV-001824 was removed from the District Court of Johnson Couty, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on Aug. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02489. The Plaintiff alleges that MAPS failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines. The Plaintiff further alleges that MAPS failed to comply with industry standards. Further, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's alleged failures caused a security breach which allowed highly sensitive data, including PII and PHI, to be stolen and used for fraudulent purposes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MIDEA AMERICA CORP: Bradshaw Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stephen Bradshaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midea America Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-11055 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07102-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Default. Midea -- https://www.midea.com/ -- is the world's largest producer of major appliances with a mission to create surprisingly-friendly solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary P. Arbitman, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK DODIG LLP 1845 Walnut St., 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 567-8300 Fax: (215) 567-8333 The Defendant is represented by: Caroline Pignatelli, Esq. COOLEY LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 479-6679 Fax: (212) 479-6275 MISSION ROCK: Popat Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mission Rock Parcel A Owner, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Justin Popat, Dr. Rimisha Lal, similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Mission Rock Parcel A Owner, LLC, Source Planning And Construction, Inc., Does 1 to 20, Case No. CGC25628328 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract/Warranty."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hari S. Lal, Esq. LAL HARRIS & EDWARDS LAW GROUP 1020 South Anaheim Boulevard # 202 Anaheim, CA 92805 Phone: 714-635-1646 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Humphries Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HUMPHRIES and DENNIS MOWRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MITSUBISHI CHEMCIAL AMERICA, INC., MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL AMERICA EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JANE AND/OR JOHN DOES 1-10 Case No. 1:23-cv-06214-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' excessive fees claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' claims as to the Board of Directors are dismissed with prejudice. However, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' share class claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 59. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded a claim against the individual members of the Board of Directors and that the Board of Directors should therefore be dismissed from this case with prejudice. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), against their former employer Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that, with respect to the Mitsubishi Chemical America Employees’ Savings Plan (the “Plan”), Defendants violated their fiduciary obligations under federal law by failing to monitor share class discounts available to the Plan and the Plan’s administrative fees and expenses. On Dec. 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint, adding Mowry as a plaintiff and dropping the stable value fund claim. See generally AC. On January 31, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Mitsubishi is engaged in the rolling, drawing, and production of aluminum ingot. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W6BEYW at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Guarino Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- GINA GUARINO v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-0173 (E.D. La., Aug. 25, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, for damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer 1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff was exposed to Roundup in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana for years in the State of Louisiana and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in around 2014 with a recurrence in 2025. Monsanto was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, known for developing the herbicide Roundup and genetically modified seeds. It was acquired by Bayer in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com NATURE REPUBLIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nature Republic International, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10236 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through Roti.com. Accordingly, Naturerepublicusa.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Nature Republic International excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, the suit alleges. Naturerepublicusa.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Nature Republic International.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law NEST BEDDING: Faces Tower Suit Over Website's Unlawful Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN TOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEST BEDDING, INC. and DOES 1–10, Case No. 1:25-at-00713 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2025) concerns deceptive representations and omissions made by the Defendant through its alleged misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website, which directly violate California law and deceive the reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Defendant's website listed various items on sale or discount, and pictured a stricken, supposedly former or prevailing market price, next to the current purported "sale" price. However, the former or prevailing market price listed next to the sales price was not actually the former or prevailing market price at which the product was sold in the previous three months. Instead, it was a false or inflated price used to trick consumers into believing they were receiving a discount on their purchase. Such former prices are false because the item had not been listed for sale or sold on the website in the previous three months at the listed former price, says the suit. NEST BEDDING, INC. sells and markets mattress and bedding products online through the Nest Bedding website, www.nestbedding.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb LH Marker, Esq. Jessica M. Liu, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com jessica.liu@zimmreed.com - and - Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com winston@jefirm.com NORTHERN INDIANA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Skonieczny Says ------------------------------------------------------------ RODNEY M. SKONIECZNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO., LLC d/b/a NIPSCO, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00384 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 20, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Skonieczny was employed by the Defendant as a station operator. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., LLC provides utility services. The Company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity and natural gas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com NPAS SOLUTIONS: Court OKs $429,600 Atty Fee Award in TCPA Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Charles S. Fishman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-CV-80393-RLR (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida approved class counsel's requested fees for the third time following an appellate court remand. The Court granted class counsel's motion for $429,600 in attorney fees and $3,475.52 for litigation costs and expenses, which is 30% of the settlement fund. The case originated as a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action that resulted in a $1,432,000 settlement for the class. The Eleventh Circuit previously reversed the Court's decision in part, finding that one of the grounds upon which the Court granted fees (the time and labor expended by class counsel) did not have adequate support in the record. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the part of the order granting the requested attorneys' fees, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The appellate court found error because the district court didn't make class counsel show their work. Following remand, class counsel provided billing records reflecting 918.4 hours of work, representing $498,855 in labor costs. The District Court applied the Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express factors to determine reasonable attorney fees. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, courts must evaluate 16 factors including: (1) The time and labor involved; (2) The novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) The customary fee; (6) Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (7) The amount involved and the results obtained; (8) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (9) The undesirability of the case (10) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (11) Awards in similar cases (12) The time required to reach a settlement (13) Whether there are any substantial objections by class members or other parties to the settlement terms or the fees requested by counsel (14) Any non-monetary benefits conferred upon the class by the settlement (15) The economics involved in prosecuting a class action and (16) Any additional factors unique to a particular case. The Court found that class counsel invested a good deal of time and labor in litigating this case over more than a year. During that time, the Defendant moved to dismiss and moved to strike allegations from the Plaintiff's Complaint. Class counsel represented they devoted significant time and resources to this case through investigating facts, preparing complaints, researching law, amending complaints, preparing discovery requests, negotiating responses, researching class certification issues, working with expert witnesses, and settling the matter. Regarding the novelty and difficulty of legal questions, the Court determined that class counsel grappled with complicated questions, including the question of consent, when preparing for class certification. The legal landscape was uncertain, as counsel explained: A lot of the issues are up in the air and there is uncertainty. One certain thing is the outcome here is uncertain given the flux of the law. The Court found the case required specialized skills and that class counsel possessed extensive TCPA experience, having served as class counsel in at least 12 TCPA class action cases filed in federal court and many more consumer protection class action cases filed in federal and state court. On the customary fee factor, the Court determined that 30% is a customary fee often awarded in TCPA class action cases and cited precedent showing awards of one-third are consistent with the trend in this Circuit. The Court emphasized the results obtained and undesirability of the case as crucial factors. Class counsel obtained a favorable result for the class by securing the $1,432,000 settlement. The Court noted that if the case had been filed today, instead of in 2017, the case very likely would not have resulted in a favorable settlement for the class because the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, eliminated liability in this type of case on the part of the Defendant. Addressing objections, the Court found they were substantial given that objector Ms. Jenna Dickenson pursued an extensive appellate process attempting to invalidate the entire settlement agreement for six years, requiring class counsel to defend the settlement continuously. The Court concluded that class counsel worked on a contingency basis without compensation, making the case inherently undesirable and risky for them. The Court determined it was valuable to award 30% of the settlement fund to class counsel to incentivize other attorneys to take on similar cases in order to protect consumers with meritorious claims. Therefore, the Court ordered that class counsels request for a 30% fee award fair and reasonable. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0OYlPk from PacerMonitor.com. NUTEX HEALTH: Faces Bhagava Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ ANJANA BHAGAVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTEX HEALTH INC., THOMAS T. VO, JON C. BATES, and WARREN HOSSEINION, Case No. 4:25-cv-03999 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 22, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Nutex securities between August 8, 2024 and August 14, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Nutex generally operates as an out-of-network provider and generates revenue, in part, from contracts with patients and, in most cases, a third-party payor such as commercial insurance, workers compensation insurance or, in limited cases, Medicare or Medicaid. On July 22, 2025, Blue Orca Capital issued a short report on Nutex. The Blue Orca Report alleged that "HaloMD achieved dramatically lucrative results for clients like Nutex by engaging in a coordinated fraudulent scheme to steal millions of dollars from insurance companies on behalf of and in conjunction with its healthcare billing clients. However, after the market closed on August 14, 2025, the Company issued a press release announcing a delay in filing its 2025 second quarter financial statements. When Nutex failed to rebut the allegations of the Blue Orca Report as they had previously indicated, the Company's stock price fell $18.22 per share, or 16.39%, to close at $92.91 per share on August 15, 2025. 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 suit. Nutex is a physician-led, healthcare services and operations company that began publicly trading via a reverse merger in April 2022. The Company operates through three divisions: a hospital division comprised of 24 hospital facilities in 11 states, a population health management division, and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, Georgia 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Doe Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OHIO MEDICAL ALLIANCE LLC d/b/a OHIO MARIJUANA CARD, Case No. 1:25-cv-01765 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's deliberate failure to timely report the public exposure of its patients' and employees' private identifying information and private health information made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII/PHI. Accordingly, the Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of its gross negligence deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Cybersecurity Incident, as well as assistance in mitigating the effects of PII/PHI misuse.     In failing to adequately protect its patients' and employees' information and adequately notify them about the incident, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its patients and employees, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cybersecurity measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII/PHI. But Defendant betrayed that trust when Defendant made records containing its employees' and patients' PII/PHI publicly available. The Plaintiff is a former patient of Defendant. The Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated in Ohio, with its headquarters at 4500 Rockside Road, Independence, OH 44131. It has marijuana doctor office locations located in every major city in Ohio, as well as clinics in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com OONI INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. OONI, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06989 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://fazitbeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Ooni online retail store, as well as the Ooni interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal OREGON: Settlement Must Include All Kids in Care, 9th Cir Says -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as WYATT B.; NOAH F., by their next friend Michelle McAllister; KYLIE R.; ALEC R., by their next friend Kathleen Megill Strek; UNIQUE L., by her next friend Annette Smith; SIMON S.; BERNARD C.; NAOMI B.; NORMAN N., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TINA KOTEK, Governor of Oregon in her official capacity; FARIBORZ PAKSERESHT, Director, Oregon Department of Human Services in his official capacity; APRILLE FLINT-GERNER, Director, Child Welfare in her official capacity; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 24-4689, 24-6384, D.C. No. 6:19-cv-00556-AA (9th Cir.), Circuit Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's interpretation of the term Child in Care in a class action settlement agreement between the Oregon Department of Human Services and a class of Oregon foster children who experienced serious abuses while in ODHS's legal custody. In 2019, 10 foster children filed a putative class action on behalf of "All children for whom ODHS has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and physical custody of ODHS." Plaintiffs alleged that ODHS violated the substantive due process rights of class members to be free from serious abuses while in ODHS's legal custody. After years of litigation, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement on the eve of trial, which incorporated the General Class definition from the district court's class certification order. The parties disputed whether the term "Child in Care" included two sets of children: (1) Children over whom ODHS has legal custody, but who have not been removed from their parents' home ("Not-Removed Children"), and (2) Removed children in ODHS's legal custody who had been temporarily placed back in their parent's home on a trial basis for a period not to exceed six months ("THV Children"). As part of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to submit these remaining issues to the district court after further briefing. The district court ruled in favor of ODHS, finding that the scope of Child in Care excluded the Disputed Children. The district court found that children living with their biological parents do not have substantive due process rights to be free from serious abuses while in ODHS's legal custody. Accordingly, it found that the Disputed Children were not beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. The Court of Appeals rejected ODHS's argument that any claim on behalf of the Disputed Children had been waived because Plaintiffs neither included allegations about children in the care of their parents in the Complaint nor advanced arguments about such children throughout the litigation. The Court found no support for that position in the record. The Court noted that ODHS's argument was patently inconsistent with the district court's underlying class certification order." In that order, the district court explicitly discussed the 12% of Oregon's 7,260 foster children who were in Trial Home Visit status. The General Class definition remained unchanged since the class was certified in August 2022 and consisted of All children for whom ODHS has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal or physical custody of ODHS. The Court of Appeals held that the Disputed Children have a substantive due process right to be free from serious abuses while in ODHS's legal custody. The Court applied de novo review to the district court's decision regarding the scope of a constitutional right. The Court explained that while the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause generally does not confer any affirmative right to governmental aid and typically does not impose a duty on the state to protect individuals from third parties, there are two important exceptions. First, there is the special relationship exception when a custodial relationship exists between the plaintiff and the State such that the State assumes some responsibility for the plaintiff's safety and well--being. The Court held that the special relationship exception applies to the Disputed Children because they are in the legal custody of ODHS. "By assuming control over virtually all aspects of a child's life through wardship and legal custody, ODHS restrains the child's liberty in a manner that gives rise to a protected interest under the Due Process Clause." The Court emphasized that once the state assumes wardship of a child, the state owes the child, as part of that person's protected liberty interest, reasonable safety and minimally adequate care and treatment appropriate to the age and circumstances of the child. Oregon law strips biological parents of rights they might otherwise have, including the right to provide the child with care, education, discipline, and the right to authorize medical care for the child when ODHS has legal custody. The Court noted that the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that children who are placed with foster parents, but who remain wards of the state and within the legal custody of the state, are protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court found that some children who are wards of the state and in the state's legal custody are placed with their biological parents, rather than with foster parents, does not affect the existence of due process protections. The Court distinguished cases relied upon by the district court, finding them inapposite and do not support the district court's categorical physical custody requirement for substantive due process protections. The Court noted that in contrast to cases like DeShaney, Murguia, and Patel, ODHS takes legal custody of the Disputed Children, and with that legal custody, ODHS assumes responsibility for virtually all aspects of their lives. For the reasons discussed, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Court held that the Disputed Children were covered by the term Child in Care, as used in the settlement agreement, because they are afforded substantive due process protections while in ODHS's legal custody. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VA9G05 from pacermonitor.com ORVILLE'S APPLIANCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ORVILLE'S APPLIANCE INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00788 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.orvilles.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because the Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled Individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.orvilles.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal OTTER.AI INC: Faces Walker Class Suit Biometric Data Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- ASPER PIERSON WALKER and MICHAEL WALKER, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, v. OTTER.AI, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-07187 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2025) arises out of Defendant's collection and use of Plaintiffs' sensitive biometric data, which occurred without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent. The Defendant is a transcription software company that uses artificial intelligence to power its products. The Defendant's software (Otter.ai) integrates with video-conference platforms like Zoom. When in use, Otter records all speakers on a video-conference and creates a voiceprint associated with each of them. It then uses this voiceprint to create a transcript of the meeting. And it stores each voiceprint so that, in future meetings, Otter can identify the same individuals and transcribe their conversations. The voiceprints that Otter collects qualify as biometric data subject to BIPA's protections. Voiceprints are often used to authenticate individuals' identities when those individuals seek access to restricted personal or financial information. Thus, individuals whose voiceprints are stolen or compromised are at increased risk of identity theft and fraud, says the suit. Accordingly, BIPA requires that private entities notify, and obtain consent from, individuals before collecting their voiceprints. The Defendant violates these requirements. Otter automatically collects voiceprints from video-conference participants without notifying them that it is collecting their biometric information, much less obtaining their consent to that collection, asserts the suit. As a result, the Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to statutory damages and injunctive relief. The Defendant must compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Class for its unauthorized collection of their sensitive data, and it must permanently delete that data to ensure Plaintiffs and Class members are not subject to fraud or identity theft, the suit adds. Otter.ai, Inc. is a Mountain View, California-based technology company founded in 2016 that develops AI-powered transcription and meeting collaboration software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne R. Kramer, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. John J. Frawley, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: akramer@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com jfrawley@flsalaw.com PACIFIC COAST: Carrillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Coast Producers, et al. The case is styled as Michael Carrillo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Coast Producers, Express Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0012142 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pacific Coast Producers -- https://pacificcoastproducers.com/ -- is an agricultural cooperative owned by over 150 family-farms in Central and Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Hoga Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, f/k/a VIACOMCBS INC., NANCY RAMSEY PHILLIPS, THE PARAMOUNT GLOBAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE PARAMOUNT GLOBAL INVESTMENTS COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:25-cv-07128 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties. At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had over four billion dollars in assets under management. At the start of the Class Period in 2019, the Plan had $4,004,670,649 in assets under management. By 2023, the Plan had $6,111,598,456 in assets under management. See 2023 Form 5500 for the Plan (2023 Form 5500). The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. In 2021, only 0.2 percent (1,011 of 641,747) of plans in the country had more than $1 billion in assets under management. In addition, this was true at the start of the Class Period in 2019 where only 0.1 percent (776 of 603,217) of 401(k) plans in the country were as large as the Plan. The Plaintiff resides in Chattanooga, Tennessee. During her employment, the Plaintiff Hogan participated in the Plan. Ms. Hogan invested in the Paramount SVF in the Plan and allegedly suffered injury to her Plan account due to the significant underperformance of the Paramount SVF. Paramount Global is the sponsor of the Plan and a named fiduciary of the Plan with a principal place of business at 1515 Broadway, New York, New York. Paramount operates as a media and entertainment company that produces and distributes content through studios, networks, streaming services, live events, and consumer products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com PARKWAY MOTORS: Sisodia Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parkway Motors of Leonia, Inc. The case is styled as Aayush Sisodia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Parkway Motors of Leonia, Inc. doing business as: Parkway Toyota, Case No. 2:25-cv-14973 (D.N.J., Aug. 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Parkway Motors of Leonia, Inc. doing business as Parkway Toyota -- https://www.parkwaytoyota.com/ -- is a Toyota dealer in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (989) 574-5262 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com PARTY PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Party Products LLC d/b/a Tupperware, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03319 (D. Minn., August 20, 2025) arises because Defendant's website, www.tupperware.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 a consequence of Plaintiff's experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users, relates the complaint. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, asserts the complaint. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Party Products LLC, d/b/a Tupperware, offers food storage and cooking supplies for sale, including but not limited to, food storage containers, cookware, bakeware, serving dishes, water bottles, kitchen tools and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com POINTCLICKCARE TECHNOLOGIES: Levine Sues Over Unprotected Info -------------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA LEVINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. POINTCLICKCARE TECHNOLOGIES USA CORP. d/b/a POINTCLICKCARE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00730-RJS (D. Utah, Aug. 27, 2025) is a class action arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) and Protected Health Information about its clients' current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The Data Breach has impacted thousands of Defendant's clients' former and current patients. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its clients' current and former patients' PII/PHI, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a Canadian cloud-based healthcare software provider which offers a variety of electronic health record, connectivity, finance, and workflow solutions to long-term and post-acute health-care providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 E-mail: JHULL@MOHTRIAL.COM AHOIDAL@MOHTRIAL.COM - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: RAINA@STRAUSSBORRELLI.COM POMEROY LIVING: Perrin Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ NATASHA PERRIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POMEROY LIVING MANAGEMENT LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 4:25-cv-12618-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., Aug. 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff started working for Defendant approximately January 4, 2023, and is currently employed with Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Plaintiff's base hourly rate of pay is $19.89. In addition to the base rate of pay, the Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation structure. For example, Defendant provided Plaintiff and others with bonus pay and shift differentials. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Clinton Township, Michigan and is currently employed with Defendant. The Defendant is headquartered in Troy, Michigan, and employs hundreds of hourly employees in multiple facilities located within the State of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Martinez Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jesse Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Thompson Coburn LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-01290 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01263-HEA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Presbyterian Healthcare Services -- https://www.phs.org/ -- is committed to improving access to health care, behavioral health, health insurance coverage, community supports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Parkhill, Esq. Ben Barnow, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC 205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 621-2000 Email: aparkhill@barnowlaw.com b.barnow@barnowlaw.com - and - Mark Fine, Esq. FINE LAW FIRM 220 Ninth Street Nw Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 243-4541 Phone: mark@thefinelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Raymond, Esq. ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP - Chicago 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 583-2379 Email: daniel.raymond@arnoldporter.com - and - Kenneth L. Chernof, Esq. ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP - DC 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 40016 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 942-5940 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: ken.chernof@arnoldporter.com - and - Charles K. Purcell, Esq. RODEY DICKASON SLOAN AKIN & ROBB PA Post Office Box 1888 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Phone: (505) 768-7217 Fax: (505) 768-7395 Email: kpurcell@rodey.com RALPH LAUREN: Loses Bid to Move ADA Website Accessibility Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Richard Paul Merrell, Plaintiff v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to transfer venue. In December 2023, Plaintiff Vivian Salazar filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ms. Salazar, a resident of Contra Costa County, alleged that due to the coding of Defendant's website, she was unable to locate Defendant's physical store locations as a legally blind individual. She sued Defendant on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California statewide class. In May 2025, counsel filed an amended complaint replacing Ms. Salazar with Richard Merrell as named plaintiff. Plaintiff brings the same claims as Ms. Salazar on behalf of identical putative classes. He similarly alleges that Defendant's failure to ensure that its website is coded to sufficiently interface with screen readers prevented him from consummating a purchase, as Defendant's coding failures made Defendant's website impossible to navigate. Unlike Ms. Salazar, Plaintiff resides in Riverside County, which is located within the Central District of California. Defendant moved to transfer this case to the Central District under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), which permits a district court to transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The Court engages in a two-step analysis: first determining whether the transferee district was one in which the action might have been brought by the plaintiff, and second conducting an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. The Court found that Defendant met its burden of showing that this action could have been brought in the Central District. The Court noted that given the nature of Plaintiff's claims, his undisputed residence in Riverside County, and the lack of any detailed allegations connecting him and his theory of liability to Contra Costa County, it is reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff likely suffered his alleged injury in Riverside County. Consequently, venue would be proper in the Central District. Regarding Plaintiff's choice of forum, the Court determined that Plaintiff's choice is entitled to minimal consideration as he is representing a putative nationwide and statewide class. The Court noted that when an individual brings a derivative suit or represents a class, the named plaintiff's choice of forum is given less weight. Additionally, since Plaintiff is not a resident of the chosen forum, his choice of forum is entitled to less weight. The Court found private factors to be largely neutral. Regarding witness convenience, Defendant argued that testimony of store managers and customer service representatives who work at numerous stores throughout the Central District would be necessary. However, the Court found it is not self-evident that the testimony of store personnel who actually manage the logistics of in-store pickups will be as central as Defendant suggests, given that Plaintiff's theory focuses on website design interference. The Court disagreed with Defendant's argument that the Northern District has no interest in adjudicating the controversy. First, the Northern District has a local interest because Plaintiff purports to represent both a nationwide and statewide class, presumably with members who reside in this district. Second, and most importantly the Court emphasized that this case has been pending in this district since December 2023. Discovery is nearly complete, and Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on October 15, 2025, just over two months from now. The Court found that the public interest in a timely resolution here weighs dispositively against asking a new judge in a new district to take on this case at this late date. The Court concluded that on balance, the discretionary factors here weigh decisively against transferring this case at this late stage. Therefore, the Court denied Defendant's motion to transfer venue. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BS4rCG S&C TECHNOLOGIES: Maxwell Sues Over Age Discrimination in Workplace ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MAXWELL, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. S&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07131 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon violations that the Defendant committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant terminated Plaintiff, who was sixty years old, as part of a pattern and practice of age discrimination to replace senior leadership with younger employees. In addition to the Plaintiff, Defendant terminated multiple other employees with senior leadership positions based on SS&C's desire to "position [SS&C] for future growth and get some fresh rejuvenated leadership in here." As a result of Defendant's established "succession plan" to rid older senior leadership and "bring up some of that talent," Defendant's termination of Plaintiff because of his age violated the ADEA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. On Nov. 28, 2018, the Defendant hired Plaintiff as Head of Technology for SS&C's GlobeOp Division, working in its offices located at 4 Times Square, New York, New York. At the time he joined Defendant, the Plaintiff possessed over twenty years of experience, including a former role of Chief Information Officer at Citco (a competitor of SS&C), where he led a global team of 675 employees. At SS&C, Plaintiff was responsible for all of the IT development and support for the GlobeOp business division, leading a 350-person team in a division that generated approximately 25% of SS&C's total revenue. SS&C is a mutual fund transfer agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: (212) 939-7229 E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com SELECTQUOTE INC: Nov. 5 Conference on Lead Plaintiff Bids --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Robert Pahlkotter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SelectQuote, Inc., Tim Danker, Ryan Clement, and Raffaele Sadun, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06620 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a conference to consider motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired SelectQuote, Inc. securities between September 9, 2020 and May 1, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires that not later than 20 days after the complaint is filed, the plaintiff shall cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period. The notice must also advise that any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff not later than 60 days after the notice is published. Plaintiff filed the required notice on August 12, 2025. Members of the purported class therefore have until 60 days from Plaintiff's filing of the required notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court ordered that a conference shall be held on November 5, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. at Pearl Street, New York, New York to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. Opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff shall be served and filed by October 25, 2025. The Court further ordered that the named plaintiff shall promptly serve a copy of this Order on each of the Defendants. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tHTtww from pacermonitor.com SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06873 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.bbqguys.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Shopperschoice.Com, L.L.C., doing business as BBQGuys, retails household cooking appliances. The Company offers side burners, BBQ accessories, gas and pellet, grilling cookware, portable pizza ovens, outdoor rugs, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Settlement in Kobor Data Breach Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the data breach case captioned as Peter Kobor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Skidmore College, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-1392 (N.D.N.Y.), and Mary Cogan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Skidmore College, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-1409 (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York grants final approval of a class action settlement and awards attorneys' fees. The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on August 11, 2025, to determine whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court found that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, is in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and is therefore approved. The settlement was entered into following arms' length negotiations between the parties. The Court certified for settlement purposes a class defined as all persons residing in the United States who were notified in or around September 15, 2023, via written notice, that their PII may have been involved in the Incident. The settlement class specifically excluded Defendant and its employees, officers, directors, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, individuals who opted out, counsel and their staff, and judges and court staff assigned to the litigation. The Court determined that the settlement class met all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), finding that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; that there are common issues of law and fact; that the claims of the class representatives are typical of absent class members." The Court also found that class representatives would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and that common issues predominate over any individual issues. The Court appointed Peter Kobor and Mary Cogan as Settlement Class Representatives, concluding they have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. The Court also appointed William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA, and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as Class Counsel. Regarding notice to the class, the Court found that the Notice Plan, set forth in the Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The notice satisfied requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution, and applicable laws. The Court noted that No objections were filed by Settlement Class Members. The Court granted Class Counsel's unopposed motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court awarded Class Counsel $195,000 as an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid in accordance with the Settlement, and the Court finds this amount of fees, costs, and expenses to be fair and reasonable. The attorneys' fees award is separate and apart from any benefits provided to Settlement Class Members. The Court awarded each named plaintiff a service award. The Court ordered that each of the named Plaintiffs a service award in the amount of $2,000 (for a total payment of $4,000). Defendant must pay the attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards within 21 days after the date this Final Approval Order and Judgment is entered. The settlement includes broad releases whereby all releasing parties expressly, generally, absolutely, unconditionally, and forever release and discharge any and all Released Claims against the Released Parties. The releases cover Defendant's current, former, and future affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, representatives, officers, agents, directors, employees, contractors, shareholders, vendors, insurers, reinsurers, successors, assigns, and attorneys. The Court ordered that the settlement shall be forever binding on, and shall have res judicata and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings as to Released Claims. The settlement applies to all class members except those who opted out. The Court dismissed the Action and the Consolidated Complaint and all claims therein on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any Party except as provided in this Final Approval Order and Judgment. The Court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement for all purposes. According to the settlement If the Effective Date does not occur, the Court ordered that this Final Approval Order and Judgment and the Preliminary Approval Order shall be deemed vacated and shall have no force and effect whatsoever; the Settlement shall be considered null and void. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HOrWkU from Pacermonitor.com. SPROUT SOCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Sprout Social, 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 fraud suits pending in an Illinois court. Beginning on May 13, 2024, the Company and certain of its executives were named in two putative securities fraud class action cases filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The first action, captioned Munch v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al. was filed on May 13, 2024 and alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of fact relating to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including (i) purported integration challenges arising from the Company's August 2023 acquisition of Tagger Media, Inc. ("Tagger"), (ii) the Company's ability to service (and the viability of its strategic plan to focus on) the enterprise market, and (iii) as a result, the Company's 2024 financial guidance was required to be adjusted downward. The Munch complaint sought damages and costs on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders from November 3, 2023 through and including May 2, 2024. The second case, captioned City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al (the "City of Hollywood Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 2, 2024. It asserted claims under the same statutory provisions based on substantially similar allegations of misconduct as its predecessor, but alleged a class period beginning on November 3, 2021 and ending on May 2, 2024. On November 12, 2024, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System for the City of Baltimore (the "City of Baltimore"), who had been substituted as the named plaintiff in the City of Hollywood action, as the Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The court subsequently consolidated the two cases (the "Consolidated Securities Action") on December 13, 2024. On January 24, 2025, the City of Baltimore filed an amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "AC"). The AC retains the original defendants, but adds Jason Rechel, Sprout Social's former head of Investor Relations, as an individual defendant. The AC makes similar allegations to those asserted in the City of Hollywood Action and adds additional allegations, including purported statements attributed to 15 anonymous confidential witnesses. Most of these individuals are described in the AC as former Sprout Social sales representatives. It claims that the defendants failed to disclose that the Company lacked the infrastructure to successfully implement its strategic shift to the enterprise business market, which purportedly rendered positive statements about enterprise business generation and prospects, and Sprout Social's financials, misleading. More specifically, the AC alleges that (1) Sprout Social's "inbound" sales strategy model, which it also applied to enterprise sales efforts, was not effective for generating enterprise business; (2) Sprout Social's platform lacked certain features valued by large clients; (3) Sprout Social's partnership with Salesforce would not necessarily increase Sprout Social's enterprise business; and (4) Sprout Social's emphasis on ARR as a key metric for financial performance was misleading, given Sprout Social's own abandonment of the metric as a viable performance indicator. The AC alleges a slightly longer class period than that alleged in the City of Hollywood Action, beginning on September 22, 2021, and ending on May 2, 2024 (the City of Hollywood Action alleged class period that began on November 3, 2021 and ended on May 2, 2024). On March 25, 2025, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") the AC in its entirety. On May 23, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to this Motion. Defendants filed a reply brief in further support of the Motion on July 17, 2025. The court has yet to issue any ruling on the Motion. Under the PSLRA, discovery and other proceedings in the Consolidated Securities Action are automatically stayed pending such a ruling. STANLEY BLACK: Court Approves Dismissal of Class Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion for approval of stipulated dismissal of both individual and class claims in the case captioned as Ken Hakomori, Plaintiff, v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-04481-JCS (N.D. Cal.). The Court dismissed Plaintiff Ken Hakomori's individual claims with prejudice and the class claims of the putative class members were dismissed without prejudice. The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Plaintiff's Individual Claims With Prejudice and Class Claims Without Prejudice as to The Putative Class. The Court noted that while individual claims may be dismissed without Court action where all parties who have appeared enter into a stipulation of dismissal, the dismissal of class claims requires Court approval under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). The Court construed the supporting declaration as a motion for approval of the stipulated dismissal and granted that motion. Under the Diaz standard, the Court evaluated whether the dismissal was collusive or prejudicial to class members. The Court considered three factors: (1) Class members' possible reliance on the filing of the action, (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, and (3) any settlement made to further the representative's own interests. The Court concluded the settlement was neither collusive nor prejudicial to the absent class members based on declarations that the class action has not become widely known to the public generally or to the members of the putative class" and that members of the putative class will not be prejudiced, given that they retain all rights to pursue their own claims. The case was originally filed in San Bernardino Superior Court. The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California at any time during the period from four years prior to the date of the filing of the Complaint through final judgment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon termination of their employment, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenses. Defendant HCL Global Systems, Inc. is represented by: Andrew J. Mailhot, Esq. Jackson Lewis P.C. Tel: 415-394-9400 E-mail: andrew.mailhot@jacksonlewis.com Defendant Stanley Black & Decker, Inc is represented by Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. Aileen H Kim, Esq. Courtney O'Connor, Esq. Jones Day Tel: 213-489-3939 E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com aileenkim@jonesday.com courtneyoconnor@jonesday.com Defendant Resource Logistics, Inc., is represented by Mohammad Nabeel Khan, Esq. Anantha N Ramachandran, Esq. MNK Lawyers APC Tel: 661-373-4433 E-mail: mohammad@mnklawyers.com anantha@mnklawyers.com Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. Barbara DuVan-Clarke, , Esq. P.J. Van Ert, Esq. Annabel F. Blanchard, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC Tel: (310) 622-4278 Fax: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: BDC@blackstonepc.com pjvanert@blackstonepc.com ablanchard@blackstonepc.com A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y5Mz9a from PacerMonitor.com TMC HEALTHCARE: Desman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, AWA -------------------------------------------------------------- Charli Desman, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMC Healthcare, an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Case No. 4:25-cv-00487-RM (D. Ariz., Aug. 27, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from TMC under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Wage Act. According to the complaint, TMC employs Desman as one of its Hourly Employees. Mr. Desman and the other Hourly Employees work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But TMC does not pay Desman and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, TMC pays Desman and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (TMC's "bonus pay scheme"). The putative FLSA collective is defined as: "All hourly TMC employees who were paid a bonus not included in their regular rate of pay during the last three years through final resolution of this action (the FLSA Collective Members). The putative AWA class of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly TMC employees who worked in Arizona who were paid a bonus not included in their regular rate of pay during the last one year through final resolution of this action (the Arizona Class Members). TMC Healthcare is a private outpatient ambulatory clinic in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 Facsimile: (602) 926-1479 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Rosenblit Over Unearned Monthly Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE ESTATE OF DONALD L. ROSENBLIT, BY AND THROUGH ITS EXECUTOR, ELLIOT BRAUNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., AND UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 250802640 (Pa Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., Aug. 21, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff, as the administrator of an estate, and all others similarly situated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where an estate and/or next of kin of a decedent did not receive a pro rata refund of health insurance premiums after the death of a policyholder from Defendants. In Pennsylvania, there are decades of common law that recognizes that when an insured pre-pays an insurance premium and that contract is later canceled, the insured is entitled to a refund of the unearned premium payment. The Defendants specifically advertised, as part of their supplemental health insurance policies, that they would return any unearned monthly premium upon the death of the insured. Despite the law and their own advertising, the Defendants, however, have refused to return unearned premiums after the policyholder's death. The Plaintiff was told that Defendants' policy was not to provide any premium refund for the month of the policyholder's death. Because Defendants have ignored not only the law regarding the refund of premiums with respect to those it provided health insurance coverage before death, but also their own advertising. The Plaintiff is a legal entity existing by and through the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Donald L. Rosenblit died in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 13, 2024. The Defendant is a U.S. diversified managed health care company with its principal place of business located in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 VGW HOLDINGS: Faces Peach Class Suit Over Alleged Online Gambling ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY PEACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VGW HOLDINGS, LTD., VGW MALTA LTD., VGW GAMES LTD., VGW HOLDINGS U.S., INC., and VGW U.S., INC,, Case No. 4:25-cv-00849-BSM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 21, 2025) seeks damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief individually on behalf of the other Class members, each of whom are Arkansas residents who have paid and lost money or other things of value on Chumbacasino.com. VGW owns and operates a popular, internet-based casino website called Chumbacasino.com. Accordingly, gambling is heavily regulated and mostly outlawed in Arkansas. Yet Chumbacasino.com is accessible and operational in Arkansas. VGW Malta owns and operates the website ChumbaCasino.com. All gambling payments are processed by VGW Malta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C Tab Turner, Esq. TURNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A 4705 Somers Ave., Suite 100 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: (501) 791-2277 Facsimile: (501) 791-1251 E-mail: Tab@tturner.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan Martin, Esq. Trent Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.mat1in@beasleyallen.com Trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor# 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: joel@skclassactions.com WORK IQ LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORK IQ, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06874 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://workiqtools.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Work IQ, LLC bench sells workbench vise system for DIYers, Craftsmen, Hobbyists, Makers and Trade Professionals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WORLDSTAFF USA: Franganito Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOAO FRANGANITO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDSTAFF USA TRI-STATE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-04784 (E.D. Pa., August 20, 2025) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid workers for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, and failed to timely pay all wages due, including overtime compensation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid warehouse worker from approximately September 1, 2022 through August 1, 2023. Worldstaff USA Tri-State LLC is a staffing agency headquartered and with its principal place of business in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com XIN LA: Pichol Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- DAMIAN SIS PICHOL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. XIN LA GONG FU INC. (D/B/A XIN LA GONG FU) and XIAO DUO HU, Case No. 1:25-cv-04723 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and N.Y. Labor Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Sis Pichol worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Sis Pichol appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Sis Pichol the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, food preparer and dishwasher at the Chinese restaurant located at 35-48 Union St., Flushing, New York. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese restaurant, located at 35-48 Union St., Flushing, New York, under the name "Xin La Gong Fu". They operates or operated the Chinese restaurant as a joint or unified enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ZOMA SLEEP: Evans Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Zoma Sleep, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09958 (N.D. Ill., August 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against Zoma Sleep for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://zomasleep.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 17, 2025, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete his purchase of a mattress on the website. However, he encountered significant issues while navigating the website as it contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, inaccurate focus order and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, alleges the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Zoma Sleep's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Zoma Sleep, LLC operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of mattresses, pillows, mattress foundations and bedding accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ********* 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 ***