250908.mbx

250908.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 8, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 179 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Page Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Whitewoman Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Wilder Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Wofford Files Suit in D. South Carolina 7-ELEVEN INC: Baker Seeks to Extension of Class Cert Deadlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Sept. 22 Class Cert Deadline in Baker Suspended AADI 95 CORP: Mortland Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property AG CONSULTING: Kovalev Bid to Certify Class Tossed AMYLYX PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss "Shih" Suit Remains Pending ANNETT HOLDINGS: Case Management Order Entered in Gutierrez ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Suit Seeks Class Certification ANTHROPIC PBC: Authors Secure $1.5B Settlement in AI Piracy Case APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Under Seal Select Documents AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Schultz Wins Bid for Class Certification BELVEDERE NRDE: Class Discovery Due Nov. 13 BRAZOS VALLEY: Fazzino Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action BRIANNA CORP: Herrera Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE: Wedding Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal CAPITAL VISION: Jenkins et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info CARBON HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Aubin Extended to Oct. 8 CARDCONNECT LLC: Longhorn Public Sues Over Frozen Funds CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Loses Bid for Summary Judgment CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Lifts Stay of Harper Class Suit CHEBOYGAN COUNTY, MI: Class Settlement in Arkona Gets Initial Nod COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Linich Suit Over Alleged Data Breach CROWN EQUIPMENT: North Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DAVITA INC: Faces Ellman Suit Over Patients' Unprotected Info DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines DMC GLOBAL INC: Garson Securities Suit Ongoing in CO Court DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 11 DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jones Suit Due Oct. 1 EXCEL FITNESS: Lipford Sues Over Unprotected Private Information EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Class Suit Stayed EXXON MOBIL: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Schedule in Yoshikawa FARMERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Milstead Says FINASTRA TEHCNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FORD MOTOR: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson Seeks to Certify Two Classes FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Kirkland Sues Over Private Data Breach GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL: Romero et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages GEICO INDEMNITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Shiloah Due Nov. 14 GENERAL MOTORS: Court Awards $2.035MM Atty's Fee in Jefferson GEO GROUP: Ronduen Suit Seeks Class Certification GOOGLE INC: $425MM Jury Verdict for Plaintiffs in Privacy Suit GOOGLE LLC: Bid for Stay w/o Prejudice Tossed in Cengage Suit GORDON LANE: Parrish Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification HERTZ CORP: Parties Must File Joint Status Report, Court Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Lopez Sues Over Alleged Engine Defects JAMES LEBLANC: Seeks to Stay Betz Class Action JEFF RUBY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lamb and Belmont Say JOY CONE: Davey Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd KAHUNAS DEERFIELD: Marek Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pool Policy KEVIN GUTHRIE: M.A. Suit Seeks Class Certification MACY'S INC: Nguyen Sues Over Alleged CIPA Violations MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 6, 2026 MEN'S WAREHOUSE: Proposed Scheduling & Discovery Order Adopted MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Retirees MICHAELS STORES: Withdrawal of Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice Sought NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Koenig Suit Over Constitutional Violations NORTH-EAST DECK: Lipinski Seeks Approval of Notice for FLSA Class OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Filing for Class Cert. Due August 14, 2026 OE FEDERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jimenez Due Feb. 13, 2026 ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit over Merger PAPA JOHN'S: Filing of Summary Judgment Bid Amended to Sept. 26 PERRIGO COMPANY: Kouyate Sues Over Unsafe Acne Treatment Gel PF CALI: Strandholt Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Knowles Sues Over Website Inaccessibility POLYGROUP NORTH: Faces Jamison Suit Over Defective Pools PRIME HYDRATION: Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Partly OK'd PROCTORU INC: CMC in Perjanik Class Suit Continued to Sept. 30 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES: Denson Seeks to Certify Class RICOH USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kruchten Due Jan. 20, 2026 RITE AID: Wins Bid to Dismiss Holland, et al. Securities Suit S&P GLOBAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Dinosaur Lawsuit SAMSONITE COMPANY: McCarty Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme SCDS INC: Laccinole Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery SCOUT ENERGY: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Hawkins SHEVAUN HARRIS: Hall's Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed SNAP INC: Abdul-Hameed Sues Over Alleged Securities Fraud SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Alexander Seeks to Certify Three Classes SPRING EQ: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to Oct. 10 STANLEY BLACK: Howe et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages STEVE REAMS: Merrival Suit Seeks Class Certification STEVE REAMS: Padilla-Hernandez Seeks Class Certification SURREY REALTY: McCammon Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid TEA DATING: Nelson Sues Over Unlawful Sex/Gender Discrimination TENET HEALTHCARE: Goss Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order UNDERDOG SPORTS: Koning Sues Over Illegal Sports Betting Platform UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA UNITED STATES: Angelica Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Brief UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Thomas Suit w/o Prejudice VALU AUTO: Conditional Class Cert Filing in Gleason Due Nov. 17 VESYNC CORP: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Chen Class Suit WALMART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 15, 2026 WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 22, 2026 ZULILY LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Smith Due Feb. 27, 2026 ********* 3M COMPANY: Page Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Alex Walter Page, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corporation; Corteva Inc.; Daikin America Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont De Nemours Inc. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex LLC; Fire Service Plus Inc.; Globe Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Innotex Corp.; Johnson Controls Inc.; Kidde PLC Inc.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; PBI Performance Products Inc.; Perimeter Solutions LP Ricochet Manufacturing Company Inc.; Safety Components Fabric Technologies Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10633-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1634 Fax: (512) 727-3432 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Whitewoman Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Vernell Whitewoman, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corp; Corteva Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc., formerly known as: DowDuPont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10835-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Wilder Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Timothy Wilder, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corp; Corteva Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc., formerly known as: DowDuPont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10842-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Wofford Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Marcus Wofford, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment Company; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema Inc.; BASF Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Incorporated; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; The Chemours Company LLC; Chubb Fire LTD; Clariant Corporation; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont de Nemours, Inc. (f/k/a DowDupont, Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Fire-Dex, LLC; Fire Service Plus, Inc.; Johnson Controls, Inc.; Kidde PLC, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; Raytheon Technologies Corporation; Ricochet Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Technologies, Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Veridian Limited; W.L. Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10738-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Yechiel Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN AND PARTNERS LLP (PA) 101 West Elm Street, Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4444 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Baker Seeks to Extension of Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA A. BAKER on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01609-X (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- extending or suspending the current Sept. 22, 2025, deadline under Local Rule 23.2, and -- directing the parties to meet and confer within 14 days of the Court's ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss and to submit a joint proposed class certification briefing schedule within 14 days thereafter. The Plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 26, 2024. 7-Eleve is an American convenience store chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gqv8OZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Sept. 22 Class Cert Deadline in Baker Suspended ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baker v. 7-Eleven Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01609 (N.D. Tex., Filed June 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting the Parties' Unopposed Motion to Suspend Local Rule 23.2 Deadline. 1. The Sept. 22, 2025, deadline under Local Rule 23.2 for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is extended and suspended; 2. The parties shall meet and confer within 14 days of the Courts ruling on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and shall submit a joint proposed schedule, including class certification briefing, within 14 days thereafter. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). 7-Eleven is an American convenience store chain.[CC] AADI 95 CORP: Mortland Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property ----------------------------------------------------------- DEREK MORTLAND, Plaintiff v. AADI 95 CORP, an Indiana corporation for profit, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00386 (N.D. Ind., August 21, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's property and the facilities thereon previously as a place of public accommodation. However, he has experienced the architectural barriers to access Defendant's property. Moreover, the Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, says the suit. AADI 95 Corp owns the property located at 8311 Ohio St, Merrillville, IN 46410 in Lake County, which is a hotel known as the Country Inn & Suites by Radisson. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com - and - Brian A. Hizer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN A. HIZER The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 841-3600 Facsimile: (419) 842-9966 E-mail: brianahizer@bex.net AG CONSULTING: Kovalev Bid to Certify Class Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN KOVALEV and MINTIWAB HILL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. A.G. CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05954-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order denying the, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for settlement approval. The parties shall file a joint letter by Sept. 2, 2025, advising the Court how they propose to proceed in this action. The parties are on notice that failure to comply with court orders and all applicable rules, and expeditiously to move this case toward resolution, may result in sanctions, including: monetary penalties on counsel and the parties themselves; preclusion of claims, defenses, evidence, and motion practice; and the case-terminating sanctions of dismissal for failure to prosecute and default judgment. Because the proposed settlement class does not meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b), the Court cannot grant preliminary approval pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1), and the Court need not evaluate the fairness of the settlement under either Rule 23(e)(2), or Cheeks. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties' Proposed Settlement agreement defines the settlement class as "the Named Plaintiff [sic], all Opt-in Plaintiffs, and all current and former field employees who were employed by [AGC] between July 13, 2019, through the date of the [anticipated] Preliminary Approval" of the settlement agreement. AGC is an engineering firm that provides an "array of Mechanical/HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing ('MEP' services, Fire Protection, Fire Engineering, LEED Consulting, Construction Management and Special Inspection Services for federal, state, and city agencies and for the private sector." A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1vuk0s at no extra charge.[CC] AMYLYX PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss "Shih" Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit styled Shih v. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case Number 1:24-CV-00988, remains pending. "On February 9, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our current and former officers (Shih v. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case Number 1:24-CV-00988, or the Shih Complaint). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 24, 2024. The Shih Complaint asserts a claim against all defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under Section 20(a) against certain current and former officers as alleged controlling persons. The Shih Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the commercial results and prospects for RELYVRIO. The Shih Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief that the court deems appropriate. "On August 12, 2024, the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the Court, and assigned docket number 1:24-CV-12068. Following the transfer, on September 6, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the Shih Complaint. The fully briefed motion to dismiss is pending before the Court," the Company stated. ANNETT HOLDINGS: Case Management Order Entered in Gutierrez ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT GUTIERREZ, v. ANNETT HOLDINGS, INC. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06837-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a scheduling initial case management conference order: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. It appears to the Court that no initial case management and scheduling conference has yet taken place in this action. It is therefore ORDERED that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on Oct. 7, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. To the extent the parties are in disagreement concerning any portion of the Pre-Conference Statement, they may submit separate proposals as to such portion, without argument. Annett provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K8vcAK at no extra charge.[CC] ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVA KIRKBRIDE, as Trustee of the R and K Trust, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-03212-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff moves for certification of a class for the breach of contract claims against Antero under Rule 23(b)(3), and proposes the following class definition: "All persons to whom Antero has paid royalties at any time since Sept. 29, 2019, under oil and gas lease agreements or overriding royalty agreements covering lands located in the State of Ohio, under which Antero owns, or has owned, the Lessee's interest under leases which contain a "Cost Free Royalty" provision, which generally requires: ...all royalties for oil, gas, or other production accruing to the Lessor under this Lease shall be paid without deduction, directly or indirectly, for the costs or expenses of Lessee relating to producing, gathering, storing, separating, treating, dehydrating, compressing, processing, transporting, and marketing the oil, gas, and other products produced hereunder (hereinafter, "Class Leases")." Excluded from the Class are: (1) agencies of the United States of America; and (2) Antero, its current officers and employees. The case involves a breach of contract action arising from Antero’s systematic underpayment of royalties owed to Kirkbride and 148 other Class Members. Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AOKnux at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth K. Jones, Esq. George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: seth@bartonburrows.com george@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com - and - Clifford N. Sickler, Esq. SICKLER LAW OFFICE, LLC 508 North Street Caldwell, OH 3724 Telephone: (740) 732-1495 E-mail: cliff@sicklerlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. Ragan Naresh, Esq. Holly Trogdon, Esq. Saunders McElroy, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389 5000 E-mail: daniel.donovan@kirkland.com ragan.naresh@kirkland.com holly.trogdon@kirkland.com saunders.mcelroy@kirkland.com - and - Timothy B. McGranor, Esq. Ilya Batikov, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216 1008 Telephone: (614) 464 6400 E-mail: tbmcgranor@vorys.com ibatikov@vorys.com ANTHROPIC PBC: Authors Secure $1.5B Settlement in AI Piracy Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), literary piracy lawsuit announced on September 5, 2025, the terms of a landmark settlement requiring Anthropic to pay $1.5 billion to rightsholders whose books were downloaded by Anthropic from the notorious pirated databases "Library Genesis" ("LibGen") and "Pirate Library Mirror" ("PiLiMi") -- and who otherwise qualify as members of the "LibGen & PiLiMi Pirated Books Class" previously certified by US District Judge William Alsup. The settlement is subject to the approval of the court, where a hearing on preliminary approval is scheduled for September 8, 2025. Class Action Updates provides a breakdown of the Settlement terms at: https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/anthropics-15-billion-settlement Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Anthropic will pay approximately $3,000 per class work. The case was originally filed by authors Andrea Bartz, Kirk Wallace Johnson, and Charles Graeber. Believed to be the largest publicly reported recovery in the history of US copyright litigation, the massive payout sends a powerful message of accountability to AI developers who torrented copyrighted works from illegal pirated websites to train AI models, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, said in a statement. Anthropic's acquisition and use of books from these websites, illegal websites that have been repeatedly shut down by law enforcement and the courts, was made public for the first time as a result of this action. This settlement gives hope to creators of every kind including the writers, musicians, artists, journalists, and others seeking to enforce creators' rights in dozens of other pending cases. "Piracy harms those who devote their lives to writing and publishing books that benefit us all, and companies that exploit piracy and endanger the creative industries must be accountable," said Co-Lead plaintiffs' Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. While the exact size of the final settlement class is being finalized, based on the current record and available information regarding the works covered by the settlement, several facts are clear: * Anthropic will pay $1.5 billion plus interest into a settlement fund, equating to approximately $3,000 for each work covered by the settlement. "We anticipate approximately 500,000 works in the class. To the extent Anthropic adds works that bring the total list above 500,000, it will pay an additional $3,000 per work. Depending on the number of claims submitted, the final figure per work could be higher," according to Lieff Cabraser. * The settlement only releases claims based on past acts -- it does not give Anthropic a license or permission for future AI training and it does not release any claims that arise after August 25, 2025. * The settlement does not release any claims -- past or future -- based on the output of AI models. And Anthropic certifies in the agreement that it did not use materials from LibGen or PiLiMi in any commercial models. * The settlement only covers works from the class list. Authors retain all rights and legal claims regarding any books not on the settlement works list. * As part of the settlement, Anthropic has agreed to destroy the original files of works torrented/downloaded from Library Genesis or Pirate Library Mirror, and any copies that originate from the torrented copies. The resolution was negotiated in consultation with key stakeholders from the author and publisher communities. President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers Maria Pallante said, "I believe that settlement as presented is beneficial to all class members and I am hopeful that the settlement will receive wide support from copyright owners. Beyond the monetary terms, the proposed settlement provides enormous value in sending the message that Artificial Intelligence companies cannot unlawfully acquire content from shadow libraries or other pirate sources as the building blocks for their models." The CEO of the Authors' Guild Mary Rasenberger praised the agreement as "an excellent result for authors, publishers, and rightsholders generally, sending a strong message to the AI industry that there are serious consequences when they pirate authors' works to train their AI, robbing those least able to afford it." Consistent with the Court's rulings in this case, the settlement class includes legal and beneficial owners of copyrights in books downloaded by Anthropic from Library Genesis or Pirate Library Mirror, and whose works were registered within five years of initial publication and prior to Anthropic's download. Co-lead class counsel appointed by the court are Justin Nelson, Susman Godfrey LLP and Rachel Geman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Authors and rightsholders may visit AnthropicCopyrightSettlement.com, which gives potential class members an option to provide contact information to Class Counsel. In the coming weeks, and if the court preliminarily approves the settlement, the website will provide to find a full and easily searchable listing of all works covered by the settlement and information for class members about their options and rights regarding the settlement. The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the parties' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Monday, September 8, and may schedule a final approval hearing for 2026. The settlement cannot take effect until court approval. For more information regarding the settlement including a full description of the settlement class and claim requirements, visit AnthropicCopyrightSettlement.com APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Under Seal Select Documents ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by and through next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN LEBLOND, PATRICIA ORRIS, ANGELA STEVENS, JESSICA JACKSON, MELISSA OATMAN, JUSTIN REVELO, AND TAYLOR VALL on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order maintaining and granting Apple's leave to file under seal select documents related to the Plaintiffs' supplement to motion for class certification and Apple Inc.'s response and opposition. If Apple's confidential information were disclosed, Apple’s competitors would gain insights into trade secrets and other confidential business information and decision-making processes regarding the design and implementation of technologies within the Photos app, which Apple developed through substantial effort and the investment of significant resources. Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=639vS4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Purvi G. Patel, Esq. Emma Burgoon, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. Tiffani B. Figueroa, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 E-mail: PPatel@mofo.com EBurgoon@mofo.com KViggiani@mofo.com TFigueroa@mofo.com AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Schultz Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SCHULTZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00088-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Stan Bastian entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. 2. The Court certifies this matter as a class action. The class and subclass are defined as follows: Main Class "(1) All persons; (2) Who rented any property in Washington State; (3) Where Avenue was the "landlord" of the rental property, as defined by Wash. Rev. Code section 59.18.030(16); (4) Who signed any lease agreement; (5) Where the lease agreement contained provisions prohibited by the RLTA." Subclass A "(1) Those individuals who meet the requirements for all class members above; and (2) Who are required to pay any amounts for late fees imposed before five days had passed since the rent was due, for pest control charges (excluding those in a single-family dwelling), for a service fee imposed for notice served under Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12, et seq., and/or attorney's fees and costs that were not allowed under the RLTA. 3. The parties shall file a joint status report and discovery plan, including proposed trial dates, on or before Sept. 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and to provide copies to counsel. This case was filed in Spokane County Superior Court on Jan. 3, 2023, and removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Washington on March 30, 2023. Avenue5 Residential is a property management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8jkOtR at no extra charge.[CC] BELVEDERE NRDE: Class Discovery Due Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CAMILLA VALENCIA RIOS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, V. BELVEDERE NRDE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00474-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an Initial Pretrial Conference Order: (1) The plaintiff shall file her amended complaint by Sept. 3, 2025; and the defendants shall file their Answers and any other motions with respect to the Amended Complaint by Sept. 24, 2025. (2) The Defendant Belvedere Nrde, LLC's motion to dismiss is denied as moot without prejudice to the filing of any motion to dismiss after the filing of the Amended Complaint. (3) The Defendant Pegasus Residential, LLC's motion to dismiss Under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 18) is denied as moot without prejudice to the filing of any motion to dismiss after the filing of the Amended Complaint. (4) The Defendants' joint motion to certify a question to the Supreme Court of Virginia is denied without prejudice. (5) Class discovery shall begin immediately and shall close on Nov. 13, 2025. (6) The class certification process shall proceed under the following schedule: (a) On Dec. 15, 2025, the plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class Certification; and (b) By Jan. 15, 2026, the defendants shall file their responses; and (c) By Jan. 29, 2026, the plaintiff shall file her reply; and (7) The Court will hear oral argument on the motion for class certification at 10:00 a.m. February 27, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nacrm4 at no extra charge.[CC] BRAZOS VALLEY: Fazzino Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAZZINO INVESTMENTS, LP for itself and all others similarly situated, V. BRAZOS VALLEY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Case No. 6:25-cv-00001-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying action as a class action under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2), and -- Appointing Marvin W. Jones and C. Brantley Jones of Sprouse Shrader Smith PLLC, and Richard L. Coffman of The Coffman Law Firm, as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The class action involves groundwater property rights. The Plaintiff desires to sell its groundwater production rights to a commercial groundwater production company. But because of the amendment of BVGCD's Rules on Sept. 14, 2023, drilling a commercial water well on Plaintiff's property is not economically feasible. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2): "All individuals and entities that own land in Brazos and Robertson Counties, Texas, over the Simsboro Aquifer of at least 35 contiguous acres that do not have a pre Sept. 14, 2023, groundwater well permitted or drilled on their acreage." Excluded from the proposed class are (i) BVGCD and its current and former officers, directors, employees, agents, and representatives, and (ii) the Court and its personnel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aeyilQ at no extra charge. The Defendant is a not-for-profit local government that was created with a directive to protect and conserve the groundwater resources of Brazos and Robertson counties.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Coffman, Esq. THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM 3355 West Alabama, Suite 240 Houston, TX 77098-1864 Telephone: (713) 528-6700 Facsimile: (866) 835-8250 E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com - and - Marvin W. Jones, Esq. C. Brantley Jones, Esq. SPROUSE SHRADER SMITH PLLC 701 S. Taylor, Suite 500 Amarillo, TX 79105-5008 Telephone: (806) 468-3300 Facsimile: (806) 373-3454 E-mail: marty.jones@sprouselaw.com brantley.jones@sprouselaw.com BRIANNA CORP: Herrera Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------- CARLOS HERRERA, Plaintiff v. BRIANNA CORP. (DBA JIM’S DELICATESSEN) and GILBERT TOHME, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04662 (E.D.N.Y., August 21, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant Brianna Corp. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a cook, and did any other of task assigned to him under the direct supervision and control of Defendant Gilbert Tohme. Allegedly, the Defendants knowingly failed to maintain accurate record keeping as mandated by the FLSA and the NYLL, thereby exacerbating the injury in fact suffered by the Plaintiff, obstructing his ability to determine owed wages accurately, and facilitating continued violation of wage laws. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for the Defendants’ willful failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. Brianna Corp. owns and operates a restaurant and deli in Uniondale, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: https://www.StillmanLegalPC.com BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE: Wedding Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULETTE WEDDING, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated, v. BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028-DJH-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the Parties' stipulation of settlement ("Settlement Agreement"). Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order: (a) preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; (b) certifying a Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for the Plaintiff's claims under the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA"); (c) appointing the undersigned Class Counsel with authority to enter into and effectuate this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Class; (d) approving the Notice of Settlement to be sent to all Class Members; (e) setting a deadline for the filing of Plaintiffs' memoranda in support of the motion to approve this Settlement Agreement and Petition to Approve Fee Award; (f) setting forth the requirements for and deadline to submit objections by an Class Member; (g) setting forth the process for Class Members to exclude themselves from the Settlement and a deadline for doing so; and (h) finding that the Plaintiff has agreed to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: "Plaintiff, Paulette Wedding, and all similarly-situated non-exempt employees employed by BCG from February through Nov. 30, 2023, and who are listed on Schedule A to the Agreement." Schedule A to the Agreement lists 129 specific employees, who comprise the class, and lists, for each employee, a specific dollar amount for "Unpaid Wages" and a separate, additional specific amount for "Liquidated." The Defendant operates a nursing home. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cmszeP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com The Defendant is represented by: Rex P. Fennessey, Esq. MCMAHON BERGER, P.C. 2730 North Ballas Road, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 Telephone: (314) 567-7350 Facsimile: (314) 567-5968 E-mail: fennessey@mcmahonberger.com CAPITAL VISION: Jenkins et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CIARA JENKINS, ALEXIS VELASQUEZ, JORI VELASQUEZ, and DEBORAH WARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES D/B/A MYEYEDR., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10000 (N.D. Ill., August 21, 2025) arises from Defendant's unlawful disclosure of its patients' sensitive health information. The Defendant assures patients in its Privacy Policy that it will keep their personal health information private and not share that information with others. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other visitors to MyEyeDr's Website, the Defendant does not keep its patients information confidential. Instead, through the website, MyEyeDr collected and transmitted personally identifiable and sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiffs and other patients' upcoming appointments to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools without Plaintiffs' or other similarly situated patients' consent. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Confidence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Headquartered in Vienna, VA, Capital Vision Services d/b/a MyEyeDr. is a limited liability company that provides eye health services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com CARBON HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Aubin Extended to Oct. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIENNE ST. AUBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARBON HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00667-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order extending case deadlines: Event Deadline Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' Oct. 8, 2025 class certification expert disclosures due: Deadline to complete discovery of Plaintiffs' Nov. 7, 2025 class certification experts: Class certification opposition and Defendant's Dec. 5, 2025 class certification expert disclosures due: Deadline to complete discovery of Defendant's Jan. 9, 2026 class certification experts: Class certification reply due: Feb. 13, 2026 Carbon Health is a modern health chain that provides urgent and primary care. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L5bH98 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7408 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com ltfisher@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com - and - Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 E-mail: scott@drurylegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel E. Rohner, Esq. Tammy B. Webb, Esq. Russell L. Taylor, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 1660 17th Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 285-5300 Facsimile: (303) 285-5301 CARDCONNECT LLC: Longhorn Public Sues Over Frozen Funds ------------------------------------------------------- LONGHORN PUBLIC ADJUSTERS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CARDCONNECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00925-P (N.D. Tex., August 26, 2025) stems from Cardconnect's widespread business practice of unlawfully withholding and converting funds from its clients' financial accounts, without cause and without any fair or due process through Cardconnect's service, Cardpointe. The Plaintiff has used CardPointe primarily to process payments from its customers. However, since approximately August 2023, Cardconnect has wrongfully withheld approximately $40,000 of Longhorn's customer payments. These funds have been frozen for over a year without any legitimate justification provided by Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action, alleging that Defendant's conduct violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Based in King of Prussia, PA, Cardconnect, LLC operates “CardPointe,” a digital payment platform with an estimated 6 million active account holders worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. Preston J. Dugas III, Esq. Sarah Arroyo, Esq. DUGAS & CIRCELLI, PLLC 4800 Bryant Irvin Ct. Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (817) 817-7000 Facsimile: (682) 219-0761 E-mail: vcircelli@dcclawfirm.com pdugas@dcclawfirm.com sarroyo@dcclawfirm.com CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Loses Bid for Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANDE NQADOLO and PAMELA MANGALI, v. CARE AT HOME, LLC, SUZANNE KARP, and DANIEL KARP, Case No. 3:22-cv-00612-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. -- The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Nqadolo is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Mangali is granted in part and denied in part. This case shall proceed to trial on the following: (1) Plaintiff Nqadolo's claim for unpaid wages arising from interruptions to her sleep periods occurring on April 15, 2021 and July 16, 2021, and on or about October 3, 2021; and (2) Plaintiff Mangali's claim for unpaid wages arising from: (a) interruptions to her sleep periods occurring on February 29, 2020, from May 31, 2020 to June 10, 2020, from June 27, 2021 to June 30, 2021, August 25, 2021, and August 28, 2021; and (b) interruptions to her meal/rest break periods occurring on February 29, 2020, March 7, 2020, and June 26, 2021. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants improperly withheld overtime that should have been paid to the Plaintiffs, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"). The Plaintiffs alleged, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that Defendants violated the FLSA and the CMWA by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and then-putative class members for interruptions to their meal and sleep breaks, and by failing to add the value of food and lodging to their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating earned but unpaid overtime. Plaintiff Nqadolo is a live-in HCA, who worked for Defendant Care at Home from approximately March 22, 2021 to Dec. 15, 2021. Care provides home care and caregiving services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qjq7gm at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Lifts Stay of Harper Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00902 (E.D. Cal., Filed May 17, 2019), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order lifting the stay of the case in light of the resolution of Defendant's Appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reactivate the Motion to Certify Class and the Motion to Deny Class Certification, which remain pending following the Ninth Circuit's decision on Appeal. The court entered an order that by no later than Sept. 8, 2025, the parties shall file a Notice informing the court: -- whether the parties wish to file supplemental briefing on the pending Motions; -- whether the parties believe a Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge would be productive at this time (note: parties must participate in a court-ordered Settlement Conference before a case may proceed to trial); -- the parties' proposed dates for the court's consideration in issuing a further schedule for this case; and -- whether the parties still request to appear before the court for a Status Conference, which would be held in person. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation -- Diversity-Account Receivable. Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company.[CC] CHEBOYGAN COUNTY, MI: Class Settlement in Arkona Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARKONA LLC, et al., v. COUNTY OF CHEBOYGAN, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12372-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. -- The Previously Certified Class is decertified. If the Settlement is terminated for any reason as to any County, the Previously Certified Class is reinstated nunc pro tunc to the day before this Order is entered as to that County. -- Matthew E. Gronda and Philip L. Ellison are appointed as interim counsel for the proposed Class and Sub-Classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3). -- Solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), this Court finds that it will likely certify the following Class if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement: "All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in any County which Property, that during the Class Period (i.e. Jan. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom the County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds." -- In addition, solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), this Court finds that if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement, it will likely certify Sub- Classes as to each County,6 with a sub-class definition tied to each County, as described below: i. Cheboygan County: The Cheboygan County Settlement Sub-Class means: "All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Cheboygan County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. an. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Cheboygan County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds." ii. Monroe County: The Monroe County Settlement Sub-Class means: "All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Monroe County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. Jan. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Monroe County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds." A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V90JZJ at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Linich Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- LUKE LINICH and JASON FURTICK on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06928 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the highly-sensitive personal information of its students and student-applicants. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant with the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect their data against unauthorized disclosure--was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed by an unknown threat actor on or about May 16, 20251 followed by a technical outage which occurred on June 24, 2025. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered concrete injuries including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their personally identifiable information (PII); (iii) lost or diminished value of their PII; and (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and assert claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York operates the Columbia University in the City of New York, a private university based in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. Ashley Crooks, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com acrooks@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas U. Murphy, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com nmurphy@hausfeld.com CROWN EQUIPMENT: North Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- MARY NORTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01768 (N.D. Ohio, August 26, 2025) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff North was employed by Defendant as a surface mount technology operator from approximately November 2022 until August 2025. During her employment, Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks. However, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees were allegedly not compensated for the time spent donning and doffing their anti-static clothing. Among other things, the Defendant also failed to track, keep, or transmit the hours accurately worked each day by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in violation of the FLSA. Crown Equipment Corporation manufactures forklift and material handling equipment within the United States and globally. The company operates a manufacturing facility in New Bremen, OH. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com DAVITA INC: Faces Ellman Suit Over Patients' Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN M. ELLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02629-TPO (D. Colo., August 21, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information and personal health information of its patients. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's data-security failures, over 20 terabytes of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI was accessed and exfiltrated by unauthorized actors beginning on at least March 24, 2025 through April 12, 2025. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide timely notice to Plaintiff and the affected Class Members -- thereby exacerbating their injuries. The Plaintiff was not notified of the data breach until August 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business Law. Headquartered in Denver, CO, DaVita, Inc. provides care for patients with kidney disease, including providing dialysis services. The company also processes lab results for other healthcare providers, practices, and other entities through DaVita Labs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01694-TSC (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(A) and LCvR 7(m), staying their deadlines to, respectively, move for class certification and respond to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Parties submit that good cause exists and request that the Court grant this Motion. Pursuant to LCvR 7(a), this Motion includes all supporting points of law and authority. A proposed order follows, as required by LCvR 7(c). The Parties are currently discussing the potential for a settled resolution of this matter, and staying these current litigation deadlines would facilitate the discussions. The current deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification is October 14, 2025, and the current deadline for the District to respond to the Complaint is August 25, 2025. The Parties propose that the stay expire 30 days from the latter deadline, on September 24, 2025, on which date the Parties would file a joint status report either requesting that the stay be extended or proposing a schedule for further proceedings. The Defendant is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rCP2qp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Allen, Esq. Jennifer Klar, Esq. Robert Hunter, Esq. RELMAN COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848 E-mail: mallen@relmanlaw.com jklar@relmanlaw.com rhunter@relmanlaw.com - and - Kaitlin Banner, Esq. Chelsea Sullivan, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Facsimile: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org chelsea_sullivan@washlaw.org - and - Rachel Weisberg, Esq. Erin Gallagher, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 300 South Wacker Drive, Floor 32 Chicago, IL 60606-6680 Telephone: (332) 217-2319 Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 E-mail: rweisberg@dralegal.org egallagher@dralegal.org The Defendant is represented by: David R. Wasserstein, Esq. Brendan Heath, Esq. Patrick Duprey, Esq. 400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 442-9880 Cell: (202) 769-6157 E-mail: brendan.heath@dc.gov DMC GLOBAL INC: Garson Securities Suit Ongoing in CO Court ---------------------------------------------------------- DMC Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2025, that on December 6, 2024, Samuel Garson, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the company and other defendants. Complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b5-1 promulgated thereunder on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the company's securities between May 3, 2024 and November 4, 2024. In particular, the complaint alleged that the Defendants made false and misleading statements during the class period concerning the company's business resulting in injury to the purported class members. Complaints sought certification of a class of purchasers of the company's securities during the respective class periods and an award of damages, interest, costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) to the respective plaintiffs and class members. On February 5, 2025, the District Court ordered this consolidated with another lawsuit and on June 23, 2025, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated case filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations within the class period. DMC Global Inc. owns and operates manufacturing businesses and engineered solutions in the construction, energy, industrial processing and transportation markets. It is headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE CUSTER, v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order extending time to seek class certification and modifying scheduling order: 1. The plaintiff's motion for extension of time to seek class certification is granted in part to the extent stated herein. 2. The plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification by Sept. 11, 2025; the deadline for defendant to file opposition is Oct. 2, 2025; the deadline for any reply brief by the plaintiff is Oct. 16, 2025. If no motion for class certification is filed by Sept. 11, 2025, the class claims will be dismissed without prejudice without further notice and the case will proceed on the plaintiff's individual claims only. 3. The discovery deadline remains Sept. 10, 2025. The deadline for giving notice of dispositive motions remains Sept. 24, 2025. If a motion for class certification is filed, then any summary judgment motion shall be filed no later than Oct. 22, 2025; any opposition shall be filed no later than Nov. 19, 2025, and any reply shall be filed no later than Dec. 8, 2025, which deadline the Court has extended slightly in view of the Thanksgiving holiday. If no motion for class certification is filed, then the deadline for filing a dispositive motion is Oct. 10, 2025. 4. The Court recommends that each lawyer who has entered an appearance for the plaintiff immediately review the Local Rules and the Court's standard order. Finally, the dates proposed by the plaintiff for briefing on class certification are longer than that usually allowed under the Local Rules. The plaintiff has offered no reason why more time is necessary, and counsel's "oversight" is already resulting in delay in briefing on dispositive motions. The usual time limits are sufficient. In April 2024, the plaintiff brought this putative class action asserting state law claims against his mortgage sub-servicer, Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. The Court adopted a scheduling order in December 2024. Dovenmuehle provides mortgage servicing for commercial banks, credit unions, mortgage bankers and housing finance agencies. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ZE3Jg at no extra charge.[CC] DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jones Suit Due Oct. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clyde Marcus Jones, II; Dennis Phillips, and Deborah Phillips, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Duke Energy Corporation and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01281-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a consent amended scheduling order. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of this Court, the following schedule is established for this case. Discovery may begin upon receipt of this order. 1. No later than Sept. 15, 2025, the required initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) shall be made. 2. No later than Sept. 22, 2025, the parties shall file a Rule 26(f) Report in the form attached to this order. 3. The Plaintiff(s) shall file a motion seeking certification of the purported class no later than Oct. 1, 2025. 4. Any response to the motion for certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 3, 2025. Discovery shall be completed no later than Feb. 2, 2026. 5. Motions in limine must be filed no later than April 15, 2026. 6. No later than April 15, 2026, the parties shall file and exchange Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures. 7. This case is subject to being called for jury selection and/or trial on or after May 11, 2026. Duke is an American electric power and natural gas holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RsKpOf at no extra charge.[CC] EXCEL FITNESS: Lipford Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- REGINALD LIPFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXCEL FITNESS CONSOLIDATOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01366 (W.D. Tex., August 26, 2025) arises out of the data breach wherein an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's computer systems and that Defendant discovered on or about January 17, 2025. The Defendant's investigation determined that employee email accounts were subject to unauthorized access for time periods between September 16, 2024, and January 18, 2025. Moreover, the Defendant has failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with timely and adequate notice including, but not limited to, information about how the data breach occurred and even when it occurred and when Plaintiff's and Class Members' information was released onto the dark web. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its employment relationship with Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Excel Fitness Consolidator, LLC owns gym locations in Texas and several other states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Extreme Networks Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has stayed the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension class suit. On August 13, 2024, a putative securities class action (the "Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05102-TLT, naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Extreme Networks securities between July 27, 2022 and January 30, 2024 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects during the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. On December 30, 2024, the Court selected Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, Oakland County Employees' Retirement System as the lead plaintiffs. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted on August 15, 2025, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint by September 9, 2025. The case remain stayed pending a potential filing of an amended complaint in the Class Action. Extreme Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries provides software-driven networking solutions for enterprise customers. EXXON MOBIL: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Schedule in Yoshikawa -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENDI YOSHIKAWA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, LIAM M. MALLON, and MELISSA BOND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-N (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion to modify the class certification schedule. Accordingly, the Defendants request that the Class Certification Schedule be modified so that: Mr. Wright's deposition, if necessary, will take place no later than 21 days after this Court's decision on the Defendants' forthcoming motion to exclude. The Defendants' Sur-Reply in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification shall be served on the Plaintiffs no later than 21 days after the deposition of Mr. Wright if the Motion to Exclude is denied, or 21 days after the decision on the Motion to Exclude if the Motion to Exclude is granted. On February 3, 2025, the parties entered into a joint stipulation regarding the class certification schedule. On July 24, 2025 -- one month after the Opposition was filed -- the Plaintiffs advised Defendants that they planned to include an expert report from D. Randall Wright, a petroleum engineer, with their Reply and that Mr. Wright would be available for deposition only on Aug. 13, 2025. ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Qzosj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Noelle M. Reed, Esq. Abigail E. Davis, Esq. Wallis M. Hampton, Esq. Michelle L. Davis, Esq. Michael W. Restey Jr. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 655-5122 Facsimile: (713) 483-9122 E-mail: noelle.reed@skadden.com abigail.sheehan@skadden.com wallis.hampton@skadden.com michelle.davis@skadden.com michael.restey@skadden.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Milstead Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JIM MILSTEAD and MITCHELL SZYDLOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FARMERS GROUP, INC.; FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08062 (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and/or private health information (PHI) of Plaintiffs and Class Members. On approximately May 29, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendants' network systems and accessed their databases. The data breach put Plaintiffs' and Class Members' names, social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, policy numbers, financial information, and other PII and PHI at risk of exposure. Beginning August 22, 2025, the Defendants began notifying their clients about which individuals and specific data may have been involved in the data breach. However, the breach notice posted by Defendants did not specify detailed measures or actions taken by them to fully remediate the vulnerabilities that led to the data breach, nor did it explain specific measures adopted to prevent future incidents. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this action on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated to seek redress for the lifetime of harm they will now face, asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the California Customer Records Act. Headquartered in Woodland Hills, CA, Farmers Insurance Exchange offers insurance to clients nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 402 W. Broadway, STE 1760 San Diego, CA 92101-8546 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com FINASTRA TEHCNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as H. v. FINASTRA TEHCNOLOGY INC., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01426 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the Parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL MCCABE, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-10829-FDS (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: -- denying certification of the Plaintiffs' Alabama class and implied warranty claims, and -- granting all such other and further relief as is just and proper. Ford, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, moves for an order partially denying class certification of the classes pleaded in Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs refused to withdraw their putative Alabama class and request to certify their implied warranty claims even though it is obvious from the pleadings that certification of those claims should be denied because they cannot possibly move forward on a class-wide basis, the suit says. Ford is an American multinational automaker. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LxH2Ac at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Hector Torres, Esq. Cindy Caranella Kelly, Esq. Stephen P. Thomasch, Esq. KASOWITZ LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-1700 E-mail: htorres@kasowitz.com ckelly@kasowitz.com sthomasch@kasowitz.com - and - Michelle I. Schaffer, Esq. Jacob J. Lantry, Esq. CAMPBELL CONROY & O'NEIL, P.C. 20 City Square, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 241-3000 E-mail: mschaffer@campbell-trial-lawyers.com jlantry@campbell-trial-lawyers.com - and - Jodi M. Schebel, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 101 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 205-3300 E-mail: jodi.schebel@bowmanandbrooke.com FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYANNA JACKSON, et. al., v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, et. al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60935-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of individuals subjected to the unconstitutional use of force by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department ("FLPD") during the Fort Lauderdale George Floyd protest on May 31, 2020. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs request the appointment of the undersigned as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Plaintiffs' lawyers possess the requisite experience, resources, and dedication to prosecute this case to a successful resolution. Upon the court’s request or the Defendants’ objection, class counsel is prepared to demonstrate their experience and suitability. The Plaintiffs ask for a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(2) for one (1) hour. A hearing will allow the parties to present the complex issues raised in the dismissal pleadings. The hearing will enable the Court to seek input from the parties as to any concerns raised by the pleadings. On May 31, 2020, during a peaceful protest in Fort Lauderdale concerning the police killing of George Floyd, FLPD, indiscriminately and without notice, deployed 205 rounds of tear gas and other impact munitions to disperse the assembly. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following two classes: The Damages Class is defined as: "those persons present at or near SE 2nd Street and SE 1st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida on May 31, 2020, between 6:50 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., who were subjected to FLPD's crowd dispersal tactics." This Damages Class includes two subclasses: 1) those subject to less-lethal force; and 2) those who were not subject to less lethal force but were driven from the area as a result of FLPD dispersal tactics. The proposed Injunctive Relief Class is defined as: "all persons present at or near SE 2nd Street and SE 1st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida on May 31, 2020, between 6:50 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., or may in the future, participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City in the exercise of their rights of free speech, assembly, and petition in general, and particularly as related to protesting police violence and discrimination against people of color, especially Black Americans." Fort Lauderdale is a city on Florida's southeastern coast, known for its beaches and boating canals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QkqXx9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Johan D. Dos Santos, Esq. Benedict P. Kuehne, Esq. Michael T. Davis, Esq. KUEHNE DAVIS LAW, P.A. 100 SE 2 Street, Suite 3650 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-5989 Facsimile: (305) 789-5987 E-mail: ben.kuehne@kuehnelaw.com mdavis@kuehnelaw.com johand@kuehnelaw.com - and - Stuart N. Ratzan, Esq. Stuart J. Weissman, Esq. Kimberly L. Boldt, Esq. RATZAN WEISSMAN & BOLDT 2850 Tigertail Avenue, Suite 400 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 374-6366 Facsimile: (305) 374-6755 E-mail: Stuart@rwblawyers.com StuartW@rwblawyers.com Kimberly@rwblawyers.com FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Kirkland Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIE KIRKLAND, Plaintiff v. FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC and CRIMSON HEIGHTS HEALTH AND WELLNESS, is a class action arising out of the public exposure of the confidential, private information of Defendant Crimson Heights' current and former residents. Due to Defendants' collective failures to adequately safeguard that personal information, Fundamental Administrative Services' systems encountered a cyberattack incident between October 27, 2024, and January 13, 2025. Although Defendants purportedly discovered the data breach on January 20, 2025, they failed to immediately notify and warn current and former residents, with FAS waiting until August 15, 2025 to provide written notice to Plaintiff and the proposed Class, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Sparks, MD, FAS is a healthcare management services company based in Sparks, Maryland, that provides administrative services to healthcare facilities nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary E. Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: zhowerton@milberg.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 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL: Romero et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO MERA ROMERO, et al., Plaintiffs v. GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06912 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed as housekeepers of cleaning corporations where the Defendants controlled a publicly funded cleaning project of the asylum located at 825 east 141 Street, Bronx, NY 10454. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the New York State mandated "prevailing wages" that they were entitled to receive for work performed on the public works projects pursuant to New York contracts entered into between the Defendants and public entities including but not limited to Department of Emergency Management on whose behalf the Plaintiffs performed work. Garner Environmental Services, Inc. operates government facilities cleaning companies that work on the public works project in the Mott Haven section of the Bronx County in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GEICO INDEMNITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Shiloah Due Nov. 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENATA SHILOAH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 6:24-cv-06447-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Holland entered a scheduling order as follows: All mandatory disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(1) shall be completed on or before Sept. 8, 2025. All motions to join other parties and to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before Sept. 15, 2025. Any third-party action shall be commenced on or before Sept. 15, 2025. The Court will require the parties to bundle for filing the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification, as well as the response and reply to such motion. Specifically, the parties shall exchange their motion papers according to the following schedule: -- The Plaintiff's anticipated class certification motion and all papers in support thereof shall be served on the Defendant on Nov. 14, 2025. -- The Defendant shall serve it response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification on the Plaintiff on Jan. 5, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall serve his reply to his anticipated motion for class certification on Feb. 24, 2026. GEICO operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7H3BF at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Awards $2.035MM Atty's Fee in Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jon P. McCalla entered a final approval order and judgment: The Court finds and concludes that Class Notice was disseminated to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with the terms set forth in the Agreement and this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. The Court grants Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and approves payment in the amount of $2,035,000. The award of attorneys' fees and expenses is to be paid directly by the Defendant. The Court finds the payment of service awards in the amount of $10,000 to each named Plaintiff to be fair and reasonable. The incentive awards are to be paid directly by the Defendant. General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X89Ixd at no extra charge.[CC] GEO GROUP: Ronduen Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIGAYA RONDUEN, et al., v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, and SPARTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00481-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 29, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order: (1) certifying the proposed class and designating Ligaya Ronduen, Carlos Castillo, Miriam Scheetz, Wilfredo Gonzalez Mena, Somboon Phaymany, and Yolanda Mendoza as class representatives; (2) appointing the law firms of Social Justice Legal Foundation and Hueston Hennigan LLP as class counsel; and (3) requiring that notice of this action be provided to the class. The action arises from the rampant misuse of HDQ Neutral, a toxic and highly corrosive pesticide, at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center ("Adelanto") in 2020. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class ("the Detained Class") against Defendants GEO and Spartan on all nine causes of action: "All persons who were detained at the Adelanto Detention Center for any amount of time between March 11, 2020 and Sept. 29, 2020, and were exposed to HDQ Neutral." The class excludes The GEO Group, Inc., and Spartan Chemical Company, Inc. their officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assignees, and any other individual whose interests are antagonistic to other class members. GEO is a for-profit owner of correctional facilities and detention centers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L2rXFG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara Haji, Esq. Hannah K. Comstock, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION 523 West 6th Street, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 542-5241 E-mail: shaji@socialjusticelaw.org hcomstock@socialjusticelaw.org - and - John C. Hueston, Esq. Robert N. Klieger, Esq. HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP 523 West 6th Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 788-4340 E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com rklieger@hueston.com GOOGLE INC: $425MM Jury Verdict for Plaintiffs in Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In September 2025, Susman Godfrey, serving as co-lead counsel alongside Boies Schiller and Morgan & Morgan, won a $425 million jury verdict for a class of millions of Plaintiffs who allege that Google collects users' Internet and application activity even when users turn Google's "Web & App Activity" button off. After a nearly three-week trial, the jury deliberated for 10 hours over two days before reaching its verdict in a matter regarding allegations that Google unlawfully saved and used information about consumers' activities on third-party apps, even though the users opted out of tracking. "We are thrilled, after several years of hard-fought litigation, to bring justice to the class of plaintiffs who have long been taken advantage of," said Bill Carmody, who served as co-lead trial counsel. Susman Godfrey's clients represent nationwide classes of device users who swiped on a "supplemental Web & App Activity" -- or sWAA -- privacy option offered by Google related to third-party app use. This win comes at the end of a long line of successes in this multi-year case. In 2021, the Susman Godfrey team defeated Google's motion to dismiss before Chief Judge Richard Seeborg, who issued a significant order finding that Google's "public-facing statements" on privacy "are legitimately confusing." In 2024, Judge Seeborg granted class certification to the millions of mobile app users, rejecting the tech giant's argument that the plaintiffs' privacy intrusion claims are "inherently personal" and inappropriate for class treatment. In 2025, Judge Seeborg rejected Google's bid for summary judgment, forcing the tech giant to face a trial. Co-lead counsel on the matter, partner Amanda Bonn added, "This decision sends a clear message to Google and all companies like it -- your responsibility to the people is more important that your bottom line." Carmody and Bonn were joined by co-lead counsel partner Shawn Rabin. Partner Steven Shepard and associates Alexander Frawley and Ryan Sila completed the trial team. The case is Rodriguez et al. v. Google LLC et al. (3:20-cv-04688, N.D. California) GOOGLE LLC: Bid for Stay w/o Prejudice Tossed in Cengage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; BEDFORD, FREEMAN & WORTH PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MACMILLAN LEARNING; MACMILLAN HOLDINGS, LLC; ELSEVIER INC.; ELSEVIER B.V.; and MCGRAW HILL LLC, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04274-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for a stay without prejudice. The Defendant may renew its motion when discovery has completed and in advance of the parties' summary judgment briefing. In sum, a decision in Cox Communications is unlikely to be issued before Spring 2026. If, by the conclusion of discovery, a decision in Cox Communications has not been rendered, Google may submit a motion to stay summary judgment briefing pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Proceeding in this fashion should allay Google's concern of the "risk [of] rulings in the present case that are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in [Cox Communications]." The Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 5, 2024, asserting contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and trademark infringement claims against Google, as well as violations of section 349(a) of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349. On Sept. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, and on Sept. 30, 2004, Google filed a motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of the Amended Complaint, that is, the vicarious copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and GBL section 349 claims. On June 4, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Google's motion to dismiss. Google operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TUAXNQ at no extra charge.[CC] GORDON LANE: Parrish Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL PARRISH by and through Successor in Interest, Monica Parrish; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, by and through Successor in Interest Beverly Rodriguez; JOAN ASHABRANER, by and through her Successor in Interest Susan Ashabraner; v. GORDON LANE HEALTHCARE, LLC; SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES; IRVING BAUMAN; FRANK JOHNSON; ELI MARMUR; WILLIAM PRESNELL and DOES 1- 150, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01790-WLH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 19, 2024, will move the Court for Class Certification of their claims against the Defendants. Gordon provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services, therapy and social services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I9Exnx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq. Brian S. Umpierre, Esq. STEBNER GERTLER & GUADAGNI 870 Market Street, Suite 1285 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 362-9800 Facsimile: (415) 362-9801 E-mail: kathryn@sgg-lawfirm.com brian@sgg-lawfirm.com HERTZ CORP: Parties Must File Joint Status Report, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ruben Colunga, v. The Hertz Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05183-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Chooljian entered an order continuing hearing on motion and scheduling conference and directing parties to file joint status report: As it appears to the Court that resolution of a matter set for hearing in the Maharaj Action on Aug. 28, 2025 could materially impact Defendant's Motion, the Court continues the hearing on Defendant's Motion and the Scheduling Conference from August 26, 2025 to Sept. 9, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. and directs the parties to file a Joint Status Report by Sept. 2, 2025, advising the Court of any ruling by the Court in the Maharaj Action addressing whether or when a class certification motion in such matter may be heard. To the extent resolution of the matter set for hearing in the Maharaj Action on Aug. 28, 2025, impacts the parties' proposed dates in this action, they should attach an updated Proposed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates to the Joint Status Report. Hertz is an American car rental company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QRopdj at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Lopez Sues Over Alleged Engine Defects ----------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC, HYUNDAI MOTOR CO., and HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00661-MHT-CWB (M.D. Ala., August 21, 2025) arises from alleged engine defects of model year 2022 to 2023 Hyundai Tucson and Santa Cruz, model year 2021 to 2023 Santa Fe, and model year 2020 to 2023 Hyundai Sonata vehicles. The Plaintiff alleges that the engines of these class vehicles suffer design and/or manufacturing defects that cause aggressive fouling or degradation of Gasoline Direct Injection fuel injectors under normal and expected operating conditions. Even though the Defendants knew about the defect before, the class vehicles were sold but they did not disclose the defect to Plaintiff or Class Members at the time of sale and subsequently failed to redesign and replace the defective components. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims against Hyundai for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of Georgia's Consumer Protection Act, common law fraud, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. owns and operates an automobile manufacturing plant in Montgomery, AL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com Dylan.Martin@BeasleyAllen.com Trent.Mann@BeasleyAllen.com JAMES LEBLANC: Seeks to Stay Betz Class Action ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODRICK S. BETZ, V. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay pending resolution of the class certification motion in Humphrey. At that time, the Plaintiff can determine if he will opt of the class and proceed with his instant claim, or proceed with his claim under Humphrey. Because it is "inefficient to conduct parallel proceedings addressing the same underlying issues." In the alternative, if the stay is not granted, Defendants pray that the dispositive motion deadline be extended by 60 days so that the parties can address the issues of parallel proceedings and the impact of dispositive motions on the similar proceedings. The Defendants request that this Court invoke its inherent power to stay this case to promote judicial efficiency. Two purported class actions are currently pending in the Middle District, bringing the same claims brought in this lawsuit: -- Brian Humphrey v. James LeBlanc, Case No. 20-cv-00233, and -- Giroir v. James LeBlanc, Case No. 21-cv-00108. In Humphrey and Giroir, the motions for class certification are pending. According to Plaintiff's allegations, he may meet the class definitions in both lawsuits, as more fully set out in the memorandum in support hereto. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IJUcMR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Blanchfield, Esq. C. Reynolds LeBlanc, Esq. Chelsea A. Payne, Esq. KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD. 701 Main Street (70802) Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Telephone: (225) 383-3796 Facsimile: (225) 343-9612 E-mail: ablanchfield@keoghcox.com rleblanc@keoghcox.com cpayne@keoghcox.com JEFF RUBY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lamb and Belmont Say ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN LAMB and JIM BELMONT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEFF RUBY CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., THE PRECINCT, INC., CARLO & JOHNNY'S, LTD., JEFF RUBY STEAKHOUSE, LLC, JEFF RUBY'S COLUMBUS, LLC, JEFF RUBY'S STEAKHOUSE LEXINGTON, LLC, JEFF RUBY'S LOUISVILLE, LLC, and JEFF RUBY'S NASHVILLE, LLC, d/b/a JEFF RUBY CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00949 (M.D. Tenn., August 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act; the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards; the Ohio Prompt Pay Act; and the Ohio Constitution. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as servers at their restaurants in Lexington, KY and Cincinnati, OH. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the FLSA, KWHA, and the Ohio Wage Laws because they required Tip Credit Employees to: (1) share tips with back-of-house employees who earn have no or only de minimis interaction with customers while taking a tip credit; (2) spend substantial amounts of time performing non-tip-producing and directly supporting work tasks before and after serving customers and throughout their shift while being paid less than the statutory minimum wage and not working in a tipped occupation for defined periods of time; and (3) spend time working at the beginning of their shifts without being clocked in for pay purposes as reflected in Defendants' records of their scheduled start time when they arrived and their clock-in time when they were finally able to clock in for pay purposes, says the suit. Headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment owns and operates luxury steakhouses in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com JOY CONE: Davey Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN DAVEY, v. JOY CONE CO., Case No. 2:24-cv-01246-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan entered an order as follows: (1) Joy Cone's motion to strike Mr. Davey's declaration is denied; and (2) Joy Cone's motion to strike Ms. Portillo's declaration is denied; and (3) Mr. Davey's motion for conditional class certification is granted in part and denied in part. A collective action is conditionally certified, comprised of: "all current and former non-exempt manufacturing employees of Joy Cone, Co. who worked at the Hermitage or Arizona manufacturing plants in the United States at any time between three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit and the date of final judgment in this matter." (4) The parties must meet and confer to devise a fair and accurate notice and procedure that is reasonable and agreeable to the parties and the Court. The parties shall submit a joint proposed notice and consent form consistent with the Court's order, as well as a plan for notifying the conditionally certified class, by no later than Sept. 5, 2025. If the parties cannot agree on the proposed notice and consent form or the method of distribution, the Plaintiff shall file a motion to resolve any disputes by Sept. 5, 2025. Mr. Davey does not mention Iowa in his motion for conditional class certification nor does he contest Joy Cone’s argument that the Iowa facility should be excluded in his reply. As such, the Court will grant Mr. Davey’s motion in part and order that notice be sent to the putative class, excluding any employees or former employees of the Iowa facility. The Plaintiff Ryan Davey is a former employee of Defendant Joy Cone Co. Mr. Davey filed a "collective/class action complaint” alleging, among other things, that Joy Cone failed to pay him and others similarly situated overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). Mr. Davey has moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective and asks the Court to facilitate providing notice to potential members of this collective. Joy manufactures ice cream cones and related food products. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=64ywvn at no extra charge.[CC] KAHUNAS DEERFIELD: Marek Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pool Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- TALIA MAREK, Plaintiff v. KAHUNAS DEERFIELD BEACH, LLC, d/b/a PICKLES PUB'S SANDBAR, SARAH N. COOLEY, JUSTIN M. ACITA and BRITTANY ACITA, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-10065-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 21, 2025) is class action seeking to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bartender from approximately September 2023 to May 10, 2025. Allegedly, the Defendants implemented a tip pool that violated the tip credit provisions of the FLSA. In addition, during one or more workweeks, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff the full minimum wage in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. Kahunas Deerfield Beach, LLC operates a bar & restaurant in Key West, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, P.A. 1792 Bell Tower Lane Weston, FL 33326 Telephone No.: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile No.: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com KEVIN GUTHRIE: M.A. Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.A., on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, v. KEVIN GUTHRIE et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00765 (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: A. Granting his motion for class certification; B. Appointing attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation ("ACLU"), the ACLU of Florida, the Community Justice Project, and the National Immigrant Justice Center as Class Counsel; and C. Granting such other relief as may be reasonable and just. The motion seeks certification of a class of: "all individuals who are detained, or will be detained, at "Alligator Alcatraz." The Plaintiff M.A. has lived in the United States since 2018. He is married to a U.S. citizen and has five U.S.-citizen stepchildren. Id. M.A. was arrested on July 23. Around July 26, M.A. was taken to the "Alligator Alcatraz," where he is currently detained. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZoSHYx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Amdur, Esq. Michael K.T. Tan, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Eunice H. Cho, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: samdur@aclu.org m.tan@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org hsteinberg@aclu.org ckendrick@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org echo@aclu.org   - and - Amy Godshall, Esq. Daniel Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA  4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400  Miami, FL 33134  Telephone: (786) 363-2714  E-mail: agodshall@aclufl.org  dtilley@aclufl.org   - and - Miriam Haskell, Esq. Alana Greer, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT, INC. 3000 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 106 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 907-7697 E-mail: miriam@communityjusticeproject.com alana@communityjusticeproject.com - and - Mark Fleming, Esq. Mark Feldman, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1628 E-mail: mfleming@immigrantjustice.org mfeldman@immigrantjustice.org MACY'S INC: Nguyen Sues Over Alleged CIPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- THU NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-07096-PCP (N.D. Cal., August 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendant has violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by installing and using ADNXS Tracker and the Taboola Tracker on its website without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order. The said trackers are operated by separate and distinct third parties: Microsoft and Taboola. Through their respective trackers, each of the third parties collect website users' internet protocol addresses and other device identifier information such as device type, browser type, and unique and persistent identifiers. Moreover, the Defendant then uses the data collected by the trackers, and in conjunction with the third parties operating them, for targeted marketing and advertising that enable Defendant to monetize its website, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Macy's Inc. owns and operates macys.com, which is a digital retail store for clothing, beauty products, and home goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jwilner@bursor.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01384-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order setting trial date and related dates: Trial Date: April 5, 2027 Deadline for joining additional parties: Sept. 24, 2025 The Plaintiff's motion for class July 6, 2026 certification due: The Defendant's opposition to motion for Aug. 10, 2026 class certification due: The Plaintiff's reply re motion for class Aug. 24, 2026 certification due: Expert Disclosures Reports under Oct. 7, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Discovery completed by: Dec. 6, 2026 Settlement conference held no later than: Dec. 20, 2026 McKesson is a distributor of medical supplies, durable medical equipment, surgical supplies, medical lab supplies, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ynGhaK at no extra charge.[CC] MEN'S WAREHOUSE: Proposed Scheduling & Discovery Order Adopted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATE HIGGINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MEN'S WAREHOUSE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01390-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David Dugan entered an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order: The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact (1) the date of any court appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation session or the mandatory mediation process (if applicable), (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Men's operates as a men's clothing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sNT4au at no extra charge.[CC] MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Retirees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH VALELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons who had one or more Merrill Edge retirement accounts with cash balances that were swept pursuant to the Retirement Asset Savings Program at any time during the period Dec. 15, 2016 through Mar. 15, 2020." The Plaintiff further moves to designate herself as the Class representative and wolf Popper LLP as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Merrill is an American investment management and wealth management division of Bank of America. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=osgSuP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Adam J. Blander, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq. Emer Burke, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 MICHAELS STORES: Withdrawal of Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEA VIZCARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation to Withdraw the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Without Prejudice. 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn, without prejudice to reinstatement upon notice from the Plaintiff. 2. Upon reinstatement, the Court will reinstate all previously filed briefing related to the class certification motion originally filed at Dkt. 83 and decide the motion based on the existing record for the originally filed motion and the hearing that took place on Aug. 20, 2025. No further briefing will be allowed upon reinstatement, except with prior express leave of court. 3. The Parties will provide the Court with an update on the status of mediation by Sept. 17, 2025. Michaels is an American privately held arts and crafts retail chain. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x9psLc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com vivek@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Chloe G. Chung, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Koenig Suit Over Constitutional Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- La Verne Koenig, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, past, present and future, Plaintiffs v. State of North Dakota et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00206-ARS (D.N.D., August 26, 2025), alleges that the North Dakota Century Code, Title 61 et al is unconstitutional and violates the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In April of 2017, a Curtis Reimer filed a uniform complaint form authorized by the State Water Commissioner with the Traill County Water Resource District (TCWD), alleging that a field drain was obstructed. According to Moore Engineering, an evaluation did not represent that Plaintiff had done obstructing of the field drain. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that TCWD had made a decision about Reimer's complaint on November 17, 2018. However, TCWD made no attempt to notify Plaintiff or Sharon and Gerald Radebaugh, to give them the opportunity and right to be heard, and never informed Plaintiff about it until the time to appeal the decision has expired. TCWD offers public services aimed at managing water resources. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. La Verne Koenig 15520 Hwy. 200A SE Blanchard, ND 58009 Telephone: (701) 430-0096 E-mail: olecowboy7053@gmail.com NORTH-EAST DECK: Lipinski Seeks Approval of Notice for FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LIPINSKI and JOHN TIBOLLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORTH-EAST DECK & STEEL SUPPLY, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01467-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), ask the Court to enter an order permitting issuance of notice of the pending action to similarly situated current or former employees of Defendant North-East Deck & Steel Supply, LLC's to afford those individuals an opportunity to "opt-in" to the action. North-East is a locally and family-owned steel fabrication shop. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LUuOe4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Andrew Lapat, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com alapat@edelson-law.com OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Filing for Class Cert. Due August 14, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY RAINS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00638-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: Pleading Amendment: Oct. 24, 2025 Initial Disclosures: Sept. 9, 2025 Fact Discovery: May 15, 2026 Expert Disclosures: May 25, 2026 Rebuttal Disclosures: June 8, 2026 Expert Discovery: July 17, 2026 Mid-Disc. Status Conf.: March 20, 2026, 9:00 AM Class Certification Motion Deadlines: Filing: Aug. 14, 2026 Opposition: Sept. 18, 2026 Reply: Oct. 16, 2026 Hearing (JLT): Nov. 3, 2026, 1:30 PM Octapharma collects, tests and supplies human blood plasma for manufacture into life-saving therapies. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5h0NEf at no extra charge.[CC] OE FEDERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jimenez Due Feb. 13, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL JIMENEZ JR., et al., v. OE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:24-cv-02746-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an amended scheduling order: Event Deadline Deadline to amend the complaint in response Oct. 14, 2025 to the Court's Aug. 19, 2025, Order: The Plaintiff's Class action expert Nov. 17, 2025 disclosures: The Defendant's class action expert Jan. 6, 2026 Disclosures: Class certification motion: Feb. 13, 2026 Opposition to class certification motion: March 20, 2026 Class certification reply: April 14, 2026 OE is a company that specializes in financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MnjwgK at no extra charge.[CC] ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit over Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Orthofix Medical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025 it is facing a consolidated action, captioned "In re Orthofix Medical Inc. Securities Litigation." On September 6, 2024, a securities class action complaint captioned "O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc., et al.," Case No. 24-cv-01593, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On November 26, 2024, this was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas, and on December 11, 2024, it was consolidated with another case The plaintiff, a purported former shareholder of SeaSpine Holdings Corporation at the time of the SeaSpine merger Orthofix, alleges through the complaint violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and names as defendants the Company and the following former company directors and officers, namely Jon Serbousek (former director and former President and Chief Executive Officer), Keith Valentine (former director and former President and Chief Executive Officer), John Bostjancic (former Chief Financial Officer), and Patrick Keran (former Chief Legal Officer). The complaint alleges that the company made, and the named former directors and officers caused the company to make, materially false and misleading statements and alleges that the company's registration statement on Form S-4 filed in 2022 in connection with the SeaSpine Merger, as well as related written and oral offering materials, contained untrue statements of material fact and material omissions, including, among other things, with respect to the effectiveness of the company's internal controls. the Bernal Complaint. On April 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action, captioned "In re Orthofix Medical Inc. Securities Litigation," (Case No. 24-cv-00690) with substantially the same allegations. and is pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on May 15, 2025. Orthofix Medical Inc. is a global medical technology company headquartered in Lewisville, Texas that provides medical technologies that heal musculoskeletal pathologies. PAPA JOHN'S: Filing of Summary Judgment Bid Amended to Sept. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.; COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01933-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an amended case scheduling order: 1. The Defendants' deadline to file early motion for summary judgment is Sept. 26, 2025; 2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file opposition to the Defendants' early summary judgment motion is Dec. 10, 2025; 3. The Defendants' deadline to file a reply in support of the Defendants' early summary judgment motion is Jan. 16, 2026; 4. The Hearing on the Defendants' early summary judgment motion is Feb. 5, 2026; 5. The deadline for completion of all non-expert class certification discovery is continued from Nov. 13, 2025 to May 11, 2026; 6. The Parties' class certification expert disclosures are continued from April 17, 2026 to May 12, 2026; 7. The Parties' class certification expert rebuttal disclosures are continued from May 29, 2026 to June 23, 2026; and 8. The deadline for completion of all class certification discovery cut-off is continued from June 26, 2026 to July 20, 2026. Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uquHOu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Rachael G. Jung, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rjung@kellergrover.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 447-0100 Facsimile: (916) 933-5533 E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Patterson, Esq. Meghan C. Killian, Esq. Gerald L. Maatman, Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Justin Donoho, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957-3000 Facsimile: (415) 957-3001 E-mail: cspatterson@duanemorris.com mckillian@duanemorris.com gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com jrdonohon@duanemorris.com - and - Sophia M. Mancall-Bitel, Esq. Matthew D. Provance, Esq. Michelle J. Annunziata, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave., 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 E-mail: smancall-bitel@mayerbrown.com mprovance@mayerbrown.com mannunziata@mayerbrown.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Kouyate Sues Over Unsafe Acne Treatment Gel ------------------------------------------------------------ MOUSSA KOUYATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L. PERRIGO COMPANY and PADAGIS US LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01013 (W.D. Mich., August 26, 2025) arises from the Defendants’ manufacture, distribution, and sale of Perrigo branded Acne Treatment Gel products that contain benzoyl peroxide (BPO) as their active ingredient. According to the complaint, the said products are topical gels that are used to fight acne. Either at the point of manufacture or when exposed to degrees of heat that anti-acne products routinely encounter during transportation, storage and use, the products degrade, causing them to contain, during customer use, dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. The Defendants knew or should have known of the degradation of their products leading to benzene formation, but failed to disclose it, misrepresented the truth about it, and/or willfully omitted it from their labeling, packaging and marketing, says the suit. Headquartered in Allegan, MI, L. Perrigo Company markets, sells, and distributes Perrigo branded BPO products throughout the United States and its territories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq. Kate McGuire, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone : (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com mcguire@whafh.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. Albert Plawinski, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 708-1450 E-mail: don@donbivens.com albert@donbivens.com PF CALI: Strandholt Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, at 1:30 p.m. on Oct. 6, 2025 before the Honorable Cynthia Valenzuela, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for Orders: 1. Certifying this action as a class action as to the First and Second Causes of Action contained in the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). 3. Certifying the following Class and Subclasses: a. The Class: "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by the Defendants at fitness centers in California from Aug. 17, 2018, to the date of class certification (the "Covered Period")." i. Rounding Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift between Aug. 17, 2018 to Jan. 31, 2023." ii. Unpaid Minimum Wage Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift during the Covered Period." iii. Unpaid Overtime Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift in excess of eight (8) hours and/or during a workweek wherein they worked in excess of 40 hours during the Covered Period." iv. Unpaid Meal Break Premium Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift greater than five (5) hours in length during the Covered Period." v. Unpaid Rest Break Premium Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift of 3.5 hours or more during the Covered Period." vi. Failure to Reimburse Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift during the Covered Period." vii. Wage Statement Violation Subclass: "Class Members who were provided a wage statement by The Defendants during the Covered Period." viii. Waiting Time Subclass: "Class Members whose employment with the Defendants in California ended during the Covered Period." 4. Finding the Plaintiffs to be an adequate representative of the class members and certifying them as the class representatives. 5. Finding the Plaintiffs' counsel, namely Joseph Lavi, Vincent C. Granberry, Jeffrey D. Klein, and Cassandra A. Castro of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP, and Michael Nourmand and James De Sario of The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. 6. Authorizing the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send Class Notice pursuant to Rule 23. PF specializes in payroll and HR services in California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZVDmgX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Cassandra A. Castro, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com ccastro@lelawfirm.com - and - Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Knowles Sues Over Website Inaccessibility -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER ELECTRONICS (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06903 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in Torrance, CA, Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, https://usa.pioneer, which offers electronics, audio and home theater entertainment products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal POLYGROUP NORTH: Faces Jamison Suit Over Defective Pools -------------------------------------------------------- BRANDI JAMISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. POLYGROUP NORTH AMERICA, INC. and POLYGROUP SERVICES N.A. INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10222 (N.D. Ill., August 26, 2025), arises from the dangerous design and prolonged concealment of a known defect in certain Polygroup-branded pools, which pose a significant risk of drowning for children. Allegedly, Polygroup wholly failed to deliver safe pools to Plaintiff and Class Members, failed to provide adequate warnings about safety hazards, and offered an inadequate and ineffective recall that fails to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with proper relief. Polygroup fails to recall the entire pool, or provide any monetary remedy to Plaintiff and Class Members who purchased the defective Pools. Instead, Polygroup only offers an inadequate repair kit without the assistance of a qualified technician. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for common law fraud, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, negligence, and for violations of multi-state consumer protection statutes, including Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Polygroup North America, Inc. designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells outdoor recreation products, including above-ground swimming pools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: rsoffin@pwfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@brysonpllc.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com PRIME HYDRATION: Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TURKOISE KENNEDY et al. v. PRIME HYDRATION, LLC et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00476-GNS-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg Stivers entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike affirmative defenses. Many of Defendants' arguments that Plaintiffs seek to strike are actually negative defenses rather than affirmative defenses. Because these are incorrectly raised as affirmative defenses, the Court will strike these defenses, and the Plaintiffs' motion is granted to this extent. Though the Court has stricken these arguments, the Defendants may raise these same arguments during a later phase of the litigation as Plaintiffs correctly acknowledge. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, their minor children, and all those similarly situated, sued the Defendants asserting various consumer protection and tort claims under California and Kentucky law related to the energy drink, Prime Energy, being marketed and branded similarly to a non-energy drink, Prime Hydration. Prime manufactures sports and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fmuKY0 at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTORU INC: CMC in Perjanik Class Suit Continued to Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perjanik et al v. ProctorU, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-02095 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order continuing case management conference. Because no response has yet been filed to the consolidated complaint, the case management conference scheduled for Aug. 26, 2025, is continued to Sept. 30, 2025, the Court says. An updated joint case management statement is due Sept. 23, 2025. The Court advises the parties that the Court will set deadlines only through the filing of a class certification motion, opposition, and reply; and that it rarely bifurcates discovery in class action cases. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Proctoru provides an online proctoring services.[CC] PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES: Denson Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN DENSON on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00810-ECM-CWB (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to: 1. Certify the proposed Class as defined in the accompanying Brief; 2. Appoint the Plaintiff Dawn Denson as Class Representative; and 3. Appoint Michel Allen & Sinor as Class Counsel. The Defendant provides multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment mental health services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9CeTsg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Sinor, Esq. Anthony D. Michel, Esq. MICHEL ALLEN & SINOR 1900 International Park Drive, Suite 140 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 980-5700 Facsimile: (205) 994-2819 E-mail: William@mas-firm.com Anthony@mas-firm.com RICOH USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kruchten Due Jan. 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH K. KRUCHTEN, ANGEL D. MURATALLA and WILLIAM BEGANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RICOH USA, INC., THE RICOH RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:22-cv-00678-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sanchez entered a Case Management Order: 1. Any motion to amend pleadings or add new parties must be electronically filed no later than Dec. 18, 2024 as previously ordered by the Court. 2. Fact discovery is to remain open through Jan. 20, 2026 in consideration of the Parties' scheduled Nov. 5, 2025 mediation and need to conduct further document discovery, deposition discovery, and third party discovery. 3. The Plaintiffs must file their motion for class certification no later than Jan. 20, 2026. The Defendants' opposition is due Feb. 19, 2026, and Plaintiffs' reply is due March 21, 2026. 4. All affirmative expert reports shall be delivered by March 19, 2026. All responsive expert reports shall be delivered by April 23, 2026. Rebuttal reports shall be delivered by May 22, 2026. 5. Depositions of all experts to be completed by July 8, 2026. 6. Motions in limine are due Oct. 14, 2026. Responses to motions in limine are due Oct. 28, 2026. 7. Final pre-trial conference shall be held on Nov. 2, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14B. Ricoh produces and distributes printing equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kKljtO at no extra charge.[CC] RITE AID: Wins Bid to Dismiss Holland, et al. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Kelley B. Hodge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HOLLAND and HAROLD SETLIFF, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN T. STANDLEY, DARREN KARST, HEYWARD DONIGAN, MATTHEW C. SCHROEDER, JAMES PETERS, JOCELYN KONRAD and ELIZABETH BURR, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02962-KBH (E.D. Pa.). Lead Plaintiff Jennifer DaSilva brings this class-action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Rite Aid Corporation, John T. Standley, Darren Karst, Heyward Donigan, Matthew Schroeder, James Peters, Jocelyn Konrad, and Elizabeth Burr for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Donigan was the Chief Executive Officer of Rite Aid Corporation from August 12, 2019 until January 9, 2023. Schroeder has been the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since March 2019. James Peters served as the Company's Chief Operating Officer from October 3, 2019 until March 8, 2022. Konrad served as Executive Vice President/Chief Pharmacy Officer from October 2019 through March 2022. Standley served as CEO from June 2010 until August 2019. Karst joined the Company as CFO and Executive Vice President in August 2014 and took on the additional role of Chief Administrative Officer in September 2015. Karst left Rite Aid in May of 2019. Burr currently serves as the Interim CEO of the Company and has been on the Board of Directors since 2019. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in conduct in violation of the Exchange Act between April 26, 2018 and August 25, 2023. Specifically, they bring claims against Defendants for violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act (Count I), along with a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Count II). Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. Lead Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Rite Aid was founded in 1962 as a local health and beauty store. At the time of the filing of the Amended Class Action Complaint, Rite Aid owned and operated over 2,300 retail drug stores across 17 states. Opioid Litigation Plaintiff alleges that in an effort to bolster prescription revenue, from at least 2015 to 2019, Rite Aid systematically, improperly, and knowingly filled unnecessary prescriptions for dangerous and addictive substances in violation of U.S. law and at extreme costs to public health and human lives. This culminated in the Department of Justice intervening in a whistleblower lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act against the Company and filing a Complaint. Since 2000, the opioid crisis has resulted in more than 500,000 overdoses and has resulted in a high death rate amongst individuals aged 25 to 34. Plaintiff alleges that the inappropriate dispensing of opioids was used to boost Rite Aid profits, resulting in exposure for litigation liability, impacting the financials of the Company. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew, throughout the Class Period, that Rite Aid pharmacists were systematically dispensing controlled substances. Opioid Settlements In March of 2022, peer pharmacies started announcing opioid settlements. Plaintiff alleges that this should have revealed the extent of Rite Aid's litigation exposure since Rite Aid, like CVS, was amongst the top 10 largest distributors of opioids in the United States between 2006 and 2012. After this news was revealed, Rite Aid stock prices fell from $10.26 to $9.36, reflecting an 8.77% drop. Following the CVS settlement, Rite Aid disclosed in its 2022 10-K filed on April 25, 2022, that the Company had adjusted its risk disclosures to include that substantial damages were sought in connection with the opioid litigation. On March 13, 2023, the DOJ intervened in the MDL and filed a complaint against Rite Aid alleging that Rite Aid failed to implement effective controls to prevent illegal and improper dispending of opioids, or to otherwise detect diversion and abuse of controlled substances and committed violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the False Claims Act in connection with Rite Aid's systematic dispensing of controlled substances. On this news, Rite Aid stock fell from $3.28 to $2.66, reflecting a 18.9% drop. RxEvolution Plaintiff alleges that after facing negative publicity for its role in the opioid crisis and an enormous debt load, Rite Aid pivoted in 2019 to develop a strategic plan called RxEvolution. Prescription scripts were allegedly the key part of the RxEvolution plan. In a June 24, 2021 earnings call, then-CEO Defendant Donigan emphasized the importance of growing scripts and making it a priority. Plaintiff stated that the initiative turned out to be just a new logo and new signage. She alleges that RxEvolution was supposed to place a greater emphasis on telehealth resulting in the installation of wellness rooms in Rite Aid stores for customers to engaged in digital wellness. Opioid Theory Plaintiff contends that three large groups of statements were false or misleading as they related to the opioid litigation. The first are the statements made in Rite Aid's SEC filings, which Plaintiff contends failed to adequately disclose the risk of legal liability as it related to potential and/or active opioid litigation. The second group are statements made regarding compliance with regulations in the relevant SEC filings, which Plaintiff alleges were misrepresented by Defendants. Finally, there are those statements made during an investor call that touted Rite Aid's internal procedures for dispensing controlled substances. Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to: (1) allege any false or misleading statement or omission; (2) plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter; and (3) plead loss causation as it related to the opioid theory and the RxEvolution theory of liability. Defendants argue that the challenged statements are not false or misleading because the risk contingencies of pending litigation were adequately disclosed with the amount of knowledge that was available to the Company at the time. They contend that securities laws do not require a Company to accuse itself of wrongdoing, therefore making the disclosures accurate and in compliance with the relevant regulations. They assert that any statements about the Company's compliance with regulations or its internal procedures were not false, nor can Plaintiff show that they were. The Court holds the statements in the 10-Ks regarding opioid disclosure are not actionable because they are not false or misleading. Therefore, they are dismissed as a matter of law as Plaintiff has failed to meet the pleading requirement of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Judge Hodge explains, "Plaintiff's arguments that the aforementioned risk had already transpired is unavailing. At the time of the 2018 through 2021 Form 10-Ks, there had not been any settlements in the ongoing MDL nor any comparable metric to evaluate exposure. Lawsuits can transpire in many ways, often leading to unpredictable results and at unpredictable times. Forecasting outcomes and when those outcomes will manifest themselves is difficult, if not impossible to state, to say the least. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff argues that the risks of litigation had already transpired because the Defendants knew that they were distributing illegal prescriptions, the securities laws do not require a company to accuse itself of wrongdoing. This principle is also applicable to Plaintiff's other arguments regarding the Company's compliance with regulations. The statements about the possible risks of noncompliance are not false, in fact, quite the contrary, they are true statements. Plaintiff does not dispute that noncompliance could affect business or that errors could lead to serious injury. These statements are neither false or misleading. For these reasons, the Company's statements regarding compliance with regulations are not actionable." RxEvolution Theory Plaintiff also alleges 20 statements made by various individuals that are false or misleading as they relate to the RxEvolution theory. However, at the outset, the Court notes that none of the statements were made by Defendant Standley, Karst, or Burr. As a result, any claims against those three individual Defendants are dismissed. Plaintiff alleges two key dates as they relate to the loss suffered as a result of the alleged RxEvolution misstatements: the September 29, 2022 press release and earnings call and the December 21, 2022 press release and earnings call. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff also fails to establish loss causation as it relates to those statements. The Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standard under the PSLRA as the Amended Complaint fails to adequately plead falsity as to any alleged misstatement by Defendants along with loss causation. As a result, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=qEYtuufrom PacerMonitor.com. Rite Aid is a full-service pharmacy. Rite Aid and certain of its subsidiaries first filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2023 and emerged from bankruptcy in August 2024. On May 5, 2025, New Rite Aid, LLC and its subsidiaries, including Rite Aid Corporation, commenced voluntary Chapter 11 proceedings. As of the 2025 bankruptcy filing date, Rite Aid operates 1,277 stores and 3 distribution centers in 15 states and employs approximately 24,500 people. Rite Aid is using the Chapter 11 process to pursue a sale of its prescriptions, pharmacy and front-end inventory, and other assets. The cases are being administered by the Honorable Michael B. Kaplan. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP is serving as legal advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC is serving as investment banker, and Alvarez & Marsal is serving as financial advisor to the Company in their Chapter 11 cases. Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher is serving as strategic communications advisor to the Company. S&P GLOBAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Dinosaur Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, and SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. S&P GLOBAL, INC., AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order regarding amendment to scheduling order: 1. The date for the Parties to meet in person in New York for at least one hour to discuss settlement shall be adjourned to 30 days after the completion of briefing of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 21, 2025, the Court extended the deadline for the in person meeting to discuss settlement until Aug. 23, 2025. S&P offers information regarding ratings, benchmarks, and analytics. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=napRy7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. Ryan A. Kane, Esq. Joshua M. Slocum, Esq. Lyndon M. Tretter, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: raranoff@wmd-law.com rkane@wmd-law.com jslocum@wmd-law.com ltretter@wmd-law.com - and - Leiv Blad, Esq. Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. Meg Slachetka, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 742-4300 E-mail: leiv@competitionlawpartners.com jeff@competitionlawpartners.com meg@competitionlawpartners.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Ave., 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. Esther Lifshitz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com asouthwell@gibsondunn.com elifshitz@gibsondunn.com - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq. Amanda L. Dollinger, Esq. Craig E. Stewart, Esq. Caroline M. Mitchell, Esq. Paul C. Hines, Esq. Michelle K. Fischer, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com cestewart@jonesday.com mfischer@jonesday.com amaugeri@jonesday.com adollinger@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. Ellison A. Snider, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com esnider@scl-llp.com - and - W. Stephen Cannon, Esq. Seth D. Greenstein, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1300 N Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 204-3500 Facsimile: (202) 204-3501 E-mail: scannon@constantinecannon.com sgreenstein@constantinecannon.com SAMSONITE COMPANY: McCarty Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE MCCARTY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSONITE COMPANY STORES, LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02159-BJC-SBC (S.D. Cal., August 21, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant Samsonite Company Stores, LLC for a years-long pricing scheme that has misled consumers into overpaying for merchandise sold at Samsonite outlet stores. Allegedly, the Defendant has for years engaged in a deceptive pricing scheme at its Samsonite outlet stores located throughout California. This scheme involves advertising merchandise at purported sale prices that are falsely represented as discounts from inflated original prices printed on the products' price tags. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action to halt this deceptive practice and seeks redress for consumers who were misled. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief based on Defendant's false discount pricing scheme on luggage, business bags, backpacks and duffels, and other related items sold in its Samsonite outlet stores. The Defendant's alleged conduct violates multiple state and federal laws, including California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts, practices, and false advertising in or affecting commerce. Headquartered in Mansfield, MA, Samsonite Company Stores, LLC is a specialty retailer of luggage, business bags, backpacks and duffels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com SCDS INC: Laccinole Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE, v. SCDS, INC. d/b/a AMERICAN STAR MORTGAGE, Case No. 8:25-cv-01353-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages discovery. American provides home loan options, new home loan programs, refinance, house purchase, and reverse mortgage services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SIAHWg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW  2500 Northwinds Parkway , Suite 330  Alpharetta, GA  30009  Telephone: (404) 855-3600  E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com SCOUT ENERGY: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNYE HAWKINS, et al., v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01545-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered a class certification scheduling order: 1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with the Court) their motion for class certification within 45 days of this Order. The Court will consider class certification on written submission on March 20, 2026 (the "Submission Date"). 2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) must be filed within 60 days of this Order. 3. All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed. 4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court order. 5. On the Submission Date, the parties must file with the Court the motion for class certification, response, and reply, together with all supporting evidence and briefs. Any questions regarding this Order may be directed to the Court’s Judicial Assistant, Donna Hocker Beyer, at 214-753-2700. Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil and gas operator. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QMisus at no extra charge.[CC] SHEVAUN HARRIS: Hall's Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall, et al., v. SHEVAUN HARRIS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01069 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Kyle C. Dudek entered an order denying the plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification as moot because the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee -- Conditions of Confinement.[CC] SNAP INC: Abdul-Hameed Sues Over Alleged Securities Fraud --------------------------------------------------------- OMAR ABDUL-HAMEED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP INC., EVAN T. SPIEGEL, and DEREK ANDERSEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07844 (C.D. Cal., August 21, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. Allegedly, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Snap's advertising revenue expectations for the second quarter and full year fiscal 2025. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Snap's ability to execute on its advertising growth potential and in management's claims that ongoing headwinds in April were externally sourced, coupled with the minimization of both the significance of such headwinds and the magnitude of their impact. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated investors, to recover losses sustained in connection with Defendants' fraud. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, Snap, Inc. is a technology company best known for Snapchat, a visual messaging application. The company's common stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "SNAP." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 515 South Flower Street 18th and 19th Floors Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Alexander Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin Alexander, v. Southern Financial Life Ins. Co., Case No. 3:24-cv-00393-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying action to proceed as a class action against the Defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The three classes are defined as follows: A. Class I: Violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) "All consumers to whom Southern sold a credit-life insurance policy within the last two (2) years of the filing of this complaint in which the premium for the credit-life insurance exceeds the cap set forth in KRS 304.19-080(3)(a)." B. Class II: Violation of KRS 304.12-010 "All consumers to whom Southern sold a credit-life insurance policy within the last ten (10) years of the filing of this complaint in which the premium for the credit-life insurance exceeds the cap set forth in KRS 304.19-080(3)(a)." C. Class II: Unjust Enrichment "All consumers to whom Southern sold a credit-life insurance policy within the last five (5) years of the filing of this complaint in which the premium for the credit-life insurance exceeds the cap set forth in KRS 304.19-080(3)(a) and who paid the subject creditor enough under the underlying loan to at least cover the amount of the creditlife insurance premium." The Plaintiff filed this class action under Kentucky law alleging violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"). Mr. Alexander is current on his payments on the Heights Loan. Mr. Alexander financed $9,613.04 under the Heights Loan, which included financing of credit-life insurance policy bound by Southern with a premium of $306.93 and a credit-disability policy with a premium of $607.51. Southern overcharged Mr. Alexander $56.90 for the credit-life insurance policy ($306.93 (the premium charged) - $249.93). Southern violated the KCPA and KRS 304.12-010 by charging more for credit life coverage than permitted by law. Southern is provider of final expense products including life insurance, retirement planning, medicare, & mortgage protection. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MdYHhL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James H. Lawson, Esq. LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC Shelbyville, KY 40066 Telephone: (502) 473-6525 Facsimile: (502) 473-6561 E-mail: james@lawsonatlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel E. Linneman, Esq. ADAMS LAW 40 West Pike Street Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 394 -6200 E-mail: dlinneman@adamsattorneys.com SPRING EQ: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to Oct. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MASON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPRING EQ LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01833-MWC-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant will apply to this Court, on an ex parte basis, to continue the hearing date on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and extend the page limit for its opposition. The opposed application seeks to continue the hearing date on Plaintiff's motion for class certification from Sept. 26, 2025, to Oct. 10, 2025, extend the page limit for Spring EQ's opposition from 25 pages to 35 pages, and extend the page limit for Plaintiff’s reply from 12 pages to 17 pages. On Aug. 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging Spring EQ violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending at least two text messages to his phone number without prior express consent. Spring EQ is a technology-based originator of nationwide loan products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWnisa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (303) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREELI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssnoji@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja J. Amin, Esq. Brittany A. Andres, Esq. Maxwell Levins, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 350-3663 Facsimile: (949) 203-8689 E-mail: troutman@troutmanamin.com amin@troutmanamin.com brittany@troutmanamin.com maxwell@troutmanamin.com STANLEY BLACK: Howe et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- SHAWNE HOWE, CHARLES VAUGHN and SEAN BUSHNELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04180-WJE (W.D. Mo., August 21, 2025) seeks for damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and Missouri common law. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek, including scheduled four-day workweeks of ten-hour days with frequent overtime spikes and extended second shift hours. However, the Defendant underpaid the base hourly rate of Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay them for overtime at one-and-one-half times the correct regular rate, says the suit. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. manufactures hand tools, power tools and related accessories. The company operates a tool manufacturing facility in Sedalia, Pettis County, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ray Salva, Esq. Fiona Taus, Esq. BOYD, KENTER, THOMAS & PARRISH, LLC 221 W. Lexington, Suite 200 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 471-4511 Facsimile: (816) 471-8450 E-mail: rsalva@bktplaw.com ftaus@bktplaw.com STEVE REAMS: Merrival Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Lynn Merrival, Jr. (PS) v. Steve Reams, Sheriff, and Philip J. Weiser, attorney general, Case No. 1:25-cv-02288-RTG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N597qa at no extra charge.[CC] STEVE REAMS: Padilla-Hernandez Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miguel Padilla-Hernandez (PS), v. Steve Reams, Sheriff, and Philip Weiser, attorney general of Colorado, Case No. 1:25-cv-02398-RTG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rwi4sz at no extra charge.[CC] SURREY REALTY: McCammon Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCammon, et al., v. Surrey Realty Associates LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03292-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order requesting an extension of the deadline to file a motion for class certification in this matter from Aug. 14, 2025, to Sept. 8, 2025. Surrey is a New York-based commercial real estate firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x7HWUW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Farelli, Esq. PITTA LLP 120 Broadway 28th Floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 652-3890 Facsimile: (212) 652-3891 E-mail: jfarelli@pittalaw.com TEA DATING: Nelson Sues Over Unlawful Sex/Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIQUE NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 29CU045010C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., August 26, 2025), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful sex and/or gender discrimination in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Allegedly, the Defendant has created, approved, advertised, marketed, promoted, hosted, employed, managed, participated in, and/or at least aided or incited an ongoing business model, policy, and practice that requires its Tea App users to be female in order to gain access. Moreover, the Defendant also prohibits men from becoming Tea App users, which prejudices them greatly as they are not able to see and determine the veracity of gossip posted about them on Defendant's viral app platform. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Tea Dating Advice, Inc. operates as a dating safety company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 10089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com TENET HEALTHCARE: Goss Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- SARAH GOSS, on behalf of herself, and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Tenet Healthcare Corporation 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff, v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, MANAGER OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, THE RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02248-B (N.D. Tex., August 21, 2025) alleges Defendants are liable for: (1) breach of Employee Retirement Income Security Act's fiduciary duties; (2) violation of ERISA's anti-inurement provision; and (3) engaging in self-dealing and transactions prohibited by ERISA. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants consistently allocated millions of dollars to offset future Company contributions, while allocating only hundreds of thousands of dollars to Plan expenses. Defendants' imprudent and disloyal decision left millions of dollars of unpaid Plan expenses for the participants to pay during each year of the class period. The Defendants also declined to allocate additional forfeited funds to the millions of dollars of unpaid Plan expenses even once the Company's contributions were offset, leaving millions of dollars in unused forfeitures during the Class Period, says the suit. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Tenet Healthcare Corporation provides healthcare services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Alexander Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC, and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting requests to amend Class Certification Order and certify Plaintiff's fifth and sixth causes of action and find Plaintiff Cherisha Lovejoy and her counsel also adequate to represent the class as to those two causes of action. Thus, pursuant to this Court's inherent power and discretion to modify the class definition, Plaintiff -- who is herself a former employee of TransDev and will adequately represent this subclass -- proposes that the Court certify the following classes: As to the fifth cause of action, Plaintiff proposes: "All current and former California Bus Driver/Operator employees of Transdev Services, Inc. who drove routes with stops in California during the period from Feb. 27, 2022 through the present ("Class Period")." As to the sixth cause of action, Plaintiff proposes: "All former California Bus Driver/Operator employees of Transdev Services, Inc. who drove routes with stops in California during the period from Feb. 27, 2019 through the present ("Class Period")." The Plaintiff alleges that “Transdev has violated Labor Code sections 226(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (9) by issuing wage statements that are inaccurate because they do not reflect all wages owed and hours worked … and do not identify Transdev's legal name, "Transdev Services, Inc." On Aug. 11, 2025, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Transdev provides passenger transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WwSsws at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Amy C. Johnsgard, Esq. Joshua A. Fields, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW, Esq. HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com ajohnsgard@sshhzlaw.com jfields@sshhzlaw.com - and - Justin G. Hewgill, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP 1001 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 382-222 E-mail: jhewgill@ejlglaw.com UNDERDOG SPORTS: Koning Sues Over Illegal Sports Betting Platform ----------------------------------------------------------------- SANDER KONING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDERDOG SPORTS, LLC d/b/a UNDERDOG FANTASY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-07211-VKD (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2025) arises out of Defendant's operation of an illegal sports betting platform masquerading as Daily Fantasy Sports contests. According to the complaint, the Defendant has falsely represented to consumers and the public that its daily fantasy sports contests is legal and legitimate in California. But in reality, Defendant owns and operates an unlicensed sports betting platform. By operating unlicensed sports betting, Defendant has violated California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and multiple state and federal gambling statutes. In addition, the Defendant has been unjustly enriched itself to the tune of millions of dollars. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction on behalf of the general public enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks rescission and an order requiring Defendant to make full restitution and to disgorge its ill-gotten gains wrongfully obtained from members of the California Headquartered in North Hollywood, CA, Underdog Sports, LLC owns and operates an online and app-based fantasy-sports platform, Underdog, available at https://www.underdogfantasycom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unicycive Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for August 15, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 15, 2025, Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. became aware of a lawsuit purporting to be a securities class action which was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers. This action alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with public statements by the Company relating to its new drug application for oxylanthanum carbonate phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis. The Company believes the claims are meritless and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Unicycive is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that identifies, develops, and commercializes therapies to address unmet medical needs in the U.S. The Company is developing, among other therapies, oxylanthanum carbonate (OLC), a purported next generation phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis.[BN] UNITED STATES: Angelica Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Brief -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA S., et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01405-DLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs Ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, to add Mateo N., Yair G., and David D. as additional proposed class representatives. According to the complaint, Mateo N., Yair G., and David D. remain detained because their sponsors cannot provide documents newly required by the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") on or after March 7, 2025, and they seek to represent the same putative class as the original named Plaintiffs. Each of the newly added Plaintiffs entered ORR custody after April 22, 2025, and their inclusion as class representatives would address the typicality concerns discussed by the Court in its June 9, 2025, memorandum opinion granting provisional class certification and a preliminary injunction. HHS protects the health of all Americans and provides essential human services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hdl4zA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca Ruth Wolozin, Esq. Mishan Wroe, Esq. Diane de Gramont, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 818 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 425 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 868-4792 E-mail: bwolozin@youthlaw.org mwroe@youthlaw.org ddegramont@youthlaw.org - and - Cynthia Liao, Esq. Joel McElvain, Esq. Skye L. Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: cliao@democracyforward.org jmcelvain@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Thomas Suit w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRETCHEN THOMAS, et al., v. SEAN DUFFY, Acting NASA Administrator, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01634-RDM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss will grant the Defendants' motions to dismiss, and will dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice. In addition, the Court will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add class claims as futile, and deny the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class as moot. Finally, the Court will deny the Plaintiffs' out-of-time motion for an extension of time to file a motion for class certification as moot. A separate order will issue. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims against Nelson appear to turn on nothing more than a respondeat-superior theory of liability, and, for the reasons explained above, RFRA does not authorize individual-capacity suits for money damages based on that theory. The Court will, accordingly, dismiss the Plaintiffs' individual-capacity claims against Nelson. The Plaintiffs do not allege they were "treat[ed] worse," because of their religious beliefs and, accordingly, cannot state a disparate treatment claim. But the Plaintiffs do not allege that anyone at NASA took any kind of adverse employment action against them because they sought a religious exemption. In sum, then, Plaintiffs' Title VII religious discrimination failure-to-accommodate claims suffer from several defects. Any one of these defects would, on its own, warrant dismissal In this case, four employees of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ("NASA") allege that NASA's implementation and enforcement of two COVID-19 policies in 2021 failed to accommodate their religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). The Plaintiff Gretchen Thomas is a long-time NASA employee who has worked for 13 years as a GS-14 Manned Test Director at NASA Johnson Space Center ("JSC") in Houston, Texas. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mpIwhG at no extra charge.[CC] VALU AUTO: Conditional Class Cert Filing in Gleason Due Nov. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gleason v. Valu Auto, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00444 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order granting the consent motion for extension of time to complete discovery and mandatory mediation filed by Valu Auto: -- Mandatory Mediation is now to be completed on or before Oct. 9, 2025. -- If the case does not settle through mediation, 30(b)(6) depositions are now to be completed by Oct. 31, 2025 and any conditional class certification motion is now to be filed on or before Nov. 17, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Valu is an automotive dealership, offering a wide selection of pre-owned vehicles.[CC] VESYNC CORP: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Chen Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VESYNC CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file a sur reply (and supporting declaration and exhibits) in support of its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Levoit's sur-reply is necessitated by the Plaintiff's improper smuggling of new evidence and argument regarding a second conjoint survey into his reply brief—which deprives Levoit of any opportunity to respond thereto. While the Plaintiff's proposed classes consist of purchasers of air purifiers and replacement filters, Plaintiff originally moved for class certification under a single proposed conjoint survey. To prevent the prejudice that would otherwise result, Levoit requests leave to file a sur-reply (and supporting declaration and exhibits) to respond to Plaintiff’s new arguments and evidence regarding the second survey, which The Plaintiff insists can calculate classwide damages but does no such thing. The case is premised on Plaintiff's allegations that Levoit's series of air purifiers and replacement filters were misrepresented as "True HEPA", including that they did not meet a 99.97% filtration efficiency at 0.3 microns, and that the Plaintiff otherwise would not have paid as much for the products he purchased. On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification, requesting that the Court certify two classes consisting of various Levoit manufactured products. The proposed classes include purchasers of both air purifiers and replacement filters. On May 14, 2025, Levoit deposed Gaskin on his proposed air purifier survey. Gaskin confirmed his intention to only run a single survey to calculate damages for air purifiers, and affirmatively and unequivocally stated that his survey would not cover replacement filters. On June 27, 2025, Levoit filed its opposition to class certification. Vesync develops smart home platform that connect air quality, health monitoring, kitchen, lighting, and outlet systems. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eiJUBL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sarah Carlson, Esq. Judith Shophet Sidkoff, Esq. Adriane Peralta, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 12230 El Camino Real Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 398-0150 Facsimile: (858) 398-0450 E-mail: sarah.carlson@sidley.com judith.sidkoff@sidley.com adriane.peralta@sidley.com WALMART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACEY TIMMINS, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02960-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a SCHEDULING ORDER as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than May 14, 2027. By Jan. 23, 2026, all parties shall file with the Court a brief Joint Mid-Discovery Statement summarizing the current status of discovery proceedings. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification and disclose experts in support of class certification on or before June 15, 2026 and shall notice the hearing on said motion before Judge Calabretta no later than Oct. 22, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. The Defendant shall file its opposition and disclose experts in opposition to class certification on or before Aug. 17, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file her reply in support of class certification on or before Sept. 30, 2026. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Oct. 15, 2027, and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Dec. 2, 202027,t 1:30 p.m. The final pretrial conference is set for Mar. 23, 2028 at 1:30 p.m. A jury trial is set for May 15, 2028 at 8:30 a.m. Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xwSwo at no extra charge.[CC] WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 22, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAELA BORJA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00359-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Amendments to the pleadings: Oct. 30, 2025 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and opening expert disclosures: June 22, 2026 Responses and respondent expert disclosures: July 27, 2026 Reply: August 17, 2026 3. Deadline for filing dispositive motions: Jan. 20, 2027 4. Discovery Cutoff: May 7, 2027 5. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: May 28, 2027 Objections: June 18, 2027 6. First Final Pretrial Conference: July 7, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. Second Final Pretrial Conference: July 14, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. 7. Trial: July 19, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. The Defendant is a not-for-profit financial cooperative. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hNtvqr at no extra charge.[CC] ZULILY LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Smith Due Feb. 27, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JITTANIA SMITH, et al., v. ZULILY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01480-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order that the case shall conform to the following schedule: Event Deadline The Defendants' file corporate disclosure Aug. 29, 2025 Statement: Join additional parties: Dec. 31, 2025 Completion of pre-certification discovery: Dec. 31, 2025 The Plaintiffs' motion for class Feb. 27, 2026 certification (to be briefed in accordance with Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(4)): The remainder of the case schedule will be set after the Court’s resolution of the motion for class certification. Dated this 22nd day of August, 2025. A Zulily is an American e-commerce website. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cwdso0 at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***