250904.mbx

250904.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 177 Headlines ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gress Alleges AMPAC PAPER: Court Approves $1.2MM Settlement in Workers' Case BNSF RAILWAY: Botte Sues Over Data Privacy Violations BOUTIQUE BY RACHEL: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind C3.AI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 21 CAPITAL ONE AUTO: Wins Dismissal of UCC Deficiency Notice Claims CELTIC OCEAN: Sued Over Heavy Metals Content in Sea Salt Products CHATHAM-KENT, ON: Insurers Seek Costs After Explosion Suit Dropped CIRCUIT CITY: Website Must Comply with ADA Rules, Court Says COLUMBUS CAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Thrower Claims COMMUNITY REALTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alexander Says CONNEX CREDIT: Darden Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Information CONNEX CREDIT: Faces Esposito Suit Over Private Data Breach COPPER COW COFFEE: Cole Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website CPAP MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Woods Alleges DAVITA INC: Frazier Sues Over Data Security Failures DENROC LLC: Campbell Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ELRINGKLINGER AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Says EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arianas Claims FERA CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Suit Claims FIRSTENERGY CORP: Must Face Basic Standard in Securities Case FLAGGER FORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges FULFILLMENT LAB: Final OK Hearing of $200,000 Deal Set Nov. 19 GENERAC POWER: Court Rejects 401k Fee Comparison Method GENERAL MOTORS: $2MM Attorney Fees OK'd in Transmission Suits GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 26, 2026 GRUBHUB INC: Agrees to Settle False Ads Class Suit for $7.1MM GRUBHUB INC: Davitashvili Must File Amended Complaint by Sept. 30 GUARDIAN LIFE: Dunay Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info HAPPY HIPPO: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due May 13, 2026 HARBOURVEST PARTNERS: Website Violates Privacy Laws, Deol Suit Says HARRIS: Class Settlement in Alexander Suit Gets Final Nod HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bowen Says HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Vyas Seeks Conditional Collective Certification HORIZON LAND: Plaintiffs Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply HSBC BANK: Bid to Decertify Class in Cheng Suit Tossed HULL'S SEAFOOD: Drummond Sues Over Website Accessibility Issues HUNTER WARFIELD: Extension of Response Deadlines Sought HUTH BEDROOMS: Davis Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance ICEBERG AIR: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 20, 2026 ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Seeks to File Certain Exhibit Under Seal ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Suit Seeks to Certify Class INTEGON GENERAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Underinsured Motorists IVE NATION: Heckman Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal JAMES MERRILL: Default Judgment Bid Filing Extended in Guevara JARED HOY: Filing for Class Cert. in Huber Due Jan. 15, 2026 JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE: Settles Data Misuse Suit With Vouchers KATIA WANZELER: Default Judgment Bid Filing Extended in Magalhaes KEKES FRANCHISE: Evans Sues Over Disability Discrimination KEYSTONE REMODELING: Class Cert Bid in Muruch Suit Due Sept. 17 KROLL RESTRUCTURING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Repko Alleges L'OREAL USA: Fails to Disclose Info About Wages, Class Suit Says LAS PRINCESAS: Court Certifies Two Classes in Hernadez Lawsuit LAS VEGAS: Myers Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification LIBERTY MUTUAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Breach of Contract Claims LIFEMD INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit LINE5 LLC: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Friel Suit LITE STAR: Chea Seeks Initial Approval of $2.25MM Class Settlement LIVE NATION: Heckman 'Ticket Purchase' Suit Seeks Class Status LIVE NATION: Heckman's Bid to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal OK'd LORAIN, OH: Judge Must Reconsider Utility Class Suit Certification LOUIS VUITTON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Butler-Adams Says LOUISVILLE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Craft Claims MARIO'S AIR: Must File Class Cert. Bid Opposition by Sept. 15 MONARCH RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wilson Claims MOUNT SINAI: $5.2MM Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Oct. 24 NUTEX HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 21 NUTRITIONAL GROWTH: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burd Alleges POST HOLDINGS: Cortez Sues Over Deceptive Ads and Product Labels PROCTER & GAMBLE: Conceals Lead Content in Tampons, Foster Alleges REVLON INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Labels SAIGON SANDWICH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Oliveira Says SEATGEEK INC: Torres Sues Over Data Privacy Violations SIMONMED IMAGING: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action Suit SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Plant Fire TESLA INC: Misleads Drivers About Electric Vehicles' Software TRANSUNION LLC: May Face Class Suit Over Data Breach TRKULJA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Theophile Says TTE TECHNOLOGY: Herrick Class Action Remanded to State Court UNITED STATES: Fuselier Sues Over First Amendment Violation UPONOR INC: Binkley Sues Over Defective Piping System Products US CLAIMS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $775,000 VELOCITY RISK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Robinson Alleges VENSURE EMPLOYER: Sued Over Improper IRS Interest Payment VERADIGM INC: Disclose Data Without Consent, Doe Suit Says VITAS HEALTHCARE: Sarmiento Case Stays in Calif. District Court WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Burrell Sues Over Unprotected Info YUMA REGIONAL: Court Narrows Data Breach Claims ZUCKERMAN FAMILY: Must Produce Workers' I-9 Forms Under Seal ********* ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gress Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- KIM GRESS, individually and on behalf herself of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01774 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 26, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in July 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. David C. Landever, Esq. WEISMAN, KENENDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.. 2900 Detroit Ave., 2nd Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-1111 Email: dgoetz@weismanlaw.com AMPAC PAPER: Court Approves $1.2MM Settlement in Workers' Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Noemy Jackson, Roberto Perez, and Raymundo Gallardo, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Ampac Paper, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22 Civ. 3120 (NSR)(JCM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Judith C. McCarthy of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Provisional Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of Proposed Notice of Settlement and Related Relief. On April 15, 2022, the Named Plaintiffs filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendants. They alleged that while they were employed as hourly paid manual laborers in the converting department of Defendant's Walden, New York paper processing plant, they suffered various wage and hour violations, including unlawful wage deductions, uncompensated off the clock labor, and noncompliance with NYLL's wage statement requirements. The Named Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., as well as the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Sections 190, et seq. and 650, et seq. On September 25, 2023, the Honorable Nelson S. Roman granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, in part, and dismissed Plaintiffs' NYLL Sections 193 and 195 claims. On September 23, 2023, Judge Roman granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. In total, 112 current and former hourly paid manual laborers in the converting department at Defendant's Walden plant, who were employed at any time during the three years prior to commencement of this action, filed Consent to Sue forms in this case. The Agreement creates a fund of $1,200,000 to settle this action. The Class Members will all receive a minimum of $50, while an additional prorated portion shall be calculated based on Plaintiffs' counsel's calculation of alleged damages owing to each individual during the relevant period. Based on the Agreement, all Participating Class Members will receive at least nearly 100% of what Plaintiffs' counsel determined to be their owed wages based upon a review of Defendant's time and pay records. For their contributions to the case, under the Agreement, the Named Plaintiffs are entitled to service awards of up to $10,000, and the seven FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs who participated in individualized discovery may apply for service awards of up to $3,000. The Agreement provides that Class Counsel is permitted to seek an award of up to $393,333 plus no more than $20,000 in costs. The $393,333 figure constitutes one third of the gross settlement after deduction of costs. Under the Agreement, Class Members are the Named Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs, Active Plaintiffs, and Putative Class Members. Putative Class Members refers to individuals—other than the Named Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and Active Plaintiffs—who were employed by ProAmpac as non-exempt, hourly converting department employees at ProAmpac's manufacturing facility located in Walden, New York from April 15, 2016 through July 31, 2024. The Court determined that the Named Plaintiffs' interests are not antagonistic to the class. They have suffered the same alleged injury as the Class Members, and the payments bear a direct, pro rata relationship to the variations of the Class Members' injuries. Furthermore, the record shows that the Named Plaintiffs have been actively engaged with this litigation from before commencement of the action through discovery, and vigorously participated in mediation to resolve the claims on a class-wide basis. Under Rule 23(e)(2)(B), the Court found that the proposed Agreement was negotiated at arm's length. Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in class representation of low-wage and immigrant workers, while Defendant's counsel are experienced management-side attorneys. All counsel fully apprised themselves of the facts and issues in this case. Counsel thoroughly reviewed the relevant hours and pay data for the Class Members, assessed the litigation risks, and navigated the settlement with two neutral third-party mediators' assistance. The Court considered the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal. The Court noted that most class actions are inherently complex and settlement avoids the costs, delays, and multitude of other problems associated with them. The parties undertook considerable time and expense to evaluate the claims and defenses engage in "vigorous" settlement discussions and, had the parties not settled, Plaintiffs would have moved for Rule 23 class certification, which Defendant likely would have at least partially opposed. The Court found that other than the service awards sought for the Named Plaintiffs and some designated Opt-In Plaintiffs, the Agreement treats all Class Members uniformly; each will receive $50 and a pro rata distribution of the net settlement amount. The Court concluded that The Agreement's pro rata distribution scheme is sufficient evidence of equitable treatment in this regard. The Court found that the Rule 23 Class satisfies Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The Rule 23 Class has 744 members, which satisfies the Rule 23(a) numerosity requirement. Regarding commonality, the primary issues in this case -- including "whether Defendant failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages required for all minutes worked at the beginning and ends of their shifts and failed to provide the wage statements under the NYLL" -- are common to the class. The Court determined that the Settlement Class satisfies the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the predominance requirement is met because the case concerns wage and hour policies that affected multiple Class Members, and the Class Members share a common legal theory that these policies violated the law. The Court applied the Wolinsky factors to evaluate the FLSA settlement portion. The Court concluded that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court is likely to find that the Agreement is fair and reasonable under the Wolinsky factors. The Court noted that an agreement that satisfies the Grinnell factors will satisfy the Wolinsky factors. The Agreement contemplates that within ten days of the Court's issuing a Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Court-approved Notices to the appropriate recipients. Class Members who do not submit a timely and valid opt-out notice forever and fully release Defendant and all of the ProAmpac Releasees from all wage and hour claims asserted under state and local law. Each Class Member must ensure that their opt-out notice is post-marked, e-mailed, or faxed within 45 days from the mailing of the Notice to the Class Member. The Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' settlement as set forth in the Agreement, and preliminarily found the terms of the Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily certified the Settlement Class comprised of all individuals who were employed by ProAmpac at any point as non-exempt, hourly converting department employees at its manufacturing facility located in Walden, New York from April 15, 2016 through July 31, 2024. The Court appointed Plaintiffs Noemy Jackson, Roberto Perez, and Raymundo Gallardo as representatives for the Settlement Class and appointed Robert McCreanor and Patricia Kakalec as counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court scheduled a Fairness Hearing for November 14, 2025, before Judge McCarthy. Additionally, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request to dismiss their claims against Defendants ProAmpac LLC a/k/a ProAmpac and Ampac Holdco Inc. a/k/a ProAmpac with prejudice, leaving Ampac Paper, LLC as the sole defendant. BNSF RAILWAY: Botte Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- CORRINE BOTTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08006 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, and California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants use data broker software on its website, https://bnsf.com, to secretly collect data about Website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user, says the suit. BNSF Railway Company provides railroad transportation services. The Company provides freight transportation services to industrial and commercial clients, including transportation of consumer, coal, industrial, and agricultural products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com BOUTIQUE BY RACHEL: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A BOUTIQUE BY RACHEL CLARK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10246 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://shoprachelclark.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. A Boutique By Rachel Clark, LLC specializes in providing a wide selection of wardrobe essentials, offering women's clothing, jewelry, footwear, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law C3.AI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in C3.ai, Inc. ("C3.ai" or the "Company") (NYSE: AI) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of C3.ai investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 26, 2025 and August 8, 2025. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/c3-ai-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=163946&wire=3 AI investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of C3 AI's growth; notably, that its Chief Executive Officer health was having a significant impact on the Company's ability to close deals, that its management was unable or otherwise ineffectual in minimizing that impact, and that C3 AI would not be able to execute upon its profit and growth potential as a result. On August 8, 2025, C3 AI announced disappointing preliminary financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2026 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2026. The Company attributed its poor sales results and lowered guidance on “the reorganization with new leadership” and the health ailments of its Chief Executive Officer. Following this news, the price of C3 AI's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $22.13 per share on August 8, 2025, C3 AI's stock price fell to $16.47 per share on August 11, 2025, a decline of about 25.58% in the span of just a single day. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in C3.ai during the relevant time frame, you have until October 21, 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] CAPITAL ONE AUTO: Wins Dismissal of UCC Deficiency Notice Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Melissa S. Grant, Representative Plaintiff, v. Capital One Auto Finance, Inc., a division of Capital One, National Association, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-1281 (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint with prejudice. The Court dismissed the case after concluding that Capital One's deficiency notice substantially complied with Pennsylvania consumer disclosure law, specifically 13 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9616, which is part of Pennsylvania's UCC Article 9. The Court found that the Plaintiff cannot state a claim because the deficiency notice at issue substantially complies with the statute. On April 13, 2015, Melissa Grant purchased a 2015 Dodge Charger from Monroeville Dodge in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. Grant entered into a retail purchase agreement and a financing agreement with Monroeville Dodge and also purchased a service contract for $2,000. Monroeville Dodge assigned the financing agreement to Capital One Auto Finance, which then became the creditor and secured party to that agreement. In July 2020, Capital One repossessed Grant's Charger, claiming a default. On July 16, 2020, Capital One issued a notice of its plan to sell the Charger and a notice of repossession and notice of right to reinstate or redeem. On September 24, 2020, Capital One sent a disposition notice to supply an explanation for how Capital One calculated Grant's alleged deficiency balance. Grant alleged that the disposition notice does not comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania UCC, and this formed the basis for her claim. Based on the alleged deficiencies with the disposition notice, Grant brought one count for statutory damages under 13 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9625(e)(5), and sought to certify a class to join her. Capital One moved to dismiss, arguing that its notice complied with the statute. The Court noted that this case turns entirely on a reading of the statutory language. The statute requires a secured creditor to disclose an "explanation" of a "deficiency" after the default on the loan and sale of the collateral. The explanation must include six specific categories of information in a very specific order under 13 Pa. C.S.A Section 9616(c). However, the Court emphasized that the statute provides a safe harbor provision, stating that an explanation "complying substantially" with the statute is sufficient, even if it includes minor errors which are not seriously misleading" under Section 9616(d). The Court acknowledged that there is no question that the Capital One notice didn't comply with the literal terms of the statute. However, the question was whether what Capital One did provide to Grant was substantially compliant. The Court concluded that it was. The Court established four inquiries to determine substantial compliance: 1) What is the purpose of the statute? 2) Was the statute's purpose met with respect to what was disclosed? 3) Was there any bad faith from the defendant(e.g., seriously misleading information)? 4) Were any errors in the content of the information or the form itself "minor"? Regarding the statute's purpose, the Court found that this statute is designed to spell out how much the collateral was sold for, what additional expenses, interest, or credits are included, and what is still owed. The Court noted that this information is particularly important because it can inform many other decisions by the consumer, including whether to challenge the commercial reasonableness of the sale, whether to pay or not pay the debt, and whether to declare bankruptcy. The Court determined that the informational goals or purpose of the statute are met because the collateral disposition, loan balance, expenses, and ultimate deficiency are spelled out in a very discernible format. Grant alleged Capital One failed to disclose the amount of the surplus or deficiency, but the Court called this argument "a red herring." According to the Court, Grant contended the amount wasn't truly disclosed because the explanation included a statement about potential refunds affecting the deficiency amount. However, the Court found that section 9616(a)(3) expressly states that an explanation may include such a statement, which is exactly what Capital One did. Grant also alleged Capital One failed to include the aggregate amount of the obligations after deducting the amount of proceeds. However, the Court found that this amount is readily discernible from the face of the Disposition Notice and thus was not seriously misleading because the amount can be calculated easily by just subtracting the second line item from the first line item. The Court rejected Grant's argument about the correct order of requirements, finding that Capital One included all of the requirements in mostly the correct order and any ordering mistake was harmless. Regarding Grant's claim about an unused service contract credit, the Court noted that Grant doesn't allege that there was an unused portion of the service contract. The Court found that Grant hasn't pled plausible facts supporting this theory. The Court concluded that the Capital One explanation substantially complied with the statute; it provided Grant essential information from the statute in a discernible way. Therefore, the Court found there is no claim here and granted Capital One's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that "amendment would be futile or inequitable." The Court noted that under its practices, Grant had opportunities to amend during the conferral process and after seeing Capital One's brief, but she didn't. Additionally, Grant did not request amendment as part of the briefing on the motion. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CYokMn from PacerMonitor.com. CELTIC OCEAN: Sued Over Heavy Metals Content in Sea Salt Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that a new class action lawsuit filed in California Federal Court claims Celtic Ocean International, LLC's Celtic Sea Salt products are contaminated with lead and arsenic, in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's unfair competition law, and breach of implied warranties. Although the case presents a common form of consumer false advertising litigation, the Plaintiff's emphasis on toxic heavy metals -- coupled with public health authority citations and Proposition 65 exceedances -- elevates the potential litigation exposure. Importantly, while class action claims are typically amortized over a large population of modest-value claimants, the emotional volatility of toxic exposure allegations increases the unpredictability of jury outcomes and signals a growing risk of "nuclear verdicts," even in consumer fraud settings. Facts Plaintiff Mark Gonzalez seeks to represent a class of California and nationwide consumers who purchased certain products during the statutory period. The central premise of the Complaint is that the Defendant's sea salt products were contaminated with lead (0.460 μg/serving) and arsenic (0.14 μg/serving), both of which allegedly exceed California Proposition 65 thresholds for exposure warnings. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant misrepresented the safety and purity of its products via labeling, including claims such as "Vital Mineral Blend," "Recommended by Doctors," and "Good Manufacturing Practices," which the Complaint collectively refers to as "High Quality and Healthy Representations." Testing results, cited from unspecified laboratory sources, purportedly confirm the presence of these heavy metals at levels that violate California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65) thresholds for required warnings (0.5 μg/day for lead). According to Plaintiff, consumers are deceived into believing the products are pure, healthy, and superior to competing salts on the market. Three statutory causes of action are alleged: -- Violation of the CLRA (Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.) -- Violation of the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.) -- Breach of Implied Warranties (both fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability) Notably, the Plaintiff also demands injunctive relief, corrective advertising, restitution, and punitive damages. He references a prior October 2024 Prop 65 notice to argue that the Defendant had knowledge of the contamination and continued selling the product regardless. Analysis of the Putative Class The putative class is broad, seeking certification of all purchasers of the products across the United States. Although defense teams traditionally discount "nuclear verdict" concerns in consumer class actions because of the aggregation of small-dollar claims, two key features elevate the risk here: Toxic Contamination Theory The focus on lead and arsenic elevates the perceived gravity of the claims. These substances are associated with long-term, irreversible health damage, especially in children. Emotional resonance at trial could fuel juror reactivity beyond standard compensatory logic. Recent Trend Toward Outsized Verdicts California has seen an uptick in high-value awards in class actions where the underlying conduct is framed as reckless or deceptive and implicates public health or safety. Even without bodily injury, the combination of alleged corporate indifference and deceptive branding may create a volatile damages environment. Should class certification be granted, the risk of a punitive damages multiplier will require serious consideration in pre-trial posture and any Rule 23(f) appeals. The Plaintiff's demand for both monetary and injunctive relief also adds complexity -- if the latter is granted, it could carry operational consequences across Celtic's full distribution network. Defense Posture and Risk Exposure While the suit is styled as a typical California consumer class action, its framing around alleged toxic exposure places the defense in a materially riskier posture than standard food mislabeling cases. Not only is there a statutory predicate under Proposition 65 for strict liability civil penalties, but the Complaint strategically invokes public safety fears -- i.e., chronic poisoning, cancer risk, and child development harm. These allegations raise the emotional stakes and could provoke heightened jury scrutiny or increased settlement leverage during certification and trial. That said, a path to dismissal or limitation remains viable under California law and federal pleading standards for the few reasons described herein. First, there is a lack of standing for actual injury. No personal injury is pled; rather, the Plaintiff seeks economic loss for "overpayment." This can support a motion to dismiss under Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court[ii] but may be insufficient to knock out class claims altogether, particularly under the "price premium" theory of economic harm. Second, the Complaint heavily emphasizes the "net impression" theory but lacks individualized reliance or survey data. These omissions may support a Rule 9(b) challenge for fraud-based allegations or a narrowing of the class definition Finally, while less likely to succeed due to California's independent authority under Prop 65 and consumer protection laws, any overlap with FDA regulatory thresholds could potentially create preemption or primary jurisdiction arguments. Conclusion This action, while rooted in familiar consumer protection statutes, carries elevated risk because of its toxic exposure narrative and potential for adverse publicity and punitive exposure. The defense should prioritize pre-certification motions, leverage testing and regulatory science, and proactively frame the narrative around trace-level exposure and product compliance. [GN] CHATHAM-KENT, ON: Insurers Seek Costs After Explosion Suit Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ellwood Shreve, writing for Windsor Star, reports that a $100-million class-action lawsuit against the Municipality of Chatham-Kent over the explosion that rocked downtown Wheatley four years ago has been dropped, but it could still be costly for those involved in bringing the action. At August 25's council meeting, one day shy of the fourth anniversary of the Aug. 26, 2021 gas explosion, it was revealed the lawsuit was dropped. However, Chatham-Kent's insurance company is seeking to recover its legal costs, which the municipality wants to make clear is not its decision or choice to pursue. Director of legal services Dave Taylor said the reason for dropping the lawsuit, cited in a procedural hearing, "was because of the significant compensation and support services that had been provided -- over $8 million to residents." While it is good news the class action suit is done and a reflection of the significant effort in supporting Wheatley residents, including from the provincial government, Taylor said questions have arisen about the municipality seeking to recover legal costs against the "representative plaintiffs," those named in the suit. The idea to seek legal costs against those people "that is not a decision that was made by municipal administration and not a decision made by municipal council," Taylor said. This is not a decision the municipality gets to make, he said. When this type of lawsuit happens, Chatham-Kent has to pay the first $250,000 under its insurance policy and the rest of the cost is covered by the municipality's insurance company, Taylor said. It's the insurance company that makes the decision about major steps in the litigation, including whether to seek legal costs. "It becomes a little bit confusing for citizens, because when the insurance company is taking those steps, it's still doing it in the name of the insured person, in this case, the municipality," Taylor said. The court records read Chatham-Kent is seeking these legal costs, but it's actually the insurance company, which has paid the legal costs, he said. West Kent Coun. Melissa Harrigan brought a motion to advise the municipality's insurance company that Chatham-Kent waives the recuperation of its $250,000 insurance deductible pertaining to the class action lawsuit. The motion also directs municipal staff to contact the insurer about this subject and return to council to provide further information. Taylor said the motion, which received unanimous support from council, at least covers the portion of legal costs Chatham-Kent has control over. "Since the emergency explosion in Wheatley, Chatham-Kent council has stepped up to really support this town and community and all its residents in recovery," Harrigan said. Calling it critical to bring the motion forward, the councilor said council is going to continue to support Wheatley. "This is the most that we can do right now as we're learning and understanding what's happening," Harrigan said. "Certainly as we receive more information I expect that we would continue to provide all the support that we can." Fellow West Kent Coun. Lauren Anderson said, "There's been no doubt that there's been unanimous support from this council and administration, plus the province in supporting this community. "This is just, unfortunately -- something that we don't have all that much control over," she said. [GN] CIRCUIT CITY: Website Must Comply with ADA Rules, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Xinyue Hippe, Plaintiff, v. Circuit City Corporation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-298-pp (E.D. Wis.), Judge Pamela Pepper of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in this ADA website accessibility lawsuit. The Court also awarded the plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages and ordered that the court will issue a separate injunction in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). On February 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the class action complaint alleging that the Defendant had violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 et seq., because the website circuitcity.com is not formatted to allow a legally blind customer like the Plaintiff to access its content. The affidavit of service reflects that the summons and complaint were served on March 5, 2025. The Defendant has not appeared or answered the complaint. On May 23, 2025, the Plaintiff asked the clerk to enter default, and the clerk did so four days later. The plaintiff then filed the instant motion for default judgment, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff is legally blind and cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen reader software to read digital content. Screen reader software vocalizes visual information on a computer screen and uses auditory cues to allow a visually impaired user to effectively use websites. For the screen reader software to function, the website's content must be capable of being rendered into text; otherwise, the blind user is not able to access the content of the website. The Plaintiff alleges that circuitcity.com contains access barriers to blind users using screen reader software. The Plaintiff lists several examples of these barriers: (1) Several images on circuitcity.com lack a text description, or alt-text, that would allow the screen reader to accurately describe the image to the user. (2) Circuitcity.com also lacks prompting information that would allow a blind user to locate and accurately complete forms to make purchases or inquiries about the Defendant's merchandise; (3) Missing or inaccurate menu headings, hidden elements that were not vocalized by a screen reader, sub-menus that were not vocalized or accessible via keyboard commands and links that open new windows without warning and prevent the user from moving between pages; and (4) The website requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, but many blind users cannot use a mouse because moving a mouse's cursor on the screen requires vision. The Plaintiff states that she remains interested in purchasing products on the Defendant's website and will immediately access the website again once the Defendant corrects the current accessibility barriers. The court found that the Plaintiff established all elements of her Title III ADA claim. First, the Plaintiff sufficiently stated that her visual impairment substantially limits the major life activities of seeing and reading, and that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Second, the court found that circuitcity.com is a place of public accommodation, noting that district courts within the Seventh Circuit have interpreted that language to hold that websites are places of public accommodation under Title III. The Defendant's website is a digital sales establishment for purchasing electronics items that falls within the category of sales or rental establishments listed in 42 U.S. Code Section 12181(7)(E). Third, the court found that the Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff due to her disability. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff attempted to access the Defendant's website to purchase headphones but was unable to do so due to the website's incompatibility with her screen reader program. The Defendant's failure to make its website accessible to the Plaintiff via screen reader is a failure to make reasonable modifications necessary to afford the Plaintiff equal access to its goods and services. The court also found that the complaint states a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Wisconsin law, as the complaint alleges that the Defendant acted negligently by failing to maintain a website accessible to blind individuals and that failure caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. The court granted 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 awarded the Plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages, following the precedent set in a similar case involving the same Plaintiff. The court denied the Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief, finding that declaratory relief is inappropriate where a private plaintiff seeks relief for discriminatory acts that have already occurred. The court also denied the Plaintiff's motion to the extent it seeks class damages, compensatory damages, and injunctive relief for the Defendant's negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court found that the Plaintiff met all requirements for a permanent injunction: (1) She suffered an irreparable injury as the website barriers make it impossible for her to purchase products; (2) There is no other remedy at law as monetary damages are not available under Title III of the ADA; (3) The balance of hardships weighs in favor of granting the injunction; and (4) The public interest will be served by eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The court ordered the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its website, Circuitcity.com, into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that Circuitcity.com is readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals. The court ordered that by the end of the day on September 10, 2021, the Plaintiff must submit a fee petition and supporting documentation for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred, which are recoverable under the ADA. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hkY389 from PacerMonitor.com COLUMBUS CAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Thrower Claims -------------------------------------------------------- GENE THROWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBUS CAR AUDIO & ACCESSORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00957-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 22, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Columbus Car Audio & Accessories, Inc. specializes in mobile electronics, custom installations, and vehicle upgrades for various types of vehicles including cars, RVs, motorcycles, and boats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. GILES & HARPER, LLC 7247 Beechmont Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45230 Telephone: (513) 379-2715 Email: bgiles@gilesharper.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com COMMUNITY REALTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alexander Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BARRY ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14963 (D.N.J., Aug. 27, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information including names and Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on August 11, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, says the suit. Community Realty Management, Inc. provides real estate services. The Company offers single family, office building, and residential including condos, town homes, and duplexes, as well as provides landscaping, maintenance and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 475-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com CONNEX CREDIT: Darden Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA DARDEN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CONNEX CREDIT UNION, INC., Defendant, Case No. ______ (Conn. Super., New Haven Cty., August 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect and safeguard the highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) of its current and former customers and/or current and former employees. As a result of Connex's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network from June 2, 2025 through June 3, 2025, and accessed and/or downloaded the PII of Plaintiff and the Class-approximately 172,000 individuals. However, despite discovering the breach in June 2025, the Defendant delayed alerting victims of the data breach until in or around August 2025, when it began sending out Notice of Data Security Incident Letters to victims of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in North Haven, CT, Connex Credit Union, Inc. offers financial products and services, including banking services, mortgages, and loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Hayber, Esq. HAYBER,M NA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com CONNEX CREDIT: Faces Esposito Suit Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- LISA ESPOSITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONNEX CREDIT UNION, INC., Defendant, Case No. ______ (Conn. Super., New Haven, August 14, 2025) asserts claims arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard its customers' private information. The Defendant's investigation of the data breach determined that data contained in its IT Network was exfiltrated between June 2, 2025, and June 3, 2025. However, the Defendant waited two months after being made aware of the data breach to notify impacted individuals. On August 7, 2025, the Defendant issued a public disclosure about the data breach and began sending Notices to impacted individuals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in North Haven, CT, Connex Credit Union, Inc. offers financial products and services, including banking services, mortgages, and loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com COPPER COW COFFEE: Cole Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Copper Cow Coffee, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09691 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of coffee on Defendant's website. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action asserting claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Los Angeles, CA, Copper Cow Coffee, Inc. owns and maintains the website, Coppercowcoffee.com, which offers coffee and kits, creamers, mugs, merchandise, and accessories for sale. [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 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law CPAP MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Woods Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- RODERIC WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00962 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted CPAP with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant recently disclosed to Plaintiff and Class Members on August 15, 2025. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, 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 the Defendant. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now exposed to cybercriminals, says the suit. CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc. is a sleep therapy provider specializing in supplying CPAP equipment and accessories like masks, tubing, batteries, and filters to active-duty and retired military service members and their families nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com DAVITA INC: Frazier Sues Over Data Security Failures ---------------------------------------------------- DAKIMM FRAZIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02540-PAB (D. Colo., August 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's out of a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its patients' private information. The Defendant sent letters to affected individuals, including Plaintiff, on or about August 5, 2025, advising them of the data breach. However, the Defendant did not state why it was unable to prevent the data breach or which security features failed. Additionally, the Defendant did not state how the unauthorized actors gained access, how Defendant failed to detect these intrusions, or how Defendant intends to avoid these types of incidents in the future, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff also alleges violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Headquartered in Denver, CO, Davita, Inc. provides kidney care services and manages medical groups and physician networks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com DENROC LLC: Campbell Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------ ANDREE CAMPBELL, Plaintiff v. Denroc LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a 4Ever Young Anti-Aging Solutions, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 14, 2025), is a class action seeking for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Denroc LLC owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of over 100 US-based medical wellness centers that offer advanced anti-aging and aesthetic services. It also owns maintains the website, https://4everyoungantiaging.com [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Telephone: (347) 268-9533 E-mail: ak@akesqpa.com ELRINGKLINGER AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRYANT BROWN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELRINGKLINGER AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-12534-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., August 14, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brown was employed by Defendant from approximately March 4, 2024 through May 14, 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff was allegedly not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that included shift differential pay, monthly bonus pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. Elringklinger Automotive Manufacturing, Inc. is an automotive supplier and car spare parts manufacturer headquartered in Southfield, MI. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arianas Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- PETER ARIANAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00674-RCY (N.D. Va., Aug. 26, 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 Arianas was employed by the Defendant as an emergency response specialist. Emergency Management Partners, LLC is an emergency management consulting firm that provides professional services to a wide variety of public and private-sector clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev. H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 Email: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com Samantha@ butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPH DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com FERA CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fera Co., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09688 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Moreover, due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the goods, services and benefits it offered to the public through its website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Columbus, OH, Fera Co., LLC owns and operates the website, https://www.fera.co, which offers various clothing and accessories for men and women for sale. [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 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law FIRSTENERGY CORP: Must Face Basic Standard in Securities Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Diane Owens; Chana Frand; California Public Employees' Retirement System; Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Association; Amalgamated Bank; City of Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan; Wisconsin Laborers' Pension Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FirstEnergy Corporation; Steven E. Strah; K. Jon Taylor; Jason Lisowski; George M. Smart; Paul T. Addison; Michael J. Anderson; Steven J. Demetriou; Julia L. Johnson; Donald T. Misheff; Thomas N. Mitchell; James F. O'Neil, III; Christopher D. Pappas; Sandra Pianalto; Luis A. Reyes; Jerry Sue Thornton; Leslie M. Turner; James F. Pearson; Charles E. Jones; Donald Schneider; John Judge, Defendants-Appellants, Nos. 23-3940/3943/3945/3946/3947 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded for further consideration. Between February 21, 2017, and July 21, 2020, FirstEnergy and its most senior executives bankrolled one of the largest corruption and bribery schemes in U.S. history. FirstEnergy paid approximately $60 million to Ohio's former Speaker of the House Larry Householder, the former Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Sam Randazzo, and others via a web of lobbyists, shell companies, and political action committees. In exchange, FirstEnergy received a bailout of its nuclear power plants through Ohio House Bill 6, which delivered approximately $2 billion to FirstEnergy: $1.3 billion in a ratepayer-funded subsidy and $700 million in a 'decoupling' provision that would allow FirstEnergy to charge artificially high rates. The scheme was revealed in 2020 when Householder and his associates were arrested. FirstEnergy stock plunged almost 35% on July 21 and 22, 2020, representing a loss of over $7.68 billion in market capitalization. Additional market cap losses occurred: $1.1 billion on October 29, 2020, and $1.3 billion between November 19 and 24, 2020. The district court denied Defendant's motions to dismiss in March 2022. In June 2022, Plaintiff moved for class certification on behalf of FirstEnergy bondholders and purchasers of FirstEnergy stock between February 21, 2017, and July 21, 2020. The district court certified the class on March 30, 2023. The court held that Plaintiff was entitled to the Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance because it concluded from a review of the relevant misstatements and omissions from Plaintiff's Complaint that the communications at issue are primarily omissions-based. According to Circuit Judge Danny Julian Boggs, the Court of Appeals established that a federal court in the Sixth Circuit, in assessing what a mixed case is 'primarily' based on, must follow a two-step analysis: A. The court must classify each claim or group of claims as alleging either an omission or a misrepresentation. The Court held that both half-truths and generic, aspirational corporate statements are misrepresentations. B. The court must determine whether the case is primarily based on omissions by analyzing four specific factors: (1) The alleged omissions are only the inverse of the misrepresentations, i.e., the only omissions are the truth that is misrepresented; (2) Reliance is in fact possible to prove by pointing to an alleged misrepresentation and connecting it to an injury; (3) The preponderance and primary thrust of the claims involve alleged misrepresentations made by the defendant; or (4) The alleged omissions have no standalone impact apart from any alleged misrepresentations." The Court of Appeals held that if even one of these four factors is satisfied, the mixed case is primarily based on misrepresentations and thus subject to analysis under the Basic presumption. The Court analyzed 13 groupings of section 10(b) claims and classified each as misrepresentations: (a) FirstEnergy's discussions about legislative solutions were classic half-truths because the company represented it was pursuing legislative solutions while omitting critical qualifying information that it was pursuing solutions based in significant part on a bribery arrangement. (b) Compliance assurances were affirmative misstatements because FirstEnergy was claiming that it was complying with regulations while breaking them. (c) Internal control statements were misrepresentations because the company represented that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective, but they could not have been effective if the bribery was going on the whole time." (d) Risk factor disclosures were half-truths because FirstEnergy discussed numerous other Risk Factors but omitted bribery-related risks and uncertainties. The Court of Appeals found all four factors satisfied, making this primarily a misrepresentation case: 1. The omissions are only the inverse of the misrepresentations. The Court noted that for the half-truths in this case, the 'omitted' critical qualifying information does not have standalone impact apart from this case's alleged misrepresentations. 2. "Reliance is in fact possible to prove here" because "Plaintiff can point to a misrepresentation and connect it to the injury." 3. The misrepresentations made by the Defendant are the preponderance and primary thrust of the claims here as evidenced by the extensive misrepresentation allegations. 4. The omissions alleged do not have standalone impact apart from the alleged misrepresentations. The Court found that the district court failed to conduct any analysis at all, let alone a rigorous one, of the Exchange Act claims. The district court concluded without any additional analysis that predominance exists with respect to damages for the same reasons as articulated in the previous section. The Court emphasized that the Securities Act and the Exchange Act calculate damages entirely differently. While the Securities Act provides statutory damage formulas, the Exchange Act lacks any such damage-calculation formula" and requires proof of loss causation. The Court held that this case is therefore subject to analysis under Basic, not Affiliated Ute and that the district court abused its discretion when it incorrectly applied that standard. The Court also held that the district court incorrectly overlooked Comcast's rigorous-analysis requirement in its damages analysis of Plaintiff's Exchange Act claims. The Court of Appeals vacated the class-certification order to the extent that it applied the Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance and remanded for the district court to conduct a proper damages analysis under the standard set forth in Comcast. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appeals Court's opinion establishing new standards for analyzing mixed omission-misrepresentation cases in securities litigation. A copy of the Court of Appeal's Judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RXYf2W from PacerMonitor.com. FLAGGER FORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGGER FORCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01540-KMN (M.D. Pa., Aug. 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees sensitive information, including personally identifiable information including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and protected health information including health insurance information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information—which they entrusted to the Defendant on the mutual understanding that the Defendant would protect it against disclosure—was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the suit. Flagger Force LLC operates as a traffic control company. The Company provides flaggers and traffic management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeldt@kolawyers.com FULFILLMENT LAB: Final OK Hearing of $200,000 Deal Set Nov. 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Action reports that several companies agreed to a $200,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims they falsely advertised InstaKeto, Ultra Fast Keto Boost and Instant Keto products as effective weight-loss solutions. The InstaKeto settlement benefits consumers who were billed for InstaKeto, Ultra Fast Keto Boost or Instant Keto products between Aug. 6, 2016, and June 18, 2025. Plaintiffs in the InstaKeto false advertising class action lawsuit accused several companies of falsely advertising InstaKeto, Ultra Fast Keto Boost and Instant Keto products as effective weight-loss solutions. The defendants allegedly knew these products were ineffective but still marketed them with fake endorsements from celebrities, such as Oprah Winfrey and Ellen DeGeneres. The class action lawsuit was filed against The Fulfillment Lab Inc., Beyond Global Inc., Brightree Holdings Corp., Bmor Global LLC, Richard Nelson, David Flynn, Rickie Joe James and other defendants. The defendants have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $200,000 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the InstaKeto settlement, class members can receive non-monetary benefits. The settlement provides injunctive relief against two of the defendants and requires cooperation from the remaining defendants in a separate class action lawsuit in Florida. Class members who wish to pursue claims against the other defendants in the Florida lawsuit can do so by filing a claim with the Florida settlement administrator. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 19, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the InstaKeto false advertising settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically be included in the settlement. Who's Eligible Consumers who were billed for Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto or InstaKeto products between Aug. 6, 2016, and June 18, 2025. Potential Award Non-monetary relief Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 11/05/2025 Case Name Sihler, et al. v. The Fulfillment Lab Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01528-LL-DDL, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Final Hearing 11/19/2025 Settlement Website KetoPillsLawsuit.com Claims Administrator Keto Products Class Action Administrator P.O. Box 2437 Portland, OR 97208-2437 (888) 680-9759 Class Counsel Kevin Kneupper Cyclone Covey KNEUPPER & COVEY P.C. Defense Counsel Robert Knaier FITZGERALD KNAIER LLP [GN] GENERAC POWER: Court Rejects 401k Fee Comparison Method ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Dereck Case, individually and as a representative of a class, Plaintiff, v. Generac Power Systems, Inc. and The Board of Directors of Generac Power Systems, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1100-pp (E.D. Wis.), Chief United States District Judge Pamela Pepper of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, dismissing the case with prejudice. The Court found that the plaintiff's brief did not squarely address the defendants' argument about the mismatch in comparing the defendants' average fees over the class period to comparators' fees in specific years. The Plaintiff participated in Defendant Generac Power Systems, Inc.'s 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan from 2017 to 2021. The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. The second amended complaint raised two primary claims: 1. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their duty of prudence by failing to ensure that the plan's recordkeeping fees were reasonable and by failing to monitor and evaluate their recordkeeper's performance. 2. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to adequately monitor and evaluate the committee responsible for selecting the plan's recordkeeper and monitoring associated recordkeeping fees. According to the complaint, in 2021 there were approximately 6,953 participants in the defendants' plan, with $253,083,352 in assets under management. The Plaintiff identified the defendant's plan as a large 401(k) Plan, which he says is a plan with between $250 million and $500 million in assets. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants' recordkeeping fees, which he places at an average annual fee of $85 per participant from 2015 to 2022, were unreasonable when compared with the recordkeeping fees of comparable plans, which ranged from $29 to $75 per participant. The Plaintiff claimed that over the class period, the alleged failure to replace Transamerica with a recordkeeper that charged less cost plan participants over $1.1 million in unreasonable and excessive fees. The Defendants advanced several arguments for dismissal: (1) The comparator plans identified in the complaint are not sufficiently comparable in size and assets to the defendants' plan to create a meaningful benchmark of reasonable fees; (2) The plaintiff uses the plan's average fees over eight years as a benchmark, without acknowledging that the plan's fees decreased significantly during that period; (3) The complaint compares only a subset of fees charged by the comparator plans to the total fees charged by the defendants' plan; and (4) The defendant did not err by failing to conduct competitive bidding for RKA services because there is no requirement to do so under ERISA. The Court found a fundamental flaw in the Plaintiff's comparison methodology: "The plaintiff is not comparing apples to apples." The Court explained that "the second amended complaint contains the estimated RKA fees for the defendants' plan for 2015 through 2022 with the plaintiff calculates the average annual RKA fee per participant over that eight-year period as $85." However, it appears that the plaintiff compares that $85 average fee to the comparator plans' per participant fees in specific, unidentified years. The Court determined this was problematic because "what constitutes a reasonable recordkeeping fee may vary from year to year due to inflation or other marketplace factors." The Court noted that the defendants' per-participant RKA fees range from a high of $132 in 2016 to a low of $62 in 2021 and 2022. The Court reasoned: "Perhaps a reasonable fee in 2016 was higher than a reasonable fee in 2021 and 2022. If the comparator plan fees all were from 2016, the defendants' plan fee of $132 in 2016 might be excessive. But if those data points were from 2021 or 2022, the defendants' plan fee of $62 may be within the range of reasonableness." The Court concluded: "Because the plaintiff compares the defendants' average fees over the class period to comparators' fees in specific years, the plaintiff has not created a plausible inference that the defendants' plan fees were excessive compared to comparable large 401(k) plans." Therefore, the court will grant the defendants' motion to dismiss Count I of the second amended complaint. The defendants argue that because the plaintiff's failure to monitor claim is wholly derivative of his duty of prudence claim, the duty-to-monitor claim must fail if the underlying duty of prudence claim fails. The Court agreed. Because the court is dismissing the plaintiff's duty of prudence claim regarding excessive recordkeeping fees, the Court also will grant the motion to dismiss as to the derivative failure to monitor claim (Count II of the second amended complaint). The Court granted dismissal with prejudice, noting this was the plaintiff's fourth version of his complaint. The Court explained that when the plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, he did so with the benefit of the guidance provided in the Seventh Circuit's decision in Hughes II and contended that his second amended complaint met the clarified pleading standard under Hughes II. However, the Court has determined that the second amended complaint does not meet that standard. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wsHJp4 from PacerMonitor.com. GENERAL MOTORS: $2MM Attorney Fees OK'd in Transmission Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rilla Jefferson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp, and Mark Riley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02982-JPM, Judge Jon P. McCalla of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorney's fees and expenses and service awards. Specifically, the Court approved attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $2,035,000 to Plaintiffs' Class Counsel; and service awards in the amount of $10,000 each to Plaintiffs Jefferson and Riley is approved. These cases constitute a consolidated class action against General Motors regarding allegedly defective transmission shifter assemblies in specified Class Vehicles for the two certified classes. Class Counsel has litigated the shift-to-park issue for over six years across multiple jurisdictions and courts. The Settlement Agreement provides for $500 cash payments to each Class Member. There are 5,213 Class Members identified in General Motors' Warranty Data with confirmed ownership of a Class Vehicle. Class Members who paid out of pocket for repairs for the STP Issue can receive an additional reimbursement of up to $375. The payments are either automatic or subject to a straightforward claim process based on the Class Member's identifiability from the relevant General Motors dataset. At the time of the filing of the Motion, the Class Administrator had received 3,551 claims. There is no cap on the number of Class Members who can recover nor is the claim sum diluted by the number of claims. General Motors agrees to pay the Court-authorized awards separate and apart from payments to Plaintiffs. Additionally, General Motors is paying the cost of the notice and administration of the claims process. The Court applied the established legal standard that in a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties' agreement. The primary concern is that the fee awarded be reasonable. When awarding attorney's fees in a class action, the court must make sure that counsel is fairly compensated for the amount of work done as well as for the results achieved. To properly calculate an attorneys' fee award, the district court must start by multiplying the "hours reasonably expended" by "a reasonable hourly rate." This "lodestar" figure presumptively represents a reasonable fee. Generally, the reasonableness of the rates corresponds to the prevailing rates in the relevant community, focuses on the experience, training, and background of the individual attorneys, and is defined as the rate that lawyers of comparable skill and experience can reasonably expect to command within the venue of the court of record. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiffs' Motion. Therefore, the Court need only determine that the requested awards are reasonable and sufficiently supported by documentation provided by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek $2,035,000 in attorney's fees and expenses for their Class Counsel. To determine the reasonableness of an award, courts often consider: (1) The value of the benefit rendered to the plaintiff class; (2) The value of the services on an hourly basis; (3) Whether the services were undertaken on a contingent fee basis; (4) Society's stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and standing of counsel involved on both sides. The Court finds that all the factors support the requested award: (1) The result obtained on behalf of Plaintiffs is substantial in the aggregate and guarantees cash payments for Plaintiffs without the additional expense and risk associated with proceeding to trial. The fee award structure also does not impact fee recovery. (1) The award reflects the reasonable value of Class Counsel's services in this matter. Class Counsel reports 2,283.6 attorney and professional staff hours for extensive and multifaceted litigation efforts for more than six years. Plaintiffs provide sufficient evidence to confirm the number and reasonableness of the hours claimed. Class Counsel's requested hourly rates fall within the prevailing market rates for attorneys of comparable experience in complex class action litigation and have been found reasonable by other courts. Class Counsel's requested multiplier of 1.35 also falls within the range of lodestar multipliers applied in contingent fee cases. The requested award also reflects the continued work Class Counsel will undertake in resolving the claims process. (3) Class Counsel undertook representation of Plaintiffs on a contingent fee basis, undergoing extensive litigation efforts in multiple courts for over six years while bearing the risk of no recovery for those efforts. (4) Awarding Class Counsel the requested amount incentivizes pursuing relief for small claimants in multi-year litigations against major corporations like General Motors. (5) The negotiated settlement resolves a multi-year, multi-state litigation with complex substantive and procedural issues and avoids the unnecessary expense of time and resources in further litigation. (6) Both Plaintiffs' and Defendant's counsel have significant experience litigating class actions and showcased vigorous advocacy in these cases and the settlement thereof. The Court finds there is no need to make additional adjustments to Plaintiffs' requested attorney's fees. First, the requested attorney's fees are reasonable and fairly compensate Class Counsel for the work done as well as for the results achieved." Second, the Parties agree on the amount of attorney's fees pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Court thus finds Class Counsel should be awarded the requested attorney's fees. Plaintiffs also seek a service award of $10,000 each for Jefferson and Riley as the named plaintiffs. Jefferson and Riley have been involved with and supported the litigation efforts in these cases for over six years. Additionally, the requested awards are consistent with others authorized by courts in the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, the Court finds the requested service awards are reasonable and should be awarded to Jefferson and Riley. A copy of the court's order and opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sGubIE from PacerMonitor.com. GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 26, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.B., a minor, by and through his guardian JEN TURNER, C.D.1, C.D.2, and C.D.3 minors, by and through their guardian KIRENDA JOHNSON, E.F.1, and E.F.2, by and through their guardian BARBARA HAYDEN-SEAMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, ADMOB GOOGLE INC., and ADMOB, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-03101-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order extending case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Substantial completion of class certification Nov. 17, 2025 Discovery: Motion for class certification: Jan. 26, 2026 Opposition to motion for class certification: April 27, 2026 Reply in support of motion for class May 18, 2026 Certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: June 11, 2026 Fact discovery cutoff: July 16, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: Sept. 25, 2026 Google operates as a global technology company specializing in internet related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cc5yYp at no extra charge.[CC] GRUBHUB INC: Agrees to Settle False Ads Class Suit for $7.1MM ------------------------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that Grubhub has agreed to a preliminary settlement in which it will pay $7.1 million to restaurants that alleged the company harmed their reputations by falsely advertising that they had partnered with the online food delivery platform. The plaintiffs' lawyers in the class action lawsuit filed the preliminary settlement Tuesday, August 26, and it now awaits a judge's approval, Reuters reported. The class action lawsuit includes a settlement class of about 387,000 restaurants and alleged that by including them on its online platforms without contracts or their consent, Grubhub confused consumers and caused a loss of sale for the restaurants, according to the release. Reached by PYMNTS, a Grubhub spokesperson said in an email that the company had stopped listing restaurants that had not partnered with the company. "While the practices alleged in this case have not been part of our business model for some time, we're pleased to settle this case so we can move forward and continue providing excellent value to the over 415,000 merchants who choose to partner with us every day," the spokesperson said. In another, separate case, Grubhub agreed in December to pay $25 million and make several changes to its operations to settle charges that it violated consumer protection and competition laws. In that case, the Federal Trade Commission and the Illinois attorney general alleged that Grubhub deceived diners about delivery costs, blocked their access to their accounts and funds, deceived workers about how much money they would make delivering foods, and listed restaurants on its platform without their permission. "Today's action holds Grubhub to account, putting an end to these illegal practices and securing nearly $25 million for the people cheated by Grubhub's tactics," Lina M. Khan, who was chair of the FTC at the time, said in a Dec. 17 press release. "There is no 'gig platform' exemption to the laws on the books." Grubhub said at the time in a press release that it cooperated with the FTC during the review of its business and that it would make changes to its platform. "While we categorically deny the allegations made by the FTC, many of which are wrong, misleading or no longer applicable to our business, we believe settling this matter is in the best interest of Grubhub and allows us to move forward," the company said in the release. [GN] GRUBHUB INC: Davitashvili Must File Amended Complaint by Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davitashvili, et al., v. Grubhub Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03000-LAK-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file amended complaint by Sept. 30, 2025. Grubhub is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KeCkHQ at no extra charge.[CC] GUARDIAN LIFE: Dunay Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info --------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN DUNAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06743 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2025) seeks for legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's unlawful disclosure of policyholders' private information to third parties, including Google, for targeted advertising purposes. Plaintiff Dunay brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of all Defendant's policyholders who searched for dental providers on Defendant's website, https://guardiananytime.com. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant intercepts and discloses to Google, LLC individuals' private communications as they seek dental services on its website--without individuals' knowledge or consent. The Defendant achieves this secretly installing complex computer code on the website which serves to track and disclose its patients' activity, in real time, to Google. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America offers dental insurance plans that cover general and cosmetic dentistry, orthodontics, teeth cleanings, dental implants, dentures, and oral surgery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, 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: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com HAPPY HIPPO: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due May 13, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.S., v. HAPPY HIPPO, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02849-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered a scheduling order as follows: The court vacates the initial scheduling conference set for Aug. 25, 2025, and issues this scheduling order. The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than Sept. 8, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. Any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by no later than May 13, 2026. The Plaintiff shall produce his class certification expert(s) for deposition no later than June 10, 2026. The Defendant shall file any opposition to the plaintiff's motion for class certification no later than July 8, 2026. The Defendant shall produce its class certification expert(s) for deposition no later than Aug. 5, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his motion for class certification no later than Sept. 2, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zl2CMz at no extra charge.[CC] HARBOURVEST PARTNERS: Website Violates Privacy Laws, Deol Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- GURMIT DEOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOURVEST PARTNERS, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07621 (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2025) accuses Harbourvest Partners of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Trap and Trace Law. Allegedly, the Defendant has partnered with registered California Data Brokers in order to de-annonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. The Defendant has done this by installing Data Broker Software Development Kits (DBSDKs) on its website. These DBSDKs are designed to track and correlate visitors by capturing electronic impulses designed to identify them, says the suit. Headquartered in Massachusetts, HarbourVest is the proprietor of www.harbourvest.com, a website that offers private equity investment management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com HARRIS: Class Settlement in Alexander Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlements with AMEC Defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc., and -- granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court agrees that the settlement between Plaintiffs and the AMEC Defendants and the settlement between Plaintiffs, the AMEC Defendants, and Newport are fair, reasonable, and adequate; therefore, the settlements are granted final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the motion to award attorney's fees, costs and service awards is granted. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following Class for purposes of rendering judgment on the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement only: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants’ respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Defendants are excluded from the Class. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Amounts (including the interest accruing on the Settlement Amounts prior to distribution), the final total amount to be determined as of the Effective Date, and reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the inception of the case to March 31, 2025, totaling $1,326,003,68. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Representatives service awards in the amount of $20,000 each to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Class. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iGCrWN at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bowen Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04914 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, the Data Breach occurred on September 27, 2024 that lasted until October 3, 2024, was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Personal Information from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack. The Defendant breached its obligations to Plaintiff and class members and was otherwise negligent and reckless because it failed to properly maintain and safeguard its computer systems and data and failed to audit, monitor, or ensure the integrity of its vendor's data security practices, says the suit. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. provides housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance, and food services. The Company offers its services to the health care industry, including nursing homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers, and hospitals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Alyssa D. Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Vyas Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHOK VYAS, on behalf of himself and others who are similarly situated, v. HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-62086-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action class and permitting notification of potential plaintiffs. The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of a collective action class of potential plaintiffs under Counts I and II of his Amended Complaint which allege violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Plaintiff's motion includes an incorporated Memorandum of Law. Plaintiff Vyas further requests that the Court facilitate notification of potential members of the opt-in class of plaintiffs of the pendency of this action by authorizing his counsel to send a Court-approved notice to them. Vyas proposes that the Court conditionally certify a class of opt-in Plaintiffs defined as "All persons who were employed at BMW of Pembroke Pines and engaged in automotive sales at any time during the period from Feb. 16, 2022, to and including Dec. 13, 2022, and who were 40 years of age or older during that period." Holman retails automobile. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NEJymE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald R. McCoy, Esq. DONALD R. McCOY, P. A. 111 S.E. 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 618-6575 Facsimile: (954) 618-6577 E-mail: mccoyesquire@me.com HORIZON LAND: Plaintiffs Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA LUCERO, DONOVAN MCCLURE, and KARIANE AMPARAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HORIZON LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and RYAN HOTCHKISS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00903-JKB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for extension of time to reply and provide them until Aug. 28, 2205 to reply in support of conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Claim and for any such other relief the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiffs filed their class and collective action complaint on March 19, 2025. On June 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Horizon is a professional land management company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Et0cuw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew E. Swan, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. LEVENTHAL SWAN TAYLOR TEMMING PC 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 E-mail: aswan@lstt.law sengelson@lstt.law - and - Vincent Z. Viruni, Esq. VIRUNI | LAW 137 National Plaza, Suite 300 National Harbor, MD 20745 Telephone: (866) 405-1615 Facsimile: (866) 321-1102 E-mail: vviruni@virunilaw.com HSBC BANK: Bid to Decertify Class in Cheng Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JI DONG CHENG, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01551-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cogan entered an order denying HSBC's motion to decertify the class, but granting its motion to amend the class definition. Setting aside any waiver or burden-of-proof issues, Judge Cogan concludes that the class definition should include only those accountholders who made noncash deposits before the terms and conditions were updated. In September 2023, the Court denied Cheng's motion to certify a class on his two remaining claims, a claim for breach of contract and a claim under New York General Business Law section 349. The contract class was defined as follows: "All persons in the United States who opened a Direct Savings Account with HSBC between March 25, 2014, through the date of certification and who made noncash deposits into the account using HSBC’s online portal on a Business Day for which HSBC did not begin to apply interest on the same Business Day the deposits were initiated on the portal or on the first Business Day after a deposit initiated on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday." HSBC provides banking services. A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cD24B6 at no extra charge.[CC] HULL'S SEAFOOD: Drummond Sues Over Website Accessibility Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN DRUMMOND, Plaintiff v. HULL'S SEAFOOD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01551 (M.D. Fla., August 14, 2025), is a class action seeking for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Hull's Seafood, Inc. owns, operates, and/or controls a casual restaurant that features fresh, locally sourced seafood. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Telephone: (347) 268-9533 E-mail: ak@akesqpa.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Extension of Response Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- Extending the deadlines for Plaintiffs to respond to Thornhill defendants' motion for summary judgment and for Thornhill Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes against the Defendants, -- Appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives, and -- appointing class counsel, both currently set for Aug. 21, 2025, by two (2) weeks, until Sept. 4, 2025. On Aug. 7, 2025, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the operative Scheduling Order, Thornhill Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify Classes against the Defendants, appoint Named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoint Class Counsel. Hunter is a debt collection company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RhMrY6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs 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 The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Blumenfeld, Esq. Ashley A. Wetzel, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 100 S. Charles St., Suite 1600 Baltimore, D 21201 Telephone: (443) 392-9400 Facsimile: (443) 392-9499 E-mail: michael.blumenfeld@nelsonmullins.com ashley.wetzel@nelsonmullins.com HUTH BEDROOMS: Davis Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance ----------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Huth Bedrooms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09680 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. Based in Greendale, WI, Huth Bedrooms, Inc. owns and operates the website, Pennymustard.com, which offers indoor furniture, including dining sets, bedroom pieces, sofas, desks, and decor items, for sale. [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 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ICEBERG AIR: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIEL VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ICEBERG AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-00966-KKM-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file motion for class certification from Aug. 20, 2025, to Jan. 20, 2026. Currently, Plaintiff needs time to fully investigate and resolve the instant discovery dispute and possibly issue a subpoena to the Defendant's text message vendor, chirp.com. Whether numbers were specifically registered on the National Do Not Call Registry is an issue that can be resolved through expert analysis once the raw class data being sought by Defendant is produced. On April 16, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint. On April 25, 2025, the Defendant filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the Plaintiff's complaint. On May 20, 2025, the Parties filed their joint case management report. Iceberg offers comprehensive plumbing and HVAC solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gOQlD0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Seeks to File Certain Exhibit Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA NIZEUL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01393-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order sealing Exhibit K filed in connection with the Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of her motion for class certification ("memorandum"). Exhibit K was designed as Attorneys' Eyes Only in the Mondello Action. Accordingly, to comply with the Protective Order in this case and the Mondello Action, the Plaintiff is filing under seal Exhibit K to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties have also stipulated to, and this Court has entered, a stipulated discovery prder allowing the parties to use evidence gathered in related cases Mia Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc., Accretive Technology Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-03579, D.N.J., and Jennifer Mondello v. ICF Technology, Inc., Accretive Technology Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 8:24-CV-01037, M.D. Fla. in the instant action. ICF offers IT services and consulting, focusing on telecommunications and live streaming technology. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Spt6PN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Gaetano J. DiPersia, Esq. McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com gjd@njlegal.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA NIZEUL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01393-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying lawsuit as class action. The proposed Class is defined as follows: "All persons who, at any time from Aug. 29, 2021, continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as Performers for ICF Technology, Inc. and/or Accretive Technology Group, Inc. in Connecticut and were classified as independent contractors under their Performer Agreements." ICF offers IT services and consulting, focusing on telecommunications and live streaming technology. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6fWLuy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Gaetano J. DiPersia, Esq. McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com gjd@njlegal.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com INTEGON GENERAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Underinsured Motorists ------------------------------------------------------------------ ClaimDepot reports that drivers insured under a Pennsylvania Integon General Insurance Corp. policy who made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits that Integon denied because it reduced their UIM benefits by the amount paid by the at-fault driver's bodily injury coverage may qualify to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Integon General Insurance Corp. agreed to provide settlement benefits to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it improperly denied UIM claims by applying an invalid policy provision that reduced available UIM benefits by the tortfeasor's bodily injury payment. Who are the class members? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They were injured in a motor vehicle accident. -- They were insured under a Pennsylvania Integon policy providing underinsured motorist coverage in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. -- They made a claim for recovery of UIM benefits under their Integon policy. Integon denied their claim for UIM benefits because it applied a policy provision that reduced their available UIM benefits by the amount paid by the at-fault driver's bodily injury coverage. The settlement administrator identified 21 class members based on Integon's records. Those who received a notice are likely members of the class. How much is the Integon payout? Class members who qualify and submit a valid claim form may receive: -- UIM coverage benefits up to the policy declaration value for UIM coverage on the Integon policy in question -- An additional enhancement of 20% of the compensatory award How to claim a class action rebate Class members can file a claim online or download, print and complete a PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 13, 2025 Settlement administrator's mailing address: Integon UIM Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 What information is required to submit a claim? -- All class members must provide the notice ID and confirmation code located on their settlement notice. -- They must also provide their policyholder information, the date and location of loss, their policy number and their prior claim number. Payout options -- Paper check Settlement fund breakdown: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: $175,000 -- Service award to class representative: $5,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 13, 2025 -- Exclusion (opt-out) deadline: Oct.13, 2025 -- Final approval (fairness) hearing: Dec. 18, 2025 When is the Greenwald v. Integon General Insurance Corp. payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court grants final approval. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Integon General Insurance Corp. denied underinsured motorist benefits claims by applying a policy provision that reduced UIM benefits by the amount paid by the at-fault driver's bodily injury coverage. The parties agreed to settle to provide compensation to affected policyholders and avoid further expense and uncertainty. [GN] IVE NATION: Heckman Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKOT HECKMAN, LUIS PONCE, JEANENE POPP, and JACOB ROBERTS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and TICKETMASTER LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting request that the Court enter an Order permitting the documents in support of motion for class certification to be filed under seal, provided that redacted versions of these documents shall remain publicly accessible. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2, this Court's Individual Procedures, and the Stipulated Amended Protective Order entered in this case on July 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, apply to file the following documents in Section I. conditionally under seal, and to file the document in Section II. under seal. Live is an American multinational entertainment company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v7URu8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. William R. Sears, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com willsears@quinnemanuel.com brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com - and - Warren D. Postman, Esq. Jessica B. Beringer, Esq. Alexios J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 918-1123 E-mail: wdp@kellerpostman.com Jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com JAMES MERRILL: Default Judgment Bid Filing Extended in Guevara -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guevara v. James Merrill, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-40156 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 24, 2014), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of suit states Consumer Credit -- Securities Fraud.[CC] JARED HOY: Filing for Class Cert. in Huber Due Jan. 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HUBER, v. JARED HOY and GARY BOUGHTON, Case No. 3:24-cv-00404-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order: -- Motion for class certification and Jan. 15, 2026 opening class expert disclosures: -- Response and respondent class expert Feb. 19, 2026 disclosures: Reply: March 6, 2026 -- Deadline for filing dispositive July 14, 2026 motions: -- Discovery Cutoff: Nov. 11, 2026 -- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and Dec. 2, 2026 all motions in limine: Objections: Dec. 23, 2026 -- First Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 12, 2027 -- Second Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 19, 2027 -- Trial: Jan. 25, 2027 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q6VTXN at no extra charge.[CC] JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE: Settles Data Misuse Suit With Vouchers ------------------------------------------------------------ James Robinson, writing for The Leader, reports that Jefferson Healthcare patients who accessed the agency's website between March 19, 2020 and March 19, 2024 may be entitled to a voucher for cyber security software following settlement of a class action lawsuit in August. According to Jefferson Healthcare, a settlement was reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that the defendant, Jefferson County Public Hospital District No. 2 allegedly implemented and used Meta Pixel or similar tracking technologies on its website, which, the plaintiff alleges, required a website usage disclosure. Meta Pixel, (also known as Facebook Pixel) is code that can be added to a website that helps the installer, or website manager, track responses to advertising and other actions people take on a website, like visiting a page or adding an item to their cart. The installer or website manager can also see when customers took an action after seeing an ad on Facebook and Instagram, which can help the website manager with retargeting advertising. The hospital district denies all of the plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit and maintains that they did nothing wrong, but have agreed to the settlement to avoid expense, burden and uncertainties associated with continuing the case, according to Jefferson Healthcare. According to settlement documents, settlement class members include those who were patients of Jefferson Healthcare between March 19, 2020, and March 19, 2024, and visited the Jefferson Healthcare website, jeffersonhealthcare.org, in the same time frame. Persons included in the settlement, according to settlement documents, will be eligible to submit a settlement claim form to receive a voucher for a 12-month subscription for CyEx Privacy Shield. CyEx Privacy Shield is a product designed to help victims of data misuse restore their privacy and anonymity, by monitoring, encrypting and removing personal information from the internet to reduce a consumer's digital footprint over time. Additionally, the settlement indicates that Jefferson Healthcare is not currently using Meta Pixel code on its website, and has agreed not to use it for the next two years, unless it is determined that its use is consistent with applicable law at the time and Jefferson Healthcare discloses in the privacy statement on the website that Meta Pixel is being used on the website. [GN] KATIA WANZELER: Default Judgment Bid Filing Extended in Magalhaes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Magalhaes v. Katia Wanzeler, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-12437 (D. Mass., Filed June 9, 2014), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of suit states Securities / Commodities / Exchange.[CC] KEKES FRANCHISE: Evans Sues Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- MAKEDA EVANS, Plaintiff v. KEKES FRANCHISE ORGANIZATION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00237-MW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., August 14, 2025) is a class action seeking for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website, https://www.kekes.com, contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Moreover, individuals with visual disabilities are denied full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, information, and services that Defendant has made available to the public on the website and in the physical locations, says the suit. Kekes Franchise Organization LLC owns and operates a chain of over 70 U.S.-based restaurants under the name Keke's Breakfast Cafe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Telephone: (347) 268-9533 E-mail: ak@akesqpa.com KEYSTONE REMODELING: Class Cert Bid in Muruch Suit Due Sept. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murch v. Keystone Remodeling, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00064 (D. Or. Filed Jan. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time as follows: -- Any motion for class certification and/or default judgment must be filed by Sept. 17, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Keystone is a family-owned and operated general contractor company that specializes in complete outdoor remodeling & renovation. [CC] KROLL RESTRUCTURING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Repko Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB KEVYN REPKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KROLL RESTRUCTURING ADMINISTRATION LLC (f/k/a Prime Clerk LLC), Defendant, Case No. No. 1:25-cv-01319 is a data-breach and negligent-administration class action arising from Kroll's August 19, 2023 security incident and its subsequent failure to administer creditor-facing processes and notices with reasonable care in three large crypto bankruptcies—FTX, BlockFi, and Genesis. According to the complaint, Kroll's breach exposed, among other fields, names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, claim identifiers, amounts, and copies of proof-of-claim forms—precisely the metadata criminals exploit to target crypto victims with phishing and "wrench" attacks. Kroll failed to deploy obvious safeguards—First-Class Mail for rights-critical notices, mailed confirmations of status changes, a manual non-gated tax-form path, change-control hardening (mailed codes to the existing address; cooling-off periods; manual review of switches to recently created ProtonMail accounts), and dark-web monitoring—was an extreme departure from ordinary care in the face of a high likelihood of serious harm to a population whose PII was sealed precisely to avoid phishing and physical targeting, says the suit. Kroll, LLC operates as a risk and financial advisory company. The Company offers forensic accounting, valuation, merger and acquisition advisory, restructuring, transaction diligence, litigation consulting, electronic evidence and data recovery, cyber threat intelligence, investigations, emergency management, and related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Andrew Hall, Esq. HALL ATTORNEYS, P.C. P.O. Box 1370 Edna, TX 77957 Telephone: (713) 428-8967 Email: nhall@hallattorneys.com L'OREAL USA: Fails to Disclose Info About Wages, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassActiom.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that L'Oreal violated Washington law by failing to disclose information about wages, benefits and other compensation in postings for available positions in the state. According to the 11-page lawsuit, L'Oreal USA and several affiliates, including Saloncentric and Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics, ran afoul of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, which mandates that any job posting made by an employer with 15 or more employees must detail what sort of wage scale or salary range, compensation and benefits will be offered to the hired applicant. The lawsuit claims the defendants' alleged failure or refusal to comply with EPOA regulations is discriminatory and violates applicants' civil rights, as it leaves them unable to compare the pay and benefits of open positions on the market. Per the complaint, the withholding of pay range information is especially harmful to applicants who may not have the ability to negotiate salaries or have an existing socio-economic disadvantage. The transparency required by the EPOA, the filing says, forces employers to agree in writing to a pay range and benefits before encountering any applicants, which helps mitigate the likelihood that applicants will face a discriminatory wage gap. Per the case, pay range disclosures also allow employees and applicants to discover if they are being or will be underpaid and protect applicants from wasting valuable time applying and interviewing for a position only to find out late in the process that they cannot live on the offered pay. The L'Oreal class action lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, between January 1, 2023 and the date of the court certifies the class, applied for a job opening in Washington, where the job posting did not disclose the salary range or wage scale and a general description of benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant, with one of the following companies: -- L'Oreal USA, Inc.; -- L'Oreal Travel Retail Americas, Inc.; -- L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc.; -- Saloncentric Inc.; or -- Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company. [GN] LAS PRINCESAS: Court Certifies Two Classes in Hernadez Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALBERTO HERNANDEZ LARA, ISMAEL LORENZO PEREZ, LEONEL SANTIAGO GOMEZ, and URIEL HERNÁNDEZ ESPINOZA, v. LAS PRINCESAS CORPORATION, MARTHA ZEFERINO JOSÉ, and THE TANKARD NURSERIES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00346-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Jamar K. Walker entered an order granting unopposed motion for conditional class certification, appointment of class counsel, preliminary approval of the parties’ flsa settlement and class settlement, approval of notice plan, and scheduling of final hearing. The Court will certify, solely for the purposes of effectuating the proposed settlements, the following Settlement Classes: Las Princesas Class "All individuals who were brought to the U.S. by the Defendant Las Princesas to perform agricultural work under H-2A contracts in the U.S. between May 29, 2021, and Sept. 9, 2024." Tankard Class "All individuals who were brought to the U.S. as H-2A workers by the Las Princesas Corporation and/or Martha Zerefino José and who performed work for The Tankard Nurseries Inc. between May 29, 2021, and the present." Excluded from the Settlement Classes are: (1) the Judge and Magistrate Judge presiding over the lawsuits, any members of the Judges' respective staffs and immediate members of the Judges’ respective families; (2) officers, directors, members and shareholders of the defendants; (3) persons who timely and validly request exclusion from and/or opt out of the Settlement Classes and the successors and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing at 2:30pm on Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025, at the courthouse in Norfolk. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e)(2). A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AqjUtE at no extra charge.[CC] LAS VEGAS: Myers Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK MYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a political subdivision of the state of Nevada; JASON BROOKS, individually; SERGIO GUZMAN, individually; and JASON POTTS, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-00562-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class action certification. The Plaintiff move the Court to certify case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(b)(1) (or alternatively or conjunctively, Rule 23(c)(4)). Mr. Myers also moves the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief and Rule 23(b)(3) or, in the alternative, Rule 23(c)(4) for damages, and appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Breeden & Associates, PLLC, as class counsel under Rule 23(g). The case challenges an ongoing and systemic pattern of alleged Constitutional violations by the City of Las Vegas and its City Marshals, who have been conducting law enforcement activities— including traffic stops, detentions, searches, and arrests—far beyond their limited territorial jurisdiction permitted by Nevada Revised Statutes section 280.125(3) and Las Vegas Municipal Code section 2.28.080. The proposed Injunctive Relief Class is defined as: "All persons who have in the past been detained, are currently at risk of being detained, or are in the future detained, searched, arrested, or cited by City of Las Vegas Marshals outside of areas "owned, leased or otherwise under the control" of the City of Las Vegas, in violation of NRS section 280.125 and Las Vegas Municipal Code section 2.28.080." The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3), defined as: "All persons who, within two years prior to the filing of the complaint, were detained, searched, arrested, or punished by fine or incarceration due to law enforcement actions undertaken by City of Las Vegas Marshals outside the territorial jurisdictional limits of real property "owned, leased or otherwise under the control" of the City of Las Vegas, in violation of NRS section 280.125 and Las Vegas Municipal Code section 2.28.080." Las Vegas is an internationally renowned major resort city, known primarily for its gambling, shopping, fine dining, entertainment, and nightlife. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tQEweH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Breeden, Esq. Alyssa Piraino, Esq. BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 819-7770 Facsimile: (702) 819-7771 E-mail: Adam@Breedenandassociates.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Breach of Contract Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Maria Badin, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-163-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Robert S. Huie of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief as well as Plaintiff's claim based on the 'fraudulent' prong of the Unfair Competition Law, but denied the motion in all other respects. This is a putative class action filed against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Insurance Corporation, and Doe defendants for alleged breach of homeowners' insurance policies. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all owners of Liberty Mutual homeowners' insurance policies who were denied renewal based on a condition of their property that was misrepresented by Liberty Mutual. In August 2024, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendants stating that her homeowners' insurance policy would not be renewed. The notice stated the reason for nonrenewal was the presence of 'algae/mildew/mold/moss' on the roof of her house. The Plaintiff made efforts to resolve the matter with the Defendants but was unsuccessful. In September 2024, Plaintiff hired an independent, licensed roofing company to inspect her roof. Plaintiff's roofing company reported that her roof was 'in incredible shape' with no evidence of algae, mold, moss, or mildew. Despite providing this report to the Defendants, they maintained that the nonrenewal decision remains valid for this policy. The Plaintiff ultimately obtained coverage through the California FAIR plan, where she pays higher costs and receives a reduced quality of coverage. The case was originally filed in state court on December 19, 2024, and was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act on January 23, 2025. The Court previously denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Amended Complaint brings claims for: (1) Breach of contract; (2) Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (3) Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Regarding Article III standing, the Court addressed two arguments. First, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff lacked standing against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company because she was not insured by either entity. The Court rejected this argument, stating it would not reflect a lack of injury to Plaintiff or deprive Plaintiff of standing. However, the Court granted the motion regarding injunctive relief, finding that the Plaintiff lacks standing because she does not allege facts to indicate a sufficient likelihood that she will be wronged in a similar way in the future. The Court noted that Plaintiff is no longer a Liberty Mutual policyholder, and she has not established she is at risk of future nonrenewal of a Liberty Mutual policy. Therefore, the Court "grants Defendants' 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief." The Court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff has not pointed to any policy provision that was breached. However, the Court found that Plaintiff's theory of breach is based on a violation of Section 678 of the California Insurance Code, which is incorporated as a matter of law into the insurance contract. Section 678 requires insurers to provide the specific reason or reasons for the nonrenewal. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants breached this requirement by failing to provide the specific reason or reasons for nonrenewal, and instead providing false and pretextual reasons. Regarding which entities could be held liable, the Court found that despite document ambiguities, Plaintiff has adequately alleged the collective action of Defendants, and the ambiguity of their corporate relationships, in a manner that warrants denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss the contract claim as to any Defendant. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. The Defendants argued that they had no contractual or statutory duty to renew, and therefore, a failure to do so cannot constitute bad faith. However, the Court clarified that Plaintiff's theory of breach of implied covenant is not that Defendants breached a statutory duty to renew the policy, but rather than they acted in bad faith in providing false and pretextual reasons for not renewing the policy. For the UCL claims, the Court granted the motion in part. The Court denied the motion regarding the unlawful and unfair prongs, concluding that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of Section 678. However, the Court granted the motion regarding the fraudulent prong, finding that the Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded the reliance required for a claim under the 'fraudulent' prong of the UCL. The Court explained that under California law, there is an actual reliance requirement on plaintiffs prosecuting a private enforcement action under the UCL's fraud prong." The Court denied the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations, determining that these arguments are premature at the motion to dismiss stage." The Court noted that "Rule 12(b)(6) is an inappropriate vehicle for challenging class claims because a class action is a procedural device and not a claim for relief. The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend, stating that it cannot determine that such amendment would be futile. The Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order, limited to addressing the deficiencies identified in this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MRcJhq from PacerMonitor.com. LIFEMD INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- A securities fraud class action lawsuit styled Johnston v. LifeMD, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-04761 (E.D.N.Y) has been filed and seeks to represent LifeMD (NASDAQ: LFMD) investors who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD securities between May 7, 2025 and August 5, 2025. The lawsuit comes after LifeMD reported disappointing Q2 2025 financial results and reduced its outlook which it raised just three months earlier. The company's earnings disclosures have prompted national shareholders rights firm Hagens Berman to open an investigation into whether LifeMD may have violated the securities laws. The firm urges investors in LifeMD who suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages persons with knowledge who may be able to assist in the investigation to contact its attorneys. Class Period: May 7, 2025 - Aug. 5, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 27, 2025 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/lfmd LifeMD, Inc. (LFMD) Securities Class Action: The litigation is focused on the propriety of LifeMD's statements on May 6, 2025, when the company reported its Q1 2025 financial results and raised its full year 2025 revenue and adjusted EBITDA guidance. Among the reasons for the guidance raise, LifeMD said that it "created a category-defining competitive moat in virtual obesity care" and "[o]ur RexMD brand continues to perform exceptionally well, with consistent growth in both revenue and active patient count." During the earnings call that day, LifeMD management also touted its collaborations with LillyDirect and NovoCare to improve access to obesity care patients without insurance coverage and assured investors that it "takes a relatively conservative view to revenue." The complaint alleges that LifeMD made false and misleading statements while failing to disclose crucial information to investors while insiders sold significant amounts of their LifeMD shares. More specifically, the complaint claims that LifeMD (1) materially overstated its competitive position and (2) was reckless in raising its 2025 guidance, because that it did not consider rising customer acquisition costs in its RexMD segment and costs related to the sale of drugs intended to treat obesity. Investors learned the truth on August 5, 2025, when LifeMD surprised investors with its Q2 2025 financial results, missing consensus GAAP EPS and revenue consensus estimates, reduced revenue guidance given in May 2025 by about 6.7% and 7.3% on the low- and high-ends, respectively, and slashed its adjusted EBITDA guidance (also given in May) by about 13% and 12% on the low- and high-ends, respectively. During the earnings call that day, management noted that the company's weight management "has been impacted by a higher than anticipated refund rate, driven by patients either lacking insurance coverage for their medications or being unable to afford the out-of-pocket cost of branded therapies." Perhaps more seriously, as to RexMD, LifeMD said "we experienced a challenging second quarter, primarily due to temporary elevated customer acquisition costs in the highly competitive ED market." This news drove the price of LifeMD shares crashing $5.31 (-44%) on August 6, 2025. Hagens Berman's Investigation Hagens Berman, a prominent shareholder rights firm, is investigating these claims. "We're investigating whether LifeMD may have recklessly guided on May 6, 2025, while its weight management was experiencing higher refund rates and RexMD was experiencing elevated acquisition costs," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding LifeMD should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email LFMD@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. (844) 916-0895 LFMD@hbsslaw.com[GN] LINE5 LLC: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Friel Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH FRIEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LINE 5, LLC and HEADSTART WARRANTY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01866-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Munley will deny JEA's motion to strike class plaintiff's allegations and motion to trifurcate discovery. Line5 thus has not demonstrated a valid reason to strike Friel's class allegations based on the potential breadth of the proposed classes. Unlike JEA, which has been dismissed, Defendant Line5 filed an answer to Friel's complaint. Line5's answer does not raise any defenses unique to Friel's individual claims, only defenses common across the putative TCPA classes. Line5 has not otherwise demonstrated why Friel's specific TCPA claims would be any different from the claims of the putative class members. The court thus sees no reason to bifurcate, trifurcate, or otherwise order that discovery be conducted in phases at this time. Accordingly, the discovery motion will be denied, and this case will be scheduled for a case management conference. This putative class action case involves automated telephone calls allegedly sent by companies selling, guaranteeing, and/or financing vehicle service contracts, otherwise known as extended car warranties. After receiving numerous unsolicited extended-warranty calls over a two-month period, Plaintiff Joseph Friel filed this action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227, ("TCPA"), seeking to represent a nationwide class of robocall recipients and a class of recipients on the National Do Not Call Registry ("DNCR"). Friel's Robocall Class is defined as: "All persons in the United States who, (1) within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until the class is certified (2) received one or more calls on their cellular telephone or any other protected telephone service (3) from or on behalf of JEA Management Services d/b/a Covered Auto, Headstart Warranty Group LLC, or Line 5, LLC, (4) sent using the same, or substantially similar, pre recorded message used to contact the Plaintiff." Friel's DNCR Class is defined as: "All persons within the United States: (1) whose residential telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days; (2) but who received more than one telephone solicitation call from the Defendants or a third party acting on Defendants' behalf; (3) within a 12 month period; (4) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint." Line 5 provides financing for protection products. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o6Vkhe at no extra charge.[CC] LITE STAR: Chea Seeks Initial Approval of $2.25MM Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linna Chea, on behalf of the Lite Star, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. LITE STAR ESOP COMMITTEE, B-K LIGHTING, INC., NATHAN SLOAN, KATHLEEN A. HAGEN, KATHLEEN A. HAGEN, as legal successor to DOUGLAS W. HAGEN, ESTATE OF DOUGLAS W. HAGEN, MIGUEL PAREDES, and PRUDENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes; (2) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement; (3) directing the Settlement Administrator to send notice to Class Members; (4) Setting deadlines for the motion for final approval and the motion for attorneys' fees, expense reimbursements, and service award; (5) Setting the deadline for objections; and (6) Setting the date/time for the Fairness Hearing. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 27, 2023. The proposed Settlement Class consists of: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Lite Star, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan at any time for its inception until Dec. 31, 2024 (unless they terminated employment without vesting)." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the individual Defendants and their family members or beneficiaries. The Settlement provides $2.25 million of estimated aggregate economic value to the ESOP and its participants (prior to deductions for attorneys' fees, costs, settlement administration and a service award). The Lite Star ESOP Committee was the ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) management committee for B-K Lighting Inc.'s Lite Star ESOP. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=szdqRN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com LIVE NATION: Heckman 'Ticket Purchase' Suit Seeks Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKOT HECKMAN, LUIS PONCE, JEANENE POPP, and JACOB ROBERTS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and TICKETMASTER LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 4, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting their motion for class certification and appointment of co-lead class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek entry of an order: (1) certifying a proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class (the "Class"); (2) appointing the Plaintiffs Mr. Ponce, Ms. Popp, and Mr. Roberts as representatives of the Class; and (3) appointing Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Keller Postman LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs therefore seek to certify the following class: "All purchasers in the United States who directly purchased a primary ticket and paid associated fees for primary ticketing services for an event at a major concert venue in the United States from Ticketmaster or one of its affiliated entities owned, directly or indirectly, by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. at any point since 2010." Live is an American multinational entertainment company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dysu81 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. William R. Sears, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com willsears@quinnemanuel.com brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com - and - Warren D. Postman, Esq. Jessica B. Beringer, Esq. Alexios J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 918-1123 E-mail: wdp@kellerpostman.com Jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com LIVE NATION: Heckman's Bid to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKOT HECKMAN, LUIS PONCE, JEANENE POPP, and JACOB ROBERTS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and TICKETMASTER LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application to file under seal certain documents in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Live is an American multinational entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZkHmWy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. William R. Sears, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com willsears@quinnemanuel.com brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com - and - Warren D. Postman, Esq. Jessica B. Beringer, Esq. Alexios J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 918-1123 E-mail: wdp@kellerpostman.com Jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com LORAIN, OH: Judge Must Reconsider Utility Class Suit Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave O'Brien, writing for The Chronicle-Telegram, shares his thoughts about a ruling from an appeals court that a Lorain County Common Pleas judge must reconsider whether a yearslong legal battle over Lorain's water and sewer rates can proceed as a class action lawsuit potentially affecting thousands of customers. A three-judge panel of the 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron ruled 2-1 in favor of six plaintiffs who sued Lorain, Lorain City Council, the county Board of Commissioners, county Regional Airport Authority, the city of Elyria and the Ohio Attorney General's Office in 2020 in Common Pleas Court. The plaintiffs tried twice in the last three years to get judges to certify their lawsuit as a "class action." That's a lawsuit brought by a small number of plaintiffs on behalf of a larger number of plaintiffs, all of whom have allegedly been harmed in the same way. Judge Mark Betleski declined to certify a class action in 2022 and Judge Melissa Kobasher, who inherited the case from Betleski after he retired, declined to do so in 2024. The plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court ordered Kobasher to reconsider if the plaintiffs meet the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure. Those requirements include "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law or fact common to the class; the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Judge Donna Carr, in an opinion joined by Judge Betty Sutton, ordered Kobasher to do a "rigorous analysis" before ruling again. The lawsuit alleged that utility customers were overcharged, charged burdensome fees and that Lorain illegally transferred funds. The lawsuit also asked that a trust be set up to hold water and sewer payments and legal rulings on Lorain's utility tap-in fees and current rate structure. The lawsuit sought $41 million in refunds from the city. Attorney Gerald Phillips said the lawsuit was filed not just on behalf of his six clients but on behalf of approximately 22,000 "taxpayers, citizens, residents and water and/or sewer rate payers and customers for the Lorain Utilities Department" who were charged water and sewer fees by Lorain since May 2012. Judge Jennifer Hensal disagreed with Carr and Sutton's conclusion. "The trial court’s analysis of those requirements was qualified: It anticipated the problems later identified with respect to whether there is, in fact, an identifiable and unambiguous class" that was affected, she wrote in a dissent. "I cannot concur with the implication that the trial court has not conducted the rigorous analysis required." The appeals court declined to hear six other legal arguments the plaintiffs made as "not properly before us at this time." Messages seeking comment on the ruling were left for the plaintiffs' attorneys, the Lorain Law Department and the Lorain County Prosecutor's Office. Elyria Law Director Amanda Deery said she was aware of the appeal and ruling, but the city of Elyria didn't participate in it and she didn't have any comment. The state attorney general's office also was not named in the appeals court ruling. [GN] LOUIS VUITTON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Butler-Adams Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL BUTLER-ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case 1:25-cv-07109 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiffs and Class Members' names, contact information, address, date of birth, passport or government ID number (collectively defined herein as "Private Information"). According to the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the 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, says the suit. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. retail sale of luggage, trunks, and leather goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonal Jain, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: sjain@sirillp.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com LOUISVILLE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Craft Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA CRAFT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUISVILLE HEALTHCARE, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00130-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., August 14, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant at the nursing home in Louisville, Mississippi, operated by Defendants until approximately August of 2024. The Plaintiff and all other hourly, non-exempt employees frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and all their hourly, non-exempt employees one- and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week by failing to properly include shift differentials and other non-discretionary pay in the calculation of weekly regular rate of pay. Louisville Healthcare, LLC operates nursing homes in the state of Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com MARIO'S AIR: Must File Class Cert. Bid Opposition by Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germain v. Mario's Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00671 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. -- No later than Sept. 15, 2025, the Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's class certification motion. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant provides AC installation, AC repair, and AC maintenance services.[CC] MONARCH RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wilson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- CHET WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04845-JFM (E.D. Pa., Aug. 24, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. operates as a collection agency. The Company provides debt recovery services such as new placement review, advanced skip tracing, and arranging promises to pay, as well as offers speech analytics, online payment portal, full call recording, and flexible collection systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com MOUNT SINAI: $5.2MM Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Oct. 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Mitchell, writing for Yahoo News, reports that Mount Sinai Health System has agreed to a $5.2 million class action settlement after patient information was allegedly leaked on Facebook through the use of tracking tools. The settlement benefits individuals who logged into their Mount Sinai MyChart accounts between Oct. 27, 2020, and Oct. 27, 2023. Class members can receive a cash payment. The amount will vary depending on the number of claims filed. The final approval hearing is scheduled for Oct. 24, 2025. Mount Sinai has not admitted any wrongdoing. [GN] NUTEX HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutex Health Inc. ("Nutex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NUTX) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 25-cv-03999, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Nutex securities between August 8, 2024 and August 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Nutex securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. Nutex is a physician-led, healthcare services and operations company that began publicly trading via a reverse merger in April 2022. The Company operates through three divisions: a hospital division comprised of 24 hospital facilities in 11 states, a population health management division, and real estate. Nutex generally operates as an out-of-‎network provider and generates revenue, in part, from contracts with patients and, in most cases, a third-party payor such as commercial insurance, workers compensation insurance or, in limited cases, Medicare or Medicaid. According to Nutex, on average, greater than 90% of its net patient service revenue is paid by third-party payors. Prior to 2022, if a patient with health insurance received care from an out-of-network provider, even unknowingly, the patient's health plan might not have covered the entire out-of-network cost, leaving the patient with higher costs than if the care had come from an in-network provider. In addition to any out-of-network cost sharing the patient might have owed, the out-of-network provider could bill the patient for the difference between the billed charge and the amount the patient's health plan paid, unless banned by state law -- a practice called "balance billing". An unexpected balance bill from an out-of-network provider is frequently referred to as a "surprise bill." In December 2020, to curb surprise out-of-network billing, Congress enacted the No Surprises Act ("NSA"). The NSA, which took effect January 1, 2022, requires private health plans to cover out-of-network claims and apply in-network cost sharing, and prohibits doctors, hospitals, and other covered providers from billing patients more than the in-network cost sharing amount for surprise medical bills. In addition, the NSA established an independent dispute resolution ("IDR") process to determine out-of-network payment amounts between health plans and providers when open negotiations fail to result in an agreed-upon payment amount. In the IDR process, the provider and health plan each submit a proposed payment amount and ‎‎additional information supporting their payment offers to an arbitrator, a certified IDR entity. The arbitrator must select one of the two proposed payment amounts, taking into ‎account the ‎‎"qualifying payment amount" ("QPA") -- the median contract rate for like specialties in the same geographical market -- and additional circumstances including, among other things, the level of training, outcomes ‎‎measurements of the facility, the acuity of the individual treated, and the case mix and scope of services of the ‎facility ‎providing the service. Initially, as an out-of-network provider, Nutex's business suffered after the NSA went into effect. Specifically, because cost sharing under the statute is generally based on the median in-network rate a health plan pays for a service, the NSA prevented Nutex from charging patients higher prices for its services through out-of-network billing. Indeed, in March 2023, Nutex reported that "[s]ince the NSA became effective [. . .] our average payment by insurers of patient claims for emergency services has declined by approximately 30% including as much as a 37% reduction for physician services." The Company stated that, "[i]n our experience, insurers often initially pay amounts lower than the QPA without regard for other information relevant to the claim. This requires us to make appeals using the IDR process." In response, in July 2024, the Company engaged with HaloMD, a "third-party IDR vendor," to "assist in the recovery of certain out of network claims" in the IDR process. While Nutex did not disclose the identity of its third-party IDR vendor to investors at that time, the Company shortly thereafter began to tout the success of its "arbitration strategy" in increasing its revenues. For example, in August 2024, Nutex stated that it "believe[s] [] there is a lot of potential incremental value and revenue to be gained from arbitration" and "[i]n recent articles and public data, we are seeing that providers are prevailing 70% to 80% of the time in arbitration." Then, in March 2025, announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2024 results, Nutex reported that "[t]otal revenue increased $232.3 million to $479.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2024" and that "[t]he arbitration process resulted in approximately $169.7 million more in revenue in 2024 than in 2023, which amounted to approximately 73.1% of the $232.3 million revenue increase." At all relevant times, the Company has identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. Specifically, Nutex has acknowledged that it had "[i]neffective design, implementation, and operation controls over logical access, program change management, and vendor management controls," that "[b]usiness process controls across all financial reporting processes were not effectively designed and implemented to properly address the risk of material misstatement, including controls without proper segregation of duties between preparer and reviewer and key management review controls," and "[i]neffective design and implementation of controls over the completeness and accuracy of information included in key spreadsheets supporting the financial statements." However, Nutex has consistently represented that it has "started the process of designing and implementing effective internal control measures to remediate the reported material weaknesses." The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HaloMD was achieving lucrative arbitration results for Nutex by engaging in a coordinated scheme to defraud insurance companies; (ii) as a result, to the extent that they were the product of fraudulent conduct, revenues attributable to the Company's engagement with HaloMD in the IDR process were unsustainable; (iii) in addition, the Company overstated the extent to which it had remediated, and/or its ability to remediate, the material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (iv) as a result, the Company was unable to effectively account for the treatment of certain of its stock based compensation obligations; (v) as a result, Nutex improperly calculated these stock based compensation obligations as equity rather than liabilities; (vi) the foregoing increased the risk that the Company would be unable to timely file certain financial reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); (vii) accordingly, Nutex's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (viii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 22, 2025, Blue Orca Capital ("Blue Orca") issued a short report on Nutex (the "Blue Orca Report" or the "Report"). The Blue Orca Report alleged, among other things, that "HaloMD achieved dramatically lucrative results for clients like Nutex by engaging in a coordinated fraudulent scheme to steal millions of dollars from insurance companies on behalf of and in conjunction with its healthcare billing clients." Specifically, Blue Orca referenced three recent "[b]ombshell [l]awsuits" filed against HaloMD. The lawsuits, brought variously by Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia, Inc., Community Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company and Blue Cross of California d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross, allege that HaloMD violated various federal and state laws by submitting false attestations of eligibility and initiating massive volumes of IDR disputes. As summarized by Blue Orca, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits accused HaloMD and its clients of "flooding the arbitration system with thousands of claims that they knew at the time of submission to be ineligible" and alleging that HaloMD was able to garner improper payments by "falsely attesting to the eligibility of claims and [. . .] improperly inflating payment offers that far exceeded the amounts to which providers should have been entitled." Accordingly, Blue Orca concluded that "it may just be a matter of time before another suit is filed against HaloMD, this time including Nutex," and "[o]nce Nutex can no longer use the NSA arbitration system to receive unsustainably high reimbursement rates, our suspicion is that Nutex will return to penny stock status." Following publication of the Blue Orca Report, Nutex's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or 10.05%, to close at $100.01 per share on July 22, 2025. On July 24, 2025, Nutex issued a press release responding to the Blue Orca Report, stating that it "strongly disagrees with the allegations in the report" and that it "expects to provide related updates in its upcoming earnings release and Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2025 due on or before August 14, 2025." However, after the market closed on August 14, 2025, Nutex announced that it would "delay filing its Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2025", citing "non-cash accounting adjustments related to the treatment of stock-based compensation obligations for certain under-construction and ramping hospitals, as disclosed in previous filings." When Nutex failed to rebut the allegations of the Blue Orca Report, the Company's stock price fell $18.22 per share, or 16.39%, to close at $92.91 per share on August 15, 2025. After the end of the Class Period, on August 21, 2025, Nutex filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC which, among other things, contained a Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard and stated that the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors concluded that certain of the Company's previously issued financial statements "treated non-cash obligations related to under-construction and ramping hospitals as equity rather than liabilities and should be restated." This filing also purported to address the Blue Orca Report. However, Nutex merely provided a generalized description of the arbitration process under the NSA and the Company's own claims process, acknowledged that Nutex had engaged HaloMD to assist in the IDR process, and discussed two of the three recent lawsuits filed against HaloMD, noting that the Company had not been named as a Defendant. As such, Nutex's filing did not in fact meaningfully rebut any of the allegations contained in the Blue Orca Report. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] NUTRITIONAL GROWTH: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRITIONAL GROWTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07107 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://healthyheights.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. Nutritional Growth Solutions, Inc. provides nutritional products. The Company develops evidence-based clinically tested nutritional solutions for children. [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 OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burd Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- KIRK BURD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OHIO MEDICAL ALLIANCE LLC, d/b/a OHIO MARIJUANA CARD, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01779 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 26, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. Ohio Medical Alliance LLC, d/b/a Ohio Marijuana Card is a provider of medical marijuana cards in Ohio, specializing in pain management alternatives without the use of opioids. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. Spencer D. Campbell, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com POST HOLDINGS: Cortez Sues Over Deceptive Ads and Product Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- KARLA ELISA CORTEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POST HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01067 (E.D. Cal., August 14, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law and asserts claims for breach of express warranty in connection with Defendant's deceptive advertising and labeling claims about its Nature's Recipe brand dog food products. The Defendant's packaging prominently displays on the front of the label the claim that these products contain "No Poultry Byproducts or Artificial Colors, Preservatives, or Flavors." However, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's statement is false since each of these products are made with manufactured citric acid--an artificial preservative ingredient used in food and beverage products, says the suit. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Conceals Lead Content in Tampons, Foster Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09735 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's unlawful practices in the manufacture and/or labeling of its Tampax Pearl tampons and Tampax Radiant tampons. Plaintiff Foster alleges that the Defendant uniformly and prominently makes representations that lead reasonable consumers to believe that the said products are free from potentially harmful ingredients or elements. Moreover, the Defendant fails to disclose the lead content in these products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and other state consumer fraud/consumer protection laws. Headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, The Procter & Gamble Company manufactures, sells and distributes consumer goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Aschenbrener, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 448 N. LaSalle Drive Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com - and - Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Suite 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com REVLON INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Labels -------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Revlon Inc., Revlon Consumer Products Corp. and Almay Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims Revlon falsely advertises its Almay products as being "hypoallergenic." Where: The Revlon class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new nationwide class action lawsuit claims Revlon falsely advertises Almay products as being "hypoallergenic." Plaintiff Kathryn Flint filed the class action complaint against Revlon, Revlon Consumer Products and Almay on Aug. 3 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. Flint says she purchased several Almay products at Walgreens, including Truly Lasting Color Liquid Makeup, Clear Complexion Concealer and Color + Care Liquid Lip Balm. She claims she relied upon the label representation that the products were hypoallergenic. The plaintiff claims she and her family members have suffered skin irritation, eye irritation, dermatitis and/or an allergic skin reaction in the past, and she purchased Almay products to avoid experiencing these symptoms. Flint claims that Almay's false labeling deceives consumers into paying a premium for products they believe are safe for sensitive skin. Almay class action alleges products contain known allergens Flint alleges that Almay's products contain a "shocking array" of known skin sensitizers, irritants and allergens despite being labeled as "hypoallergenic." Flint claims that Almay's products, including eyeliners, mascaras, concealers and makeup removers, contain ingredients like corn starch, salicylic acid and zinc stearate, which are known allergens. She argues that Almay's marketing misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing products that minimize the risk of allergic reactions. Flint claims that consumers lack the ability to independently verify the safety of the products' ingredients, making them reliant on Almay's representations. Flint is looking to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the falsely labeled Almay products. She is suing for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment and violations of New York's General Business Law and is seeking certification of the Revlon class action lawsuit, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In a similar class action, Hello Bello is facing allegations that it falsely advertises its baby shampoo as "hypoallergenic" while it contains known allergens. The plaintiff is represented by Yvette Golan of The Golan Firm and James A. Francis and David A. Searles of Francis & Mailman P.C. The Revlon class action lawsuit is Flint v. Revlon Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06992, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] SAIGON SANDWICH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Oliveira Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LIDIA MAXIMO DE OLIVEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAIGON SANDWICH HOUSE LLC; TUAN NGUYEN; and THAO NGUYEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12313-WGY (D. Mass., Aug. 19, 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 De Oliveira was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen staff. Saigon Sandwich House LLC operates an establishment called "Saigon Sandwich House" located at Lowell, MA. [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 Email: Odu@odulawfirm.com abarros@odulawfirm.com SEATGEEK INC: Torres Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ JOSE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEATGEEK, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07118 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 22, 2025) alleges violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendant installed multiple "tracers" or "pixels" on its website to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling and site usage information of website visitors. By identifying the source of incoming electronic and wire communications to its website (the "Website"), Seatgeek violated the Trap and Trace device, and without obtaining consent either from Plaintiff or from Class Members. SeatGeek, Inc. provides software solutions. The Company offers an enterprise ticketing software that enables users to buy and sell tickets for live sports, concerts, and theater events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Glen Turner, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union St. San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com gturner@ongaropc.com SIMONMED IMAGING: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Biddle, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that the plaintiffs did not establish a duty based on special relationship, public policy, or statutory obligations. A federal district court in Arizona has dismissed a putative class action against SimonMed Imaging LLC arising from a February 2025 ransomware attack. The class action alleged negligence, breach of implied contract, fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, but the court found insufficient facts to support the claims (Dobson v. SimonMed Imaging LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00527-SPL (D. Ariz. Aug. 22, 2025)). Background. The lawsuit stems from a cyberattack perpetrated by the ransomware group Medusa against SimonMed Imaging, a healthcare provider employing approximately 200 radiologists across 11 states. The attackers claimed to have exfiltrated over 200 gigabytes of sensitive data from SimonMed's systems, including patients' and employees' full names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, driver's licenses, diagnostic images, passports, Social Security numbers, health insurance details, medical records, payroll information, and corporate emails. The plaintiffs alleged that SimonMed failed to implement reasonable security procedures appropriate to the nature of the sensitive information they maintained, making the breach preventable. They also alleged the stolen information has been sold on the dark web. The consolidated class action complaint asserted five claims: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. SimonMed moved to dismiss all claims. Negligence claims. The plaintiffs alleged that SimonMed had a duty to protect their private information. First, the plaintiffs argued that the physician-patient relationship created a special relationship giving rise to a duty in tort. The court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that SimonMed is not itself a physician but rather a healthcare provider employing radiologists. More fundamentally, the court questioned whether the exposure of personal information in a data breach falls within the scope of risks that parties in a physician-patient relationship have a duty to protect against. The court observed that the physician-patient relationship traditionally creates a presumption that physicians will marshal information in their possession pertinent to a patient's health to protect the patient from harm. However, the court noted it was unclear whether data security obligations fit within this framework, particularly when the entity being sued is not the treating physician but rather a healthcare services company. Second, the plaintiffs attempted to establish duty through public policy considerations, specifically citing HIPAA and the Federal Trade Commission Act as sources defining the relevant standard of care. The court rejected this approach, explaining that both statutes contain their own enforcement mechanisms and were not intended to provide private rights of action. The court noted that Arizona courts have consistently held that attempts to use HIPAA or the FTCA to establish tort duties fail because these statutes have exclusive enforcement mechanisms. The plaintiffs' argument that they were not bringing independent claims under these statutes, but rather using them to define the duty of care, did not salvage their position. The court characterized this as an improper "backdoor argument" that essentially sought to enforce statutory obligations without the required private right of action. The court also noted that negligence per se claim is not a standalone claim. The court therefore dismissed all of the negligence claims, and dismissed the negligence per se claim with prejudice. Breach of implied contract claim. The plaintiffs argued they paid for medical services and, as a condition of receiving those services, were required to provide private information to SimonMed. They contended they would not have paid for services, or would have paid less, had they known of SimonMed's allegedly substandard security practices. The court dismissed this claim based on the "pre-existing legal obligations" doctrine. Under Arizona law, performance or promise to do something a party is already legally obligated to do cannot constitute valid consideration for a contract. The court found that plaintiffs failed to allege SimonMed made any promises beyond what it was already legally required to do under existing privacy laws. The court distinguished cases where defendants made specific additional promises, such as using "commercially reasonable physical, managerial, and technical safeguards" beyond minimum legal requirements. Here, SimonMed's Notice of Privacy Practices merely stated it was "required by law to maintain the privacy and security of your protected health information," without any additional commitments. Breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. The court also disposed of the fiduciary duty claim, finding no allegations supporting the existence of a fiduciary relationship. Commercial relationships alone do not create fiduciary duties under Arizona law unless one party agrees to serve in a fiduciary capacity. The court noted it was unclear how a hospital's data collection establishes the confidential relationship necessary for fiduciary obligations. Similarly, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that SimonMed retained benefits to their detriment. The court found that SimonMed's allegedly ineffective use of funds for security systems did not provide a plausible basis for finding unjust retention of benefits, as the company did spend money on security systems even if those systems proved inadequate. The court granted leave to amend all claims except the negligence per se claim. The case is No. 2:25-cv-00527-SPL. Judge: Logan, S. Attorneys: Cristina Perez Hesano (Perez Law Group PLLC) for Star Dobson. Jad Sheikali (Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP) for SimonMed Imaging LLC. Companies: SimonMed Imaging LLC [GN] SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Plant Fire ----------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Williams of The Daily Star reports a series of questions and concerns shared by Roseland citizens who packed Grant's Chapel AME Church Monday, August 25, for a town hall meeting hosted by Roseland Mayor Van Showers and other officials. These include: What chemicals were in the plant at Smitty's Supply in Roseland? How can residents be sure its safe to clean their property and breathe the air around them? Why wasn't the evacuation radius larger when the plant exploded and burned on August 22? Will people outside the radius be able to get help? State Rep. Robby Carter told attendees that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Smitty's that anyone affected by the fires, one-mile radius or not, can add their names to. Anyone interested can reach out to Carter at 225-222-4194 or go to his office at 23 S. Main St., Suite A, Greensburg. "I promise you, this will not go on 50 years. I can tell you, the fastest way to go is by doing it by class action," Carter told citizens. Carter mentioned there have been two other lawsuits filed against Smitty's along with the class action. Carter encouraged those in the room to document anything and everything related to the situation, from food or hotel receipts, to soot-covered cars and property, or even shards of metal in a yard. He continued that people should take pictures of, bag and write a date on anything they find. Other government officials attending were Tangipahoa Parish Councilman Louis Joseph and Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance Tim Temple. Each took the microphone to give information, with Carter and Showers answering questions. Despite the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality announcing that air quality monitoring has so far shown no immediate safety concerns, people at the town hall reported having headaches and other sensitivities to the air. Several people at the meeting wore masks, with one telling the room that the reason she was wearing it was because she "could hardly breathe" in relation to the fire due to health issues. Showers relayed that he knew from his experience in the industrial field that even when there are permissible limits set to be around certain materials, that "doesn't mean it's OK." LDEQ has said their test results are available on their website and are planned to be linked on Roseland's website and Facebook, according to the mayor. Regarding the clean up, Showers told those present that he was told "that we gotta clean it up ourselves." He encouraged citizens to exercise caution when cleaning their properties. "When you're out there cleaning up and doing all the things to get your property back in shape, you know, please wear gloves, please wear a mask and do what you can to protect yourself," Showers said. He added that he was told Dawn's Dish soap is safe to use for cleaning, and he has been personally using dishwasher liquid to clean his house. In response to why supplies aren't being distributed, the mayor said that Transport Ministries will have food, water, cleaning supplies and other items from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Florida Parishes Arena through the week. People must bring a valid form of identification to receive the supplies. Showers had limited information on some topics, such as what exact chemicals and materials were housed in Smitty's. He explained that he has asked for the Material Safety Data sheet for Smitty's and had not received it. Showers continued, "As soon as I get that information, I will help get that put on the Facebook, but I'm telling you we're probably going to have to get somebody with legal to get that information from them, because [from] just asking, [that] hasn't happened yet." When tackling evacuation radius questions, Showers explained the perimeters were set by Tangipahoa Parish Government and later the state and federal agencies. "We're doing this petition that the one-mile radius be extended, but here's the thing. All we can do is petition. At the end of the day, they're gonna make the decision," he responded. "Where is Smitty's tonight?" one attendee asked. Showers responded that he hadn't received any communication from Smitty's representatives. As for agricultural worries, Showers said he was waiting on information from the agriculture commissioner. Temple told people to call their agents and insurance companies and if they feel their needs aren't met, to call the Department of Insurance. In addition, his department can help figure out if additional living expenses are included in someone's policy. Showers directed further questions or comments to his office and his clerk, and he said he was glad to see his citizens showing up and speaking out on the situation. [GN] TESLA INC: Misleads Drivers About Electric Vehicles' Software ------------------------------------------------------------- Geri Mileva, writing for Yahoo News, reports that a federal judge has allowed a class action against Tesla to move forward after California drivers claimed the company misled them about its Full Self-Driving (FSD) driver-assistance software for its electric vehicles. According to Reuters, Tesla owners who paid thousands for the feature can pursue claims as a group. What's happening? U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found that there were enough common questions for Tesla drivers to sue as a group, including whether the cars had the sensors for high-level autonomy or had ever completed a fully autonomous trip. She wrote, "Tesla's distinctive advertising strategy warrants a departure from the typical approach," citing the company's reliance on its website for key claims. The ruling split drivers into two groups. The first covers buyers from October 20, 2016, to May 19, 2017. The second includes those who bought between May 19, 2017, and July 31, 2024, but opted out of Tesla's arbitration rules. The FSD package costs thousands of dollars. This isn't an isolated situation for Tesla. In recent years, it's dealt with a direct sales ban case and a Solar Roof price-hike lawsuit. In Sweden, workers went on strike against the EV giant. Each of these disputes has hit customers in different ways -- unexpected price hikes, fewer buying options due to sales bans, and delivery/registration delays amid strikes. Why is this important? The case is a reminder of how risky it can be to spend thousands on high-tech features that may not perform as advertised. Joining together in a class action makes it cheaper for drivers to fight back and forces more accountability on the automaker. And if people stop trusting self-driving vehicles, many might put off buying new cars. That kind of slowdown could drag out the move to cleaner vehicles, even though transportation already accounts for about 15% of global heat-trapping gases. What's being done about it? Judge Lin certified the case in federal court. Federal officials -- including the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which probed the feature in 2024 -- have examined whether FSD is safe. Tesla says FSD requires active driver supervision and does not make its vehicles autonomous. The scrutiny could result in clearer standards and stronger disclosures, which would help provide buyers stronger protection. Better safeguards and transparency are essential in maintaining trust in electric vehicles. Meanwhile, as the EV landscape evolves, shoppers interested in cleaner vehicles can more carefully evaluate electric vehicle options. [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: May Face Class Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the TransUnion data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. TransUnion Security Incident: What Happened? On August 27, 2025, credit reporting agency TransUnion reported a data breach impacting 4,461,511 individuals and is now sending written notices to those affected. According to sample notice letters, the TransUnion data breach involved unauthorized access to personal information that was stored on a third-party application serving U.S. consumer support operations. Though the sample notice did not specify what consumer information was exposed in the incident, the company said no credit reports or "core credit information" was involved. According to a report provided to the Texas Attorney General's Office, consumers' names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth were affected. TechCrunch reports that TransUnion stores the financial data of more than 260 million Americans and that it is currently unknown who is responsible for the data breach. According to a report submitted to the Maine Attorney General's Office, the TransUnion data breach occurred on July 28, 2025 and was discovered two days later. What You Can Do After the TransUnion Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force TransUnion to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. [GN] TRKULJA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Theophile Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENS THEOPHILE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRKULJA HOLDINGS, INC.; DM EXPRESS, INC.; MILORAD TRKULJA; and DEJANA TRKULJA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00391 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 22, 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 Theophile was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver. Trkulja Holdings, Inc. is engaged in the transportation and logistics business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 289-0483 Facsimile: (317) 288-4013 E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com TTE TECHNOLOGY: Herrick Class Action Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Stephan Herrick, Plaintiff, v. TTE Technology, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00945-SB-SP (C.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiff's motion to remand this putative class action to the Riverside County Superior Court. Plaintiff Stephen Herrick, a California citizen, filed this putative class action in state court against TTE Technology, Inc., also a California citizen. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant misrepresented the display technology used in its televisions. After conducting consumer research and reviewing advertising, Plaintiff purchased one of Defendant's televisions on Amazon.com. Plaintiff alleged that the television was falsely advertised as a 'QLED TV' -- a television using quantum light-emitting diode technology to enhance the display's performance—despite lacking quantum dot technology. The complaint alleged false advertising and related claims under California law. Defendant timely removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The removal notice acknowledges that Defendant, like Plaintiff, is a citizen of California. However, Defendant claimed minimal diversity based on the class definition and inferences. Defendant argued that Plaintiff does not limit the class definition to citizens of California and that the definition includes persons visiting from other states who were not citizens of California at the time of purchase, persons who resided in California but were not US citizens at the time of purchase, and persons who were citizens of California at the time of purchase but have since become citizens of another state or jurisdiction. The court addressed whether Defendant met its burden to establish minimal diversity. Under CAFA, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and any class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. The court applied the Ninth Circuit's holding in Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., which established that absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties. According to the court, "Kanter allows Defendant to establish minimal diversity by identifying the citizenship of only one diverse class member, rather than all class members." Defendant relied on a declaration from Scott Ramirez, its vice president of home theater product marketing and development, who stated that more than 100,000 of its televisions were shipped to California in the past year and asserted on information and belief that at least one purchaser of such a television who purchased the television in California in the last four years is not presently a citizen of the State of California. The court rejected Defendant's argument that different standards from that of Kanter should apply under CAFA. According to the Court, "The difference between minimal and complete diversity is a difference in what must be shown to establish diversity. Kanter addresses how to show diversity -- by alleging affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties. The court distinguished cases cited by Defendant, noting that in Ehrman v. Cox Communications, Inc., "nothing in Ehrman suggests that a defendant can establish minimal diversity without identifying diverse parties." The court explained that the removal notice in Ehrman alleged the citizenship of all parties and that the proposition that the class members' citizenship may be alleged on information and belief does not support Defendant's position that their citizenship need not be alleged at all." The court considered whether unusual circumstances might excuse Defendant from identifying specific diverse class members. The court found that Defendant, who bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, has not suggested that information about the class members' citizenship is within Plaintiff's exclusive control or otherwise impossible for it to obtain. The court noted that Defendant has records -- which it has now produced to Plaintiff -- of the identities and addresses of at least some of its customers." The court concluded that because it has neither alleged the citizenship of any diverse parties nor shown unusual circumstances that excuse its obligation to do so, Defendant has not met its burden to establish minimal diversity. Therefore, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand. The court noted that although discovery on CAFA exceptions was conducted, it was "inconclusive," and Plaintiff seeks more time to obtain outstanding third-party discovery. Rather than delaying further, the court now grants the motion to remand because Defendant has not met its burden to establish minimal diversity, irrespective of the jurisdictional exceptions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SpgxrZfrom PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Fuselier Sues Over First Amendment Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY FUSELIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN S. RISCASSI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00268-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., Aug. 26, 2025) alleges violation of the U.S. Constitution First Amendment which prohibits government from abridging the freedom of speech. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's adoption and enforcement of the political slogan ban, the named Plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable injury, including being deprived of their constitutional right to wear political apparel and display political signs in the common areas of the retirement home where they live. The Armed Forces Retirement Home is an independent federal agency responsible for providing housing, healthcare, and supportive services to retired and eligible veterans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron R. Rice, Esq. AMERICAN DREAM LEGAL 611 S. Pear Orchard Rd., Unit 1614 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 879-5595 Email: aaron.rice@americandreamlegal.org UPONOR INC: Binkley Sues Over Defective Piping System Products -------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY BINKLEY; GERALD CHAN; ORVILLE VOGELGESANG; and RONELLI QUADRA LISING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UPONOR, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07180 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendants manufactures and sells defective AquaPEX piping systems ("UPONOR PEX"), which includes plastic piping, reinforcement rings and fittings. According to the complaint, the UPONOR PEX pipe is defective because it will fail, crack, and leak well before the end of its useful life. The UPONOR method of pipe production does not mix the antioxidants uniformly with the polyethene. This failure leads to a lack of homogeneity with the distribution of the antioxidants and renders the pipe defective and unfit for its ordinary use. The Class Pipe contained design and manufacturing defects at the time that the pipe was installed in Plaintiff and Putative Class Members's homes. At the time of the purchase of their homes, the Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members reasonably expected that Class Pipe would reliably function as water supply pipe and had no way of knowing that it contained defects that would cause the pipe to crack, leak and fail prematurely, says the suit. Uponor, Inc. provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure systems. The Company offers residential radiant floor heating, commercial heating, residential plumbing, commercial plumbing, residential fire safety, and pre-insulated pipes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Birka-White, Esq. BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES 178 E. Prospect Avenue Danville, California 94526 Telephone: (925) 362-9999 Facsimile: (925) 362-9970 Email: dbw@birka-white.com US CLAIMS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $775,000 --------------------------------------------------------- ClaimDepot reports that consumers whose private information the US Claims Capital data incident may have compromised could qualify to claim up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. US Claims Capital LLC, doing business as US Claims, agreed to pay up to $775,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging a January 2025 targeted cyberattack on the company's systems exposed personal information, including names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers and possibly other sensitive data. Who can file a US Capital claim? The settlement class includes all living individuals in the United States whose private information the US Claims Capital data incident impacted in January 2025. Those who received a notice from US Claims or the settlement administrator are likely class members. However, individuals who did not receive a notice may still be eligible if the breach affected their information. How much is the data breach payout? -- Reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses: Up to $5,000 for actual, documented financial losses resulting from data breach. These losses must have occurred between Dec. 13, 2024, and Oct. 15, 2025. Covered expenses include: -- Losses due to identity theft or fraud -- Fees for credit reports, credit monitoring, or freezing and unfreezing credit -- Costs to replace IDs -- Postage to contact banks by mail -- Alternative cash payment: A one-time cash payment $40 for those who did not incur out-of-pocket losses or prefer not to submit documentation How to claim a class action payment Class members can file a claim online or download, print, complete and mail or email the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. They can also call or email the settlement administrator to request a paper claim form. The claim deadline is Oct. 15, 2025. Settlement administrator's contact information: US Claims Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799, info@USCCDataSettlement.com, 833-285-3011 What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? -- To file an online claim, class members must log in with their unique ID and PIN, which are located on the top of their email or postcard notice. Those who misplaced or are unable to locate their ID & PIN should email info@USCCDataSettlement.com and provide the class member's full name and mailing address. -- For documented loss claims, class members should provide proof, such as receipts, bank statements or other documentation. Self-prepared notes or explanations can be submitted to support other documentation but are not sufficient on their own. -- For alternative payment claims, no documentation is required. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check $775,000 settlement fund breakdown The $775,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $271,500 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $1,500 each for three representatives ($4,500 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: The remaining funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 30, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 15, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 30, 2025 When is the US Claims Capital LLC data incident settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after Dec. 15, 2025. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged a targeted cyberattack on US Claims Capital LLC's systems, discovered in January 2025, potentially exposed private information, including names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers and other sensitive data. The plaintiffs claimed US Claims failed to adequately protect this information. US Claims denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation. [GN] VELOCITY RISK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Robinson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CORHEADA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VELOCITY RISK UNDERWRITERS, LLC; and WATERSTREET COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00939 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons name, financial account information, and Social Security number (the "Private Information") from hackers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants' negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendants collected and maintained on behalf of customers is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. Velocity Risk Underwriters, LLC specializes in offering residential and commercial property insurance programs that mainly protect homes and businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com VENSURE EMPLOYER: Sued Over Improper IRS Interest Payment --------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN STEEL, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENSURE EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC. d/b/a VENSURE EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS; and VENSUREHR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03087-DJH (D. Ariz., Aug. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Vensure withheld information regarding the Plaintiff's entitlement to interest and the interest payment from the IRS that had accrued on Plaintiff's Employee Retention Credit (ERC) refund, including in Vensure's communications and advertising materials regarding ERC refund claims. At no point when the Plaintiff was communicating with Vensure regarding filing for ERC benefits, did Vensure inform Plaintiff that it would retain any interest the IRS paid out on Plaintiff's ERC claims. Indeed, Vensure did not inform Plaintiff that it had received any interest payment from the IRS until Plaintiff inquired about it. And when Plaintiff asked in April 2025 about the withheld interest payment, Vensure confirmed that it had kept and was keeping the interest that is Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff has still not received its refund from Vensure for the ERC filing for the second quarter of 2021. Plaintiff has not received an explanation from Vensure about whether Vensure has received the ERC refund amount for this filing or the interest for this refund amount from the IRS. As a direct and proximate result of Vensure's actions, the Plaintiff has suffered injury and economic damages, alleges the suit. Vensure Employer Services, Inc., d/b/a Vensure Employer Solutions is a professional employer organization ("PEO") based in Arizona that provides business administration services, including payroll administration and payroll tax services, for businesses across the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Gotto, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 248-0088 Facsimile: (602) 248-2822 Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com VERADIGM INC: Disclose Data Without Consent, Doe Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE; JANET DOE; and JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VERADIGM, INC. d/b/a ALLSCRIPTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10147 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Veradigm surreptitiously divulge their health information to Google via Google's online marketing systems, known as Google Analytics, when patients exchanged communications with their healthcare providers via Patient Portals provided by Veradigm (the "Patient Portals"). Veradigm similarly deployed Google analytics technology within the patient portal mobile application it offered patients that shared data with Google (the "Mobile Application.") Veradigm did so without patients' knowledge, authorization, or consent. Veradigm Inc. is a publicly traded American company that provides physician practices, hospitals, and other healthcare providers with practice management and electronic health record technology. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Avenue Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Joseph Ahmad, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 VITAS HEALTHCARE: Sarmiento Case Stays in Calif. District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jose Sarmiento, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04025-MAA (C.D. Cal.), United States Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the Action to State Court and Request for Attorneys' Fees in the Amount of $9,375. Plaintiff Jose Sarmiento was employed by Defendants from on or about January 19, 2024 until in or around October 2024 as an hourly nonexempt employee. The Defendants operate in California and employed Plaintiff and the putative class members in locations throughout California. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants required him and the putative class members to work more minutes per shift than Defendants credited them with having worked and failed to pay all wages at the applicable minimum wage for all hours. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that Defendants required employees to remain on-duty during their off-the-clock meal breaks" by forcing them "to keep their employer-issued cell phone on them at all times during their shift to monitor and respond to calls from Defendant and requiring them to work on-call hours without being paid for all on-call hours worked—and failed to pay them all wages at the applicable minimum wage for all hours. The Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants failed to pay him and the putative class members for any hours worked in excess of eight in a day and 40 in a workweek at the legal overtime rate. Additionally, the Plaintiff contended that Defendants failed to authorize or permit compliant meal periods and rest breaks for him and the Defendants also failed to pay them the required meal period premium wage of one additional hour of pay for each day in which they did not receive the required and compliant meal periods. Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 5, 2025, on the basis of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) or the Class Action Fairness Act. In support of removal, Defendants contended that (1) minimal diversity exists between Defendants, on the one hand, and Plaintiff and many of the putative class members, on the other; (2) the aggregate number of putative members among all proposed classes exceeds 100; and (3) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Plaintiff challenged the federal court's jurisdiction, arguing that the amount in controversy exceed $5 million is met. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants' amount-in-controversy calculation is inflated and inaccurate because it failed to account for "the preclusive effect of the Reyes Judgment as applied to nearly two years of the relevant time period. The Plaintiff pointed to a prior class action settlement in Reyes v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California, arguing that the claims released in the Reyes Action subsume a majority of the Class Action claims asserted in his Complaint and that the liability period in the Reyes Judgment overlaps significantly with the liability period in his Complaint. The Court examined Defendants' calculation based on California Labor Code Section 203 penalties. Defendants argued that the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied because Plaintiff's Section 203 claim totals at least $6,669,638 and the associated attorneys' fees total $1,667,409, for a total estimated amount in controversy of $8,337,047. The Court noted that under Section 203, an employer must pay a penalty if it fails to pay all wages due upon termination. This penalty is the daily wages of the separated employee, accruing daily until the wages are paid for a maximum of 30 days. Defendants calculated this based on the separation of 893 putative class members during the relevant period, multiplied by their average daily rate of $248.96 ($31.12 average hourly rate multiplied by 8 hours per day), multiplied by a violation rate of 30 days. The Court addressed Plaintiff's argument regarding the prior Reyes settlement, stating that the amount-in-controversy need not be adjusted based upon the Reyes Judgment. The Court explained that to adjust the amount in controversy based upon any impact that the Reyes Judgment may have, as Plaintiff suggests, would be to improperly conflate the amount in controversy with the amount ultimately recoverable. The Court cited Ninth Circuit authority, noting that the strength of any defenses is irrelevant to determining the amount that is at stake in the litigation. The Court also observed that Had Plaintiff intended to limit the class period in the way he now asserts, he could have done so with a single stroke of his pen. He did not. The Plaintiff challenged Defendants' assumption of a 100% violation rate for Section 203 penalties. However, the Court found this assumption reasonable, explaining that in a wage-and-hour case, the number of employees in the class may be most easily determined by examining the defendant's employment records but it makes little sense to require a CAFA defendant to introduce evidence of the violation rate because the defendant likely believes that the real rate is zero. The Court noted that The assumption that all former employees are owed some amount of Section 203 penalties is supported by the allegation that the putative class was owed, at the least, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest premiums, all of which were unpaid or underpaid based on Defendants' policy and practice. The Court relied on declarations from Reena Maico-Smith, Senior Regional Human Resources Director, who provided detailed employment data. According to the declarations, from March 26, 2021 to April 24, 2025, Vitas employed, in the aggregate, at least 2,348 non-exempt employees in California, who worked approximately 211,470 workweeks, and whose average rate of pay was $31.12, and separated at least 893 such employees. Court's Ruling and Conclusion The Court concluded that "the amount placed in controversy in Defendants' notice of removal and supporting evidence, based solely on Plaintiff's Section 203 claim, is $6,669,638. As this exceeds the $5 million threshold required for original federal court jurisdiction under CAFA, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this case." Therefore, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion in its entirety. The Court also denied Plaintiff's request for $9,375 in attorneys' fees, noting that Plaintiff did not prevail on his Motion. The Court granted Plaintiff's request for judicial Notice regarding documents from the prior Reyes litigation but found they did not affect the jurisdictional analysis. The matter is temporarily stayed pending the Court's decision on Defendants' motion to stay the case and the Court directed the Clerk to administratively close the action. The Court clarified that Administrative closure does not affect the merits of Plaintiff's claims and does not prejudice any party to this action. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oO4VMC from PacerMonitor.com. WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Burrell Sues Over Unprotected Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN BURRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05754 (W.D. Wash., 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 "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. Washington Gastroenterology, PLLC is a healthcare and research organization based in Washington, that provides gastroenterology services for patients, including upper endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com YUMA REGIONAL: Court Narrows Data Breach Claims ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brittney Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Defendant, Civil Action No. CV-22-01061-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz.), Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Court dismissed all claims except the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act claim. This lawsuit arises out of a ransomware attack on Defendant Yuma Regional Medical Center's data storage systems resulting in a breach and the hackers gaining access to its patients' sensitive information. The 14 Named Plaintiffs represent individuals who had their information stolen. Plaintiffs are a collection of current and former patients that received medical care from Yuma Regional, a hospital in Yuma, Arizona. To receive treatment, Plaintiffs were required to disclose various types of personal and confidential medical information. Yuma Regional maintains that information within its systems. In April 2022, cybercriminals breached Yuma Regional's data security systems, gaining unrestricted access to its files for the next few days. Hackers were able to extract highly sensitive files containing data on an estimated 700,000 of its patients. Four days after the breach, Yuma Regional identified the hackers had gained access. In the weeks that followed, the Named Plaintiffs received a notice letter, dated June 9, 2022, from Yuma Regional. The notice provided assurances that Yuma Regional was strengthening its system, enhancing its protocols, and offering its patients free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for an unknown duration. After the breach, some of the Plaintiffs received word that their information wound up on the dark web. Following the Court's dismissal of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs' FAC asserts claims for (1) Negligence (2) Breach of Implied Contract/Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (3) Unjust Enrichment (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (5) Consumer Fraud, Arizona Revised Statute Section 44-1521. Under Arizona law, to state a claim for negligence a plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) breach of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury (4) actual damages. The Court found Plaintiffs have not adequately established public policy imposes a legal duty. Plaintiffs do not provide any explanation as to why the FTCA, HIPAA, and Arizona Revised Statute Section 12-2292 declare a public policy sufficient to create a tort duty. The Court declined to find public policy declares Yuma Regional owed a legal duty to Plaintiffs. Regarding assumed duty theory, the Court noted that assuming the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient for Yuma Regional to have undertaken an act to protect Plaintiffs from some type of harm, that harm is purely economic and not sufficient to trigger an actionable tort duty. The Arizona Supreme Court has disavowed that Section 323 provides a basis to establish liability for purely economic harm as opposed to claims involving physical harm to a person or property. Plaintiff has failed to establish sufficient grounds to find Yuma Regional assumed a duty to protect Plaintiffs against purely economic harms and thus has failed to state a negligence claim. The Court found that whether Yuma Regional promised to deploy adequate security measures is a conclusion unsupported by any alleged facts. Contract terms cannot be vaguely pleaded. The vague reference that Yuma Regional is committed to protecting Plaintiffs' information fails to provide any basis to infer how Yuma Regional would fulfill its commitment to protect the information. The Court cannot be left to guess how a party failed to perform its contractual obligations. Plaintiffs do not plead any facts that support a contractual duty to prevent a data breach all together or that Yuma Regional promised to do anything beyond what it was already obligated to do under HIPAA or the FTCA. Therefore, there is nothing to support that Yuma Regional assumed a contractual duty to support the claim. The Court noted that the FAC's allegations on this claim are conclusory and address the physician-patient relationship, not the hospital-patient or customer relationship. Plaintiffs also do not address Yuma Regional's argument that, unlike for physicians, Arizona has not recognized that hospitals owe a fiduciary duty to patients. Instead, Plaintiffs rely on cases addressing the physician-patient relationship without appreciating the distinction. The law does not create a fiduciary relation in every business transaction involving one party with greater knowledge, skill, or training, but requires peculiar intimacy or an express agreement to serve as a fiduciary. It is not clear how a hospital's collection of data establishes a confidential relationship with its customers or patients to establish a fiduciary duty. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. Under Arizona law, unjust enrichment occurs when one party has and retains money or benefits that in justice and equity belong to another. A party must allege: (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and the impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided at law. The Court found that Plaintiffs have failed to articulate how mere receipt, as opposed to inadvertent disclosure, of their information and Yuma Regional's use of that information to provide them with medical care and to facilitate payment collection for both of their benefits caused any detriment or expense to Plaintiffs that they did not willingly incur. Any benefit Yuma Regional derived from receipt and retention of the information is long gone after the hospital-customer relationship ceased. The Court finds no basis to conclude that Yuma Regional unjustly retained a benefit. At bottom, Plaintiffs' allegations are the Yuma Regional spent the money on its security systems, albeit those systems were inadequate to prevent the breach. Yuma Regional's ineffective use of the funds does not provide a plausible basis to find it retained some benefit to Plaintiffs' detriment. Under the ACFA, it is unlawful for any person to use or employ any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise. The Court found that Plaintiffs do not articulate how Yuma Regional stating that it is committed to protecting its patients' confidential information is an actionable or deceptive misstatement of fact. Therefore, a theory premised on an affirmative and deceptive misrepresentation does not support Plaintiffs' ACFA claim. However, regarding omission theory, the Court noted that at its core, the substance Plaintiffs' claim is really premised on Yuma Regional omitting facts pertaining to how it would protect its patients' confidential information. Here, Plaintiffs have specifically identified Yuma Regional's Notice of Privacy Practices that allegedly omitted information about its inadequate data security systems. Plaintiffs have also alleged that they relied on these omissions and were required to provide written acknowledgement that they received the Notice. In accepting these allegations as true, which the Court must do at this stage, the Court found that these allegations sufficiently raise a plausible inference that Plaintiffs were aware of Yuma Regional's privacy practices and would have acted differently had Yuma Regional disclosed the alleged security deficiencies. Therefore, the Court denied Yuma Regional's Motion to Dismiss on this ground. The Court ordered granting in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion was denied as to Plaintiffs' ACFA claim and granted as to all other claims. The Court further ordered dismissing Plaintiffs' negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Jxjwa from PacerMonitor.com ZUCKERMAN FAMILY: Must Produce Workers' I-9 Forms Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Jose Maria Moreno, an individual, on behalf of himself, the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc., Zuckerman-Mandeville, Inc, Zuckerman Produce, Inc., Heritage Land Co., Inc., Zuckerman-Heritage, Inc., Delta Farms Packing, Inc., and Does 1 to 50, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-01574-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California approved a stipulation and protective order regarding the production of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services I-9 forms. The Court approved the parties' stipulated protective order governing the production of I-9 forms for all individuals employed by any or all defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the period from July 15, 2020, through June 5, 2025 for the sole purpose of determining the citizenship of the putative class in assessing whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court stated that the stipulation comports with the relevant authorities and the court's applicable local rule. According to the stipulation, defendants will produce the I-9 forms for the sole purpose of determining the citizenship of the putative class in assessing whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The parties acknowledged that the I-9 Forms may contain sensitive information and may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights. The Court ordered that the I-9 forms shall automatically be designated as 'Confidential Information' without the need for further action on behalf of any of the Parties. The protected material is limited to disclosure only to: (1) The Court and its personnel; (2) Counsel of record and attorneys and staff at their firms to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for plaintiff to address jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act; and (3) Experts or consultants retained for jurisdictional analysis, provided they agree in writing to be bound by the protective order. The Court established that the protected material shall be used for the sole purpose of determining the citizenship of the putative class to ascertain whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The order specifically states that protected materials shall not be used for any other purpose either within this litigation or in any other proceeding. Regarding duration, the Court ordered that even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until defendants agree otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition is defined as the later of: (1) Dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; or (2) Final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. The Court imposed specific return requirements, ordering that once the Court rules on a motion to remand or if plaintiff does not file a motion to remand within the deadline as set by the Court, the Protected Material must be returned to defendants within 10 calendar days of such event occurring. However, the Court made two important clarifications to the parties' proposed order: -- The Court stated that it will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed, citing Local Rule 141.1(f). -- The Court clarified that "this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle a party to file confidential information under seal. The Court explained that Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. The Court further ordered that if a party's request to file confidential material under seal is denied by the Court, then the party may file the information in the public record unless otherwise instructed by the Court. The protective order includes provisions for unauthorized disclosure, requiring immediate notification to defendants, retrieval efforts, and execution of acknowledgment agreements. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the stipulation and protective order during the pendency of the case. Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Putative Class, and the Aggrieved Employees: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Kyle D. Smith, Esq. Jaqueline Antillon, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 824-3828 Fax: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com ks@melmedlaw.com ja@melmedlaw.com A copy of the Court's Stipulation and Protective Order is available athttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=1cuk5a from PacerMonitor.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***