250911.mbx

250911.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 182 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Blue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Bond Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Burnside Sues Over Negligent Acts and Omissions 3M COMPANY: Calcaterra Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Corchado Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Corchado Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Weaver Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Wisner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals A-MARK PRECIOUS METALS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AAMC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Stayed in Durbal Suit ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Letizia Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS: Faerber Suit Removed to C.D. California ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Thompson Files Suit in D. Minnesota AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Court Orders in De Coster Suit to 9th Cir. ARAMSCO INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ARISE VIRTUAL: De Niro Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to 9th Cir. ARSTRAT LLC: Stein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ASANA REBEL GMBH: Adamiec Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ASANA REBEL GMBH: Adamiec Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL: Alvarez Labor Suit Settlement for Court OK AUDIBLE INC: Faces Deitrich Suit Over Audiobook Purchase Flaws BANK OF AMERICA: Federal Court Trims Zelle Fraud Class Action BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Seeks to Drop Conditional Cert Bid BEDGEAR LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges BELL-CARTER PACKAGING: Ibarra Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages BRANDEFY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Court Refuses to Dismiss Birenbaum Class Suit CAPITAL ONE: E.D. Louisiana Dismisses MLC Suit Without Prejudice CASE HM LLC: Granados Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENTRAL BUCKS: Marinello Cross Appeals Court Orders to 3rd Circuit CETTIRE INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges COGO LTD: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Agrees to Settle Pension Class-Action for $332M CRESCENT REAL ESTATE: Palacios Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CUTTING EDGE PIZZA: Wilcox Suit Removed to M.D. Florida CVS HEALTH: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Jones Suit to 3rd Circuit DBM GLOBAL: Crawford Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona DESIGNER BRANDS: Court Awards $886,000 in Counsel Fees DETROIT, MI: Wolf Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir. DISH NETWORK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Brooks Due Sept. 11 DOW INC: Faces Sarti Class Suit Over Share Stock Price Drop DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California E MORTGAGE: Kasapi Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Werner Files Suit in S.D. New York ESSA PHARMA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit over Drug Trial Disclosure EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks FALONI LAW GROUP: Sheinkopf Files Suit in D. New Jersey FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kovner Says FARMERS INSURANCE: Ruffulo Seeks Initial OK of $10MM Settlement FCA US: Soares Appeals Consumer Suit's Final Judgment to 1st Cir. FINWISE BANK: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Star Equity Class Suit FIVE BELOW: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination FORTIVE CORP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3-Mil. FRED MEYER STORES: Leach Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct. GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Partial Dismissal of Kerr Suit to 3rd Cir. GLORIA JEAN'S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Earth's Healing Class Suit GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Redbud Antitrust Class Suit GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Summit Antitrust Class Suit HALEON US: Cross Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit HEALTH SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: $720,000 PAGA Settlement in Marron Suit OK'd HEARST MAGAZINE MEDIA: Azam Suit Removed to N.D. California HIGH POINT: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Persona Info Access HOLLISTER CO: Track Web Users' Browsing Activities, Frankle Says HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert Filing in Ybarra Due June 5, 2026 HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA: McKinney Files Suit in C.D. California IBOTTA INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit over IPO INDEPENDENT BANK: Fourth Circuit Revives Overdraft Class Lawsuit INNOVE INC: Bishop Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website INSTRUCTURE INC: Hernandez-Silva Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Huber Suit Removed to D. Colorado KEYSTONE RV: Bids to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim Granted KRIS MAYES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 22 LANGDON & COMPANY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ginsburg Says LESLIE'S POOLMART: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California LEXIS NEXIS RISK: Coulter Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Florida LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Settles Misleading Info Suit for CDN$11MM LIVE NATION: Lipeles Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit LIVEPERSON INC: Dismissal of Damri Suit Under Appeal LKQ CORPORATION: Abarca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LOUISIANA: Appeals Renewed Injunction Order in Civil Rights Suit LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of Personal Info LTG-DBS, LLC: Alvear Sues Over Unlawful Disability Discrimination LUFKA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Evans Says LULULEMON USA INC: Phan Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Gabourel Loses Bid for Class Certification MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Green Securities Suit MISEN INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Echols Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MUSH FOODS: Faces Charalampopoulou Suit Over Oats Protein Content NEST BEDDING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cazares Alleges NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Piney Gets Initial Nod NISSAN NORTH: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit NVIDIA CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Evans Says OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Dennison Says PERPETUA RESOURCES: Faces Barnes Shareholder Suit PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Memorex Flash Drives' False Ads SALESFORCE INC: Faces Canick Class Action Suit Over Data Breach SCYNEXIS INC: Court Dismisses Feldman Securities Class Suit SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Shareholder Suit SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Allowed to Restrict Portions of Class Cert Bid STATE FARM: Class Settlement in Mora Suit Gets Court OK SUN BUM: Faces Fahey Suit Over Deceptive Sunscreen Lotion's SPF SUZUKI MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Sportbikes' Brake Systems T-MOBILE USA INC: Oddo Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington TASMANIA: Junior Doctors File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime TIMELESS SKIN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Cal. TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Two Classes TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 17 TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ihrke Says TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Weatherford Says UNITED PARCEL: Astramsky Sues Over Illegal Background Check VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid VIRGINIA BEACH: Hardee Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Pay Inequality WATA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Referred to Magistrate Judge WATERCO OF THE CENTRAL: Perez Loses Bid to Move Suit to State Court WATERWIPES USA: Faces Corzan Over Water Wipes' Deceptive Labels WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ellsworth Suit Removed to C.D. California WERNER ENTERPRISES: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California WERNER ENTERPRISES: Mason Suit Removed to C.D. California WERNER ENTERPRISES: Norman Suit Removed to C.D. California WFS EXPRESS: Prado Suit Removed to C.D. California WIRED NYC: Francisco Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL ********* 3M COMPANY: Blue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Blue, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08487-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025), is brought for compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA") and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"). All Defendants were involved in the manufacturing, marketing, design, sale, and/or distribution of fluorochemical products, fluorosurfactants, AFFF, PFOA, PFOS, PFAS, and/or the precursors to PFOA and PFOS (collectively hereinafter "fluorochemical products" or "C8") to which Plaintiff was exposed. PFOS and PFOA are fluorosurfactants that repel oil, grease, and water. PFOS, PFOA, or their chemical precursors, are or were components of AFFF products, which are firefighting suppressant agents used in training and firefighting activities for fighting Class B fires. Class B fires involving hydrocarbon fuels such as petroleum or other flammable liquids. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold AFFF/Component Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by Defendants. Since its creation in the 1960s, AFFF designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, or that contained fluorosufactants or PFCs designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, used as directed and intended by Defendants, and subsequently released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, resulting in widespread PFAS contamination. Due to this contamination, the Plaintiff has suffered real personal injuries, bioaccumulation of PFAS in their bodies, as a result of the release of PFAS to their water supplies. The Plaintiff has been unknowingly exposed to the PFAS through contamination of their drinking water supply for many years at concentrations hazardous to their health. The Plaintiff's unwitting exposure to PFAS in the water supply as a result of the Defendants' conduct, is the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's life, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, marketed and/or sold the AFFF or fluorochemical products containing PFOA or PFOS to which Plaintiff was exposed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Bond Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- William James Bond, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08569-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, thyroid cancer and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Lee Brown, Jr., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08511-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin S. Bryant, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08553-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his employment with a fire protection company, West Georgia Fire and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Burnside Sues Over Negligent Acts and Omissions ----------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Burnside, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08494-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025), is brought for compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA") and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"). All Defendants were involved in the manufacturing, marketing, design, sale, and/or distribution of fluorochemical products, fluorosurfactants, AFFF, PFOA, PFOS, PFAS, and/or the precursors to PFOA and PFOS (collectively hereinafter "fluorochemical products" or "C8") to which Plaintiff was exposed. PFOS and PFOA are fluorosurfactants that repel oil, grease, and water. PFOS, PFOA, or their chemical precursors, are or were components of AFFF products, which are firefighting suppressant agents used in training and firefighting activities for fighting Class B fires. Class B fires involving hydrocarbon fuels such as petroleum or other flammable liquids. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold AFFF/Component Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by Defendants. Since its creation in the 1960s, AFFF designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, or that contained fluorosufactants or PFCs designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, used as directed and intended by Defendants, and subsequently released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, resulting in widespread PFAS contamination. Due to this contamination, the Plaintiff has suffered real personal injuries, bioaccumulation of PFAS in their bodies, as a result of the release of PFAS to their water supplies. The Plaintiff has been unknowingly exposed to the PFAS through contamination of their drinking water supply for many years at concentrations hazardous to their health. The Plaintiff's unwitting exposure to PFAS in the water supply as a result of the Defendants' conduct, is the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's life, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, marketed and/or sold the AFFF or fluorochemical products containing PFOA or PFOS to which Plaintiff was exposed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Calcaterra Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Calcaterra, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08436-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Corchado Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Corchado, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08557-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Corchado Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sylvia Corchado, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08571-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- Mercedes Cruz, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08439-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Weaver Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Weaver, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08452-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Williams, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08493-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025), is brought for compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA") and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"). All Defendants were involved in the manufacturing, marketing, design, sale, and/or distribution of fluorochemical products, fluorosurfactants, AFFF, PFOA, PFOS, PFAS, and/or the precursors to PFOA and PFOS (collectively hereinafter "fluorochemical products" or "C8") to which Plaintiff was exposed. PFOS and PFOA are fluorosurfactants that repel oil, grease, and water. PFOS, PFOA, or their chemical precursors, are or were components of AFFF products, which are firefighting suppressant agents used in training and firefighting activities for fighting Class B fires. Class B fires involving hydrocarbon fuels such as petroleum or other flammable liquids. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold AFFF/Component Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by Defendants. Since its creation in the 1960s, AFFF designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, or that contained fluorosufactants or PFCs designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, used as directed and intended by Defendants, and subsequently released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, resulting in widespread PFAS contamination. Due to this contamination, the Plaintiff has suffered real personal injuries, bioaccumulation of PFAS in their bodies, as a result of the release of PFAS to their water supplies. The Plaintiff has been unknowingly exposed to the PFAS through contamination of their drinking water supply for many years at concentrations hazardous to their health. The Plaintiff's unwitting exposure to PFAS in the water supply as a result of the Defendants' conduct, is the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's life, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, marketed and/or sold the AFFF or fluorochemical products containing PFOA or PFOS to which Plaintiff was exposed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Wisner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wisner, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08440-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com A-MARK PRECIOUS METALS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A-Mark Precious Metals Inc. The case is styled as Noema Gonzalez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tiger Lines, LLC, Case No. 25STCV25437 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." A-Mark Precious Metals -- https://www.amark.com/ -- is a precious metals trading company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com AAMC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Stayed in Durbal Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DURBAL v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, Case No. 1:25-cv-02537 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amir H. Ali entered an order that the deadline to move for class certification is stayed pending the Court's consideration of any motion to dismiss. The timing for the parties' meet-and-confer report remains governed by the Court's standing order. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. The Defendant is a 501 nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. that was established in 1876.[CC] ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Letizia Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL LETIZIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01319 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant has perpetuated unlawful debt collection practices violative of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, premised on the exposure of Plaintiff's sensitive financial information. The Defendant was required to take certain precautions to protect sensitive financial information pursuant to Pennsylvania's Public Access Policy. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to take said precautions, exposed the financial information of Plaintiff and the Class Members, and falsely certified compliance with the Public Access Policy, says the suit. The Defendant is a law firm registered with Pennsylvania's Department of State as a domestic limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle H. Steenland, Esq. STEENLAND LAW, PLLC 651 Holiday Drive, Plaza 5, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Telephone: (412) 368-2324 Facsimile: (412) 214-9182 E-mail: kyle@steenlandlaw.com - and - Brian J. Fenters, Esq. FENTERS LAW FIRM 10664 Center Highway, Unit D Irwin, PA 15642 Telephone: (412) 526-3016 E-mail: bfenters@fenterslaw.com ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS: Faerber Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Noah Faerber, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, a Maryland limited liability company doing business as CLAREMONT CLUB & SPA BERKELEY; DIANE BINDER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16406 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08169. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 8 purported causes of action for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to indemnify business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. Matthew P. Eaton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com meaton@bakerlaw.com ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Thompson Files Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Jason Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03118-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Ste 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: (612) 991-2934 Email: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anderson Tuggle, Esq. Larry E. LaTarte, Esq. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 766-6822 Email: anderson.tuggle@faegredrinker.com larry.latarte@faegredrinker.com AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Court Orders in De Coster Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMAZON.COM, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Elizabeth De Coster, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the named Plaintiffs are residents of Maryland, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, and Connecticut who purchased numerous goods from Amazon's marketplace, including those listed by third-party merchants. They bring the action on behalf of themselves, and as a class action on behalf of all persons who, on or after May 26, 2017, purchased one or more goods on Amazon's marketplace. The Amended Complaint includes causes of action for per se and not per se violation of the Sherman Act under 15 U.S.C. Section 1 (First and Second Causes of Action), violation of the Sherman Act under 15 U.S.C. Section 2 for monopolization (Third Cause of Action), and violation of the Sherman Act under 15 U.S.C. Section 2 for attempted monopolization (Fourth Cause of Action). On Aug. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On July 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Amazon to produce documents and information responsive to the Plaintiffs seventh set of requests for production and fourth set of interrogatories. On Aug. 6, 2025 and Aug. 8, 2025, Judge John H. Chun entered Orders granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion to compel Amazon to produce documents and information responsive to the Plaintiffs seventh set of requests for production and fourth set of interrogatories, respectively. The appellate case is entitled De Coster, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 25-5335, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Adam Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Warren David Postman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN, LLC 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Defendant-Petitioner AMAZON.COM, INC. is represented by: David Ryan Carpenter, Esq. Collin Partington Wedel, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Eamon P. Joyce, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 787 7th Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - Ausjia Perlow, Esq. Kathleen Moriarty Mueller, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 1501 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP 401 Ninth Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Meredith Richardson Dearborn, Esq. DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP 345 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 ARAMSCO INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shannon Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARAMSCO INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as ARAMSCO, INC. DBA ALPINE PRODUCTS and INTERLINK SUPPLY; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21624-1 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01672. The Complaint purports to seek relief related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110, which sets out requirements for job postings, among other things.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Damon C. Elder, Esq. Gabriel Reilly-Bates, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com gabriel.reillybates@morganlewis.com - and - John P. Guyette, Esq. Kimberley E. Lunetta, Esq. VEDDER PRICE 1633 Broadway, 31st Fl. New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 407-7640 Email: jguyette@vedderprice.com klunetta@vedderprice.com ARISE VIRTUAL: De Niro Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIAVION DE NIRO, filed on August 29, 2025, a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 25-5495, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled Diavion De Niro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00695, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The Plaintiff brought this collective action against the Defendant for unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner DIAVION DE NIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 ARSTRAT LLC: Stein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The case is styled as Naomi Stein, on behalf of Ethan Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARStrat, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04317-JS-LGD (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARstrat -- https://arstrat.com/ -- is an industry leading collection and bad debt resolution provider for the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ASANA REBEL GMBH: Adamiec Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asana Rebel GmbH. The case is styled as Kristin Adamiec, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Asana Rebel GmbH, Case No. 1:25-cv-10358 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Asana Rebel -- https://asanarebel.com/ -- is the healthy lifestyle app for anyone who wants to get in shape, have more energy, sleep better, and increase their productivity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kieselstein, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (708) 983-9289 Email: djk@wittelslaw.com ASANA REBEL GMBH: Adamiec Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asana Rebel GmbH. The case is styled as Kristin Adamiec, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Asana Rebel GmbH, Case No. 1:25-cv-10358 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Asana Rebel -- https://asanarebel.com/ -- is the healthy lifestyle app for anyone who wants to get in shape, have more energy, sleep better, and increase their productivity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kieselstein, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (708) 983-9289 Email: djk@wittelslaw.com ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL: Alvarez Labor Suit Settlement for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Atlantic International Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company awaits court approval of the Alvarez and Reyes labor class suit settlement. On October 8, 2021, a class action wage and hour complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, by Teresa Alvarez and Mirna Reyes as class representatives. The Complaint was filed against the Company as well as the Company's client. The matter settled for $750,000, $650,000 of which is to be paid by the Company, and the remaining $100,000 is to be paid by the client. The settlement agreement was signed November 16, 2023 and has been finalized and executed and provided to the Court for approval. The Company is currently awaiting such approval. If approved, it is anticipated that the settlement payment will be due in the fourth quarter of 2025. The Company has accrued the full amount of the $650,000 settlement payment due, which is recognized in "accrued expenses and other current liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Atlantic International Corp provides staffing solutions. The Company specializes in the placement of temporary and temporary-to-permanent labor across various industries such as accounting and finance, administrative and clerical, information technology, legal, light industrial, and medical roles. Atlantic International serves clients in the United States. AUDIBLE INC: Faces Deitrich Suit Over Audiobook Purchase Flaws -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF DEITRICH and JESSICA FARRELL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUDIBLE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01659 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 28, 2025) is a class action suit brought against Audible for violating the California Digital Property Rights Transparency Law, California Business & Professions Code. On its website, the Defendant tells consumers the option to "buy" digital copies of audiobooks they can purchase physical copies of. But when consumers "buy" digital versions of audiobooks through Audible's website, they do not obtain the full bundle of sticks of rights we traditionally think of as owning property. When consumers "buy" a physical book from a bookstore, they receive an unrestricted ownership interest over it. They can choose to read it today; they can choose to read it tomorrow. They can keep it for themselves; they can loan it to their friend. They can place that book on their bookshelf, and rest assured that if they open the book two years later, the words on the page will still be there. The same cannot be said when consumers "buy" an audiobook from Audible. Instead, in many cases, they receive "a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license" to access the digital audiobook, which is maintained at Defendant's sole discretion, the Plaintiff contends. If Audible loses the rights to the audiobook, it will disappear from the consumer's digital library. California law prohibits this kind of bait and switch. The California legislature recently enacted digital property rights transparency law that became effective on January 1, 2025. Mr. Deitrich is a citizen of California, residing in Big Bear City California. Plaintiff purchased a digital copy of the audiobook Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson, authored by Randall Sullivan and Narrated by Mel Foster on Defendant’s website on July 14, 2025. Audible sells a variety of its audiobooks through its website, audible.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wright A. Noel CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 837-4717 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Stafan Bogdanovich, 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 sbogdanovich@bursor.com BANK OF AMERICA: Federal Court Trims Zelle Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- ABA Banking Journal reports that North Carolina federal court trims Zelle fraud class action against Bank of America. Issue: Whether plaintiffs have pleaded adequately (1) breach of contract based on the alleged failure of Bank of America (BofA) to maintain the "safety and security" of plaintiffs' online banking; and (2) "fraudulent" trade practices under California consumer protection law. Case Summary: A North Carolina federal court partially sustained Bank of America's objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation allowing a proposed class action over alleged Zelle fraud to proceed, determining the lawsuit fails to plausibly plead claims under any state consumer protection statutes. In 2022, five BofA account holders (plaintiffs) sued BofA alleging it violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by not responding properly when hackers fraudulently withdrew funds from their accounts. Plaintiffs alleged that in similar instances, they received phone calls from individuals posing as BofA employees. These callers claimed they were investigating suspicious transactions but deceived plaintiffs into providing account information to protect themselves from fictitious fraud. Immediately afterward, funds ranging from $850 to $3,500 were transferred out of their accounts via Zelle. Plaintiffs reported the fraudulent transfers to BofA, but alleged the bank investigated and concluded the transactions were not unauthorized, refused to provisionally credit plaintiffs' accounts and failed to reimburse them for the losses. Along with their EFTA claim, plaintiffs accused BofA of breaching its contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They also alleged false advertising, consumer fraud and unfair competition under the laws of New York, New Jersey, South Carolina and California. BofA moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim, noting that each state law required proof that BofA's alleged deceptive statements caused their harm. Judge Timothy Reif dismissed the state consumer protection claims, ruling that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege violations under any statute. Plaintiffs claimed that BofA violated California's Unfair Competition Law (CA UCL), the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUPTA), New York General Business Law § 349 (NYGBL), and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). They argued that BofA misrepresented and concealed material facts about Zelle and the safety of its banking services. On the allegations of fraudulent or deceptive practices, BofA argued that it made no statements likely to mislead a reasonable consumer or cause injury. BofA further asserted that the CA UCL, SCUTPA, and the NJCFA all require proof of causation, and that plaintiffs' injuries stemmed from criminal third parties, not from any unfair practice by the bank. Judge Reif agreed with BofA, ruling that plaintiffs merely claimed BofA's Zelle-related marketing could mislead the public, but never alleged they saw the statements. He reviewed each state statute and emphasized that plaintiffs failed to claim any reliance on BofA's alleged misrepresentations or omissions. Judge Reif dismissed the breach of contract claim under BofA's Online Banking Service Agreement (OBSA). Plaintiffs argued that BofA had a duty to maintain the safety and security of customers' online banking. Judge Reif explained that the complaint did not cite any contractual language imposing such an obligation. Because plaintiffs failed to identify a specific provision requiring BofA to ensure security, they did not plausibly allege a breach. However, the court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under the EFTA and their claim for breach of contract with fraudulent intent. Judge Reif provided no further commentary on these claims. Bottom Line: Plaintiffs' claims under the EFTA and breach of contract will proceed to discovery. [GN] BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Seeks to Drop Conditional Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLYJOE BROWNING, Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated. v. BASSETT HEALTHCARE NETWORK, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514-LEK-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting withdraw motion for conditional certification. Bassett is an integrated health care system. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NnYp87 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Thomas J. Higgs, Esq. HACKER MURPHY, LLP 28 Second Street Troy, NY 12180 Telephone: (518) 274-5820 Facsimile: (518) 274-5875 E-mail: diversen@joneshacker.com BEDGEAR LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bedgear, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10354 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://bedgear.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Bedgear provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA, says the suit. Allegedly, Bedgear.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Bedgear.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Bedgear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law BELL-CARTER PACKAGING: Ibarra Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Maribel Villa Ibarra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BELL-CARTER PACKAGING, LLC; PARTNERS PERSONNEL - MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CV-25-007202 (Cal. Super. Ct. Stanislaus Cty., July 25, 2025), is brought against Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, un-reimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code. Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to pay wages timely during employment; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants. The Defendants provide services or goods throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com BRANDEFY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Brandefy, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10325 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://brandefyskin.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Brandefyskin.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Brandefy provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the suit contends. Brandefyskin.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Brandefy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Court Refuses to Dismiss Birenbaum Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joan M. Azrack of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled DAVID BIRENBAUM, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03611-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y.). In this putative class action, Plaintiff David Birenbaum alleges that Defendant Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, d/b/a/ Firestone Complete Auto Care, engaged in deceptive business practices by failing to disclose the optional nature of various car repair features added to the Plaintiff's vehicle allegedly in violation of Section 349 of the New York State General Business Law ("GBL"). Presently before the Court today is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Judge Lee G. Dunst recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim be denied. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court adopted the R&R in its entirety. The Court has carefully reviewed the record and the unopposed R&R for clear error and, finding none, adopts Judge Dunst's well-reasoned and 23-paged R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2czx7znn from PacerMonitor.com. CAPITAL ONE: E.D. Louisiana Dismisses MLC Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MLC HOLDINGS OF LOUISIANA, LLC D/B/A THE CLEANING AUTHORITY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00841-SSV-MBN (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismisses the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. Defendant Capital One's opposed motion to dismiss is brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff MLC Holdings of Louisiana, LLC, doing business as The Cleaning Authority, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued Capital One, National Association. The Plaintiff alleges that from Jan. 15, 2025, to around Jan. 19, 2025, it was unable to access its Capital One small business bank account due to a technical issue with one of Capital One's third-party vendors. The Plaintiff brought this action for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges that its injuries stem from being unable to access its funds or pay business expenses, including payroll. The Defendant moved to dismiss. Capital One first argued that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiff does not have standing. It argues that the Plaintiff failed to allege any injury. With its motion, Capital One provided records indicating that MLC Holdings was able to deposit and withdraw funds during the time period in question. In the alternative, Capital One argued that MLC Holdings fails to state a viable claim on any of its causes of action. It asserts that the breach of contract claim fails because the complaint fails to identify any contractual obligation that Capital One breached. It faults the negligence claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff does not point to a legal duty that Capital One owes it. Finally, Capital One contends that the unjust enrichment claim is defective because an unjust enrichment claim cannot survive when there is an express contract between the parties. Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff fails to submit any evidence in support of its standing. Capital One submitted unrebutted evidence that the Plaintiff made numerous withdrawals from and deposits to its Capital One accounts during the relevant period. The evidence refutes the Plaintiff's core allegation that it was unable to access its accounts. Although the Plaintiff argues that neither it nor the Capital One clerk was able to access its account, it asserts this in its opposition brief without any evidentiary support, Judge Vance says. This statement alone is insufficient. Judge Vance points out that the Plaintiff must submit facts through some evidentiary method to sustain its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff fails to establish the injury it alleges by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, the Plaintiff lacks standing, and the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/msanyssh from PacerMonitor.com. CASE HM LLC: Granados Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Case HM, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Garcia Granados, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Case HM, LLC d.b.a. PROPER HOTEL, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 25STCV25532 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Case HM, LLC doing business as Proper Hotel -- https://www.properhotel.com/ -- operates hotels & residences that offer bold explorations of uncommon luxury.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180 El Segundo, CA 90245-2656 Phone: 424-292-2350 Fax: 424-292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com CENTRAL BUCKS: Marinello Cross Appeals Court Orders to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAWN MARINELLO is taking a cross appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Dawn Marinello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Bucks School District, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02587, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of rights under the federal Equal Pay Act. On June 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or to modify or amend judgment and a motion for attorney fees and costs. On same day, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative, for a new trial, and a motion to alter judgment by molding the verdict. On July 15, 2025, Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or to modify or amend judgment. The Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative, for a new trial is denied. Moreover, the Defendant's motion to mold the verdict and judgment is granted. Judgment is entered against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $152,902.58. On July 21, 2025, Judge Baylson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs. The Court reduces the requested fees from $2,756,662.50 to $516,415.26 and reduces the requested costs from $217,738.62 to $119,863.62. On Aug. 7, 2025, the Defendant appealed the Court Orders. The appellate case is entitled Dawn Marinello v. Central Bucks School District, Case No. 25-2613, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on August 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAWN MARINELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edward S. Mazurek, Esq. 717 S. Columbus Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19147 Telephone: (267) 243-3393 Defendant-Appellee CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT is represented by: David W. Brown, Esq. Michael I. Levin, Esq. LEVIN LEGAL GROUP 1800 Byberry Road 1301 Masons Mill Business Park Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 938-6378 CETTIRE INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Cettire, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10372 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.cettire.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Cettire provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Accordingly, Cettire.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website, says the suit. Cettire.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Cettire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law COGO LTD: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------- Jesus Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. COGO, LTD. and INFINITE LEEWAY LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23915-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. COGO, LTD., owned and/or operated a commercial building.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Agrees to Settle Pension Class-Action for $332M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Solomon Oladipupo, writing for TipRanks, reports that consumer products giant Colgate-Palmolive has put forward a $332 million agreement to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by its former employees. The retirees had dragged the American company to court in 2016, alleging inaccurate calculation of their pensions. The deal, which is a preliminary settlement, was lodged on August 29, Friday, in a federal Manhattan court, following years of contention in court over the case. The proposed arrangement, however, still awaits a judge's approval. If the agreement is approved, 1,177 retirees are expected to collectively receive about $232.7 million, minus lawyers' fees and expenses. Colgate-Palmolive noted that the decision to settle was not an admission of wrongdoing, but it was to avoid the risk and cost of additional litigation. Colgate's Pension Plan Comes Back to Bite The bone of contention in the case dates back nearly four decades ago when Colgate switched its pension arrangement to a cash balance plan. The plan enables employees -- who get a hypothetical account that is funded yearly with a guaranteed interest -- to get their retirement benefit as a lump sum. In 2005, Colgate modified the plan to award, in retrospect, a lifetime monthly payment (also called an annuity) to employees who got lump sums under its older pension arrangement. However, retirees under the class-action argued that the multinational was not exact in its calculation of these payments. As of Tuesday afternoon, Colgate-Palmolive's shares were trading about half a percentage point up at around $84 a share. However, the stock has shed 22% of its value since the start of the year. Is CL a Good Stock to Buy? In August, several Wall Street banks lowered their price targets for the New York-based producer of household, health, personal care, and veterinary products. For instance, Morgan Stanley trimmed its price target for CL stock to $96 from $104. The investment bank noted that the company's second quarter 2025 results "should do little to change the debate on Colgate." However, the banker maintained its Overweight rating on the stock. On TipRanks, Colgate-Palmolive's stock has a Moderate Buy consensus recommendation based on 13 Wall Street analysts' assessments. This is based on nine Buy, three Hold, and one Sell ratings. The average CL price target by analysts over the last three months is $97.15, which is a nearly 15% upside potential from the current level. [GN] CRESCENT REAL ESTATE: Palacios Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Maximina Palacios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRESCENT REAL ESTATE LLC CRESCENT HOTEL AT FORT WORTH, Case No. 4:25-cv-00798-O (N.D. Tex., July 28, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit against Defendant who failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff was not paid time-and-one-half of her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In many workweeks, Plaintiff was p aid for precisely forty hours of work, although she frequently worked more than forty hours in those workweeks. The Plaintiff worked over f01ty hours in a workweek which happened frequently, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were eligible to receive overtime wages. However, Defendant typic ally required its employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts. The Plaintiff was required to perform "off-the-clock" duties after their shift had ended including her duties as a seamstress. The time that Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals spent completing these pre- and post-liminary duties without pay was more than de minimus. The Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff for work she perfumed "off-the-clock" resulted in overtime violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a seamstress and room service attendant employee of Defendant. Crescent Real Estate LLC d/b/a Crescent Hotel at Fort Worth is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. Colby Qualls FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com cqualls@foresterhaynie.com Web: www-foresterhaynie.com CUTTING EDGE PIZZA: Wilcox Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karen Wilcox, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CUTTING EDGE PIZZA, INC. and PAUL J. ZDANOWICZ, Case No. 2025-CA-004495-O was removed from the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-01673. The Plaintiffs assert claims for unpaid minimum and other wages owed to themselves and similarly situated non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brett P. Owens, B.C.S. Shannon Murphy, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 3100 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 769-7500 Facsimile: (813) 769-750 Email: bowens@fisherphillips.com Semurphy@fisherphillips.com CVS HEALTH: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Jones Suit to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CVS HEALTH CORP., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Denise Jones, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01703, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and State Consumer Protection Acts and for conspiracy, fraud, negligence per se, or, alternatively, negligence, and unjust enrichment. On June 24, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge John M. Younge denied on July 29, 2025. The Court concludes that the Defendants' failure to notify Plaintiff Jones or the Court of the potential for arbitration demonstrated a decision to commit to litigation and was inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, supporting a conclusion that it has waived its right to seek arbitration of this case. The appellate case is entitled Denise Jones, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Case No. 25-2671, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on August 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DENISE ELAYNE JONES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Matthew Macken, Esq. Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Jonathan F. Neumann, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (267) 948-2612 (610) 667-7706 - and - Eric L. Young, Esq. MILLER SHAH 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 861-7602 Defendants-Appellants CVS HEALTH CORP., et al. are represented by: Mark A. Aronchick, Esq. John S. Summers, Esq. HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER One Logan Square 18th & Cherry Streets, 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-7002 (215) 568-6200 - and - Edward B. Diskant, Esq. Jessica G. Griffith, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (215) 547-5754 (212) 547-5578 - and - Jennifer Butler Routh, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE 500 N. Capitol Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 756-8165 DBM GLOBAL: Crawford Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DBM Global Incorporated. The case is styled as Gunnar Crawford, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. DBM Global Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-03176-GMS (D. Ariz., Aug. 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. DBM Global -- https://www.dbmglobal.com/ -- is a leading structural steel and industrial construction company that operates across commercial and industrial sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com DESIGNER BRANDS: Court Awards $886,000 in Counsel Fees ------------------------------------------------------ Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Service Awards in the lawsuit styled ERIC LAGUARDIA, et al., Plaintiffs v. DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio). The firms are: Shamis Gentile, Lakeshore Law Center, Nicholas & Tomasevic, and The Spencer Law Firm. The firms assert that they spent 1,596.75 combined hours litigating the case. The Plaintiffs first request Service Awards in the amount of $10,000 to each of the two Settlement Class Representatives. Judge Morrison says the Settlement Class Representatives adequately represented the Class's interests in this matter by staying informed throughout the litigation, responding to discovery, and thoroughly reviewing and approving the terms of the Settlement. Judge Morrison finds that the requested Service Awards are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court approves the Service Awards of $10,000 to each Settlement Class Representative. The Plaintiffs next request reimbursement of their attorneys' costs and expenses in the amount of $27,922.72. The Court approves the request for costs and expenses. Finally, the Plaintiffs request attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the maximum Settlement Amount, or $1,107,295. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court denies the request and awards fees representing 20% of the maximum Settlement Amount or $885,836. In this case, the Court adopts the percentage-of-the-fund method, both because it is used in the Plaintiffs' Motion and because it is customarily used in common-fund cases. The Settlement Agreement establishes a maximum amount that the Defendants would pay to class members, but does not establish a traditional settlement fund. In other words, Judge Morrison says, the "Settlement Amount" really functions as a not-to-exceed. The Plaintiffs request attorneys' fees representing 25% of this not-to-exceed amount. The Settlement Amount was calculated by allotting $70 for every member of the putative class, not inclusive of expenses or administration costs: 63,274 class members x $70 = $4,429,180 Settlement Amount. Here, each Settlement Class Member, who filed a Claim Form, is entitled to $70, or 14% of her statutory damages. Given that the "amount available" to the Settlement Class exceeds $4 million, Judge Morrison says there is room to provide a more substantial benefit to class members. This is especially true given that only 2,143 Settlement Class Members filed claims (a claim rate of 3.3%), meaning that only $150,010 will be distributed to Settlement Class Members. Judge Morrison notes that Settlement Class Counsel understood that similar class actions settlements typically see a 1–2% claim rate. But Counsel did not leverage the likelihood of a low claim rate to secure a higher benefit for those Settlement Class Members, who submitted Claim Forms, Judge Morrison says. Instead, the Defendants' outlay is anchored by the expectedly low claim rate. Meanwhile, Settlement Class Counsel's desired income is completely independent of the claim rate. While the Court recognizes that a class member benefits from the right to recovery, even if she does not exercise that right, the maximum monetary recovery here does not demonstrate a substantial benefit to Settlement Class Members--claimed or not. Settlement Class Counsel took this case on a contingent fee basis, weighing in favor of a meaningful fee award. Here, in view of the value of the award to the Settlement Class Members, Judge Morrison points out the requested award would be a windfall. In view of its analysis, the Court finds that 20% of the maximum Settlement Amount, or $885,836, is a reasonable award of attorneys' fees award in this case. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion. The Court approves the Service Awards to Plaintiffs Eric LaGuardia and Nicole Austin in the total amount of $10,000 each. The Court also approves an award to Settlement Class Counsel for costs and expenses in the amount of $27,922.72. Finally, the Court approves an award to Settlement Class Counsel of $885,836 in attorneys' fees, representing 20% of the maximum Settlement Amount. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy6k7jwy from PacerMonitor.com. DETROIT, MI: Wolf Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WOLF, doing business as Laurence Wolf Properties, is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Laurence Wolf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Detroit, MI, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-11645, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendant for civil rights violations. On Aug. 18, 2025, Judge Brandy R. McMillion entered an Order dismissing the case for lack of standing. In sum, the Court finds that Wolf's alleged injury-retention of rental assistance funds-is not traceable to the City. Though the City came up with the 80-20 requirement, the State's independent, voluntary, and discretionary decision to implement it severed the chain of constitutional causation. This precludes Wolf from establishing traceability, so he lacks standing to sue the City. The appellate case is entitled Laurence Wolf v. City of Detroit, MI, Case No. 25-1782, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on August 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LAURENCE WOLF, doing business as Laurence Wolf Properties, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jamie Kathleen Warrow, Esq. KICKHAM HANLEY 90450 Woodward Avenue, Suite 306 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 544-1500 Defendant-Appellee CITY OF DETROIT, MI is represented by: Eric Brian Gaabo, Esq. CITY OF DETROIT 2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 269-0297 DISH NETWORK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Brooks Due Sept. 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owen-Brooks v. DISH Network Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01168 (D. Colo., Filed May 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification. -- Motion for Class Certification due: Sept. 11, 2025 -- Opposition to Motion for Class Certification due: Nov. 24, 2025 -- Reply Brief due: Dec. 26, 2025 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. DISH operates as a satellite television company.[CC] DOW INC: Faces Sarti Class Suit Over Share Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- TODD A. SARTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOW INC., THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, JIM FITTERLING, JEFFREY L. TATE, and KAREN S. CARTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-12744-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Aug. 29, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Dow securities between Jan. 30, 2025 and July 23, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On conference calls with investors and analysts, Dow's CEO Defendant Jim Fitterling, has variously stated that the Company's "dividend is a key element of our investment thesis," and that "north of 65% of our owners count on that dividend." Notwithstanding an ongoing slump in the materials science industry, as well as the recent onset of tariff-related market uncertainties, at all relevant times, Defendants represented that Dow was well positioned to weather macroeconomic and tariff-related headwinds while maintaining sufficient levels of financial flexibility to support the Company's lucrative dividend. Specifically, the Defendants cited various purported strengths and advantages unique to Dow in its industry, including, inter alia, the Company's purported "differentiated portfolio," "cost-advantaged footprint," and "industry-leading flexibility to navigate global trade dynamics." Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Dow's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Dow's ability to mitigate macroeconomic and tariff-related headwinds, as well as to maintain the financial flexibility needed to support its lucrative dividend, was overstated. On June 23, 2025, BMO Capital downgraded its recommendation on Dow to "Underperform" from "Market Perform" while also cutting its price target (PT) on the Company's stock to $22.00 per share from $29.00 per share, citing sustained weakness across key end markets and mounting pressure on the Company's dividend. On this news, Dow's stock price fell $0.89 per share, or 3.21%, to close at $26.87 per share on June 23, 2025. Then, on July 24, 2025, Dow issued a press release reporting its financial results for the second quarter of 2025. Dow reported a non-GAAP1 loss per share of $0.42, significantly larger than the approximate $0.17 to $0.18 per share loss expected by analysts. Dow also reported net sales of $10.1 billion, representing a 7.3% year-over-year decline and missing consensus estimates by $130 million, "reflecting declines in all operating segments." The Company further reported that "sequentially, net sales were down 3%, as seasonally higher demand in Performance Materials & Coatings was more than offset by declines across the other operating segments." In a separate press release issued the same day, Dow revealed that it was cutting its dividend in half, from $0.70 per share to only $0.35 per share, citing the need for "financial flexibility amidst a persistently challenging macroeconomic environment." Following these disclosures, Dow's stock price fell $5.30 per share, or 17.45%, to close at $25.07 per share on July 24, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Dow is an American materials science company, serving customers in the packaging, infrastructure, mobility, and consumer applications industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrew Ramirez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; AMENTUM SERVICES INC., a Delaware limited liability company; CALVIN MERRITT, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2519545 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02259. The State Court action alleges causes of action for: Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Final Wages Due Upon Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Adam Y. Siegal, Esq. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Adam.Siegal@jacksonlewis.com - and - Lara Besser, Esq. Annalyse E. Butler, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Lara.Besser@jacksonlewis.com Annalyse.Butler@jacksonlewis.com E MORTGAGE: Kasapi Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ron Kasapi, an Arizona Resident; Jarrett Bain, an Arizona Resident; and Samantha Pearce, an Arizona Resident Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v. E Mortgage Capital, Inc. a California limited liability company; Case No. 2:25-cv-02907-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All employees who work[ed] for the Defendant E Mortgage Capital, Inc. and/or a related entity; within the last three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present dialer, pre-approval manager, director, loan processor, loan officer assistant, Loan Consultant, Loan Production Assistant, Branch Pre-Approval Manager, CRM manager, loan officer, inside sales representative, (or similar job title and/or similar job duties and responsibilities) are known as (the "Collective Members"). These Collective Members were not paid overtime at the correct overtime rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek and/or worked off-the-clock hours that they did not receive overtime compensation for. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages for themselves and the Collective Members, requiring the proper payment of overtime wages to employees, under the collective action mechanism of the FLSA. Kasapi was a full-time employee who worked for the Defendant and was titled as a Loan Consultant from March 25, 2024 until Jan. 6, 2025. E mortgage provides a wide range of competitive mortgage and refinancing options. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0LTgbk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Weiler, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Werner Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity Residential, et al. The case is styled as Elliott Werner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equity Residential, ERP Operating Limited Partnership, Equity Residential Management LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06130-VSB-SLC (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Equity Residential -- https://www.equityapartments.com/ -- is one of the nation's largest publicly traded owners and operators of high-quality rental apartment properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Keara M. Gordon, Esq. DLA PIPER US LLP (NY) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 335-4632 Fax: (212) 884-8632 Email: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com ESSA PHARMA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit over Drug Trial Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------ ESSA Pharma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on January 24, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in federal district court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Common Shares between December 12, 2023 to October 31, 2024, alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making material misstatements and/or omissions in the company's public statements with respect to its then-ongoing clinical trials of masofaniten (EPI-7386). On August 11, 2025, an amended complaint was filed. Among other things, the amended complaint amended the Class Period to begin March 15, 2023 and names the Chief Operating Officer as an individual defendant (while no longer naming the Chief Financial Officer as a defendant). ESSA is focused on the development of small molecule drugs for the treatment of prostate cancer. It is incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia. EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks ------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolv Technologies Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has stayed the consolidated securities class suit pending settlement negotiations. On March 25, 2024 and November 1, 2024, putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 13, 2024, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits into one action (the "Class Action"), pursuant to which a consolidated amended complaint was filed against the Company, certain former executives, a current director, and individuals associated with NewHold Investment Corp. Lead Plaintiff Robert Falk and additional plaintiffs Chris Williams, Tim R. Carrillo and Chris Swanson ("Class Action Plaintiffs") allege that the Company violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements relating to the effectiveness of certain products and the Company's revenue recognition. The Class Action Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, attorneys' fees, and expert fees. The Company filed its motion to dismiss the Class Action on March 28, 2025, and the Class Action Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 24, 2025. On June 30, 2025, the Court issued an order staying the Class Action, including disposition on the motion to dismiss, pending settlement negotiations. Evolv is a security technology company that utilizes AI-based screening. The Company's key market categories include education, healthcare, sports, and live entertainment.[BN] FALONI LAW GROUP: Sheinkopf Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faloni Law Group, LLC. The case is styled as Gittie Sheinkopf also known as: Gittie Kohn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Faloni Law Group, LLC, LNVN FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-14092-GC-RLS (D.N.J., Aug. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Faloni Law Group, LLC -- https://www.falonilaw.com/ -- is a full-service Law Firm which was founded over 40 years ago by David A. Faloni, Sr., Esq.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Austin Patrick O'Brien, Esq. J. ROBBIN LAW 200 Business Park Dr., Suite 103 Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: (914) 685-5018 Email: Austin.obrien@jrobbinlaw.com FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kovner Says --------------------------------------------------------- LEN KOVNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FARMERS GROUP, INC. and FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 2:25-cv-08120 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on August 22, 2025 (the Data Breach). According to the complaint, on May 30, 2025, the Defendants became aware of a security incident on its third-party vendor's system. The Defendants launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cyber security experts to determine the nature and scope of the event. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Farmers Group, Inc. is an insurance provider that specializes in auto, homeowners, personal, and business insurance. Defendant operates under brands such as Foremost(TM), 21st Century, and Bristol West(TM).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Ruffulo Seeks Initial OK of $10MM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES RUFFULO and VALERIE YANKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01796-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for preliminary approval of the proposed collective and class $10 million settlement between the Plaintiffs, on behalf all persons who were non-California agents of Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, and Fire Insurance Exchange. The proposed California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") Class is defined as follows: "All individuals not excluded pursuant to Section 4 [prior releases] who (i) signed a Farmers Agent Appointment Agreement or a Farmers Corporate Agent Appointment Agreement; (ii) worked as a Farmers agent or Supervising Agent for an incorporated Farmers agency outside of the state of California at any time during the Settlement Class Period (as defined in Section 1.34); (iii) whose appointment was terminated by Farmers in connection with the Managing Underperforming Agents Process (as defined in Section 1.20); and (iv) who was 40 years of age or older on the effective date of their appointment's termination." The proposed Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective is defined as follows: "All individuals not excluded pursuant to Section 5 who (i) signed a Farmers Agent Appointment Agreement or a Farmers Corporate Agent Appointment Agreement not containing an agreement to arbitrate; and (ii) worked as a Farmers agent or Supervising Agent for an incorporated Farmers agency outside of the state of California at any time during the Settlement Class Period." The Plaintiff Ruffulo was appointed as a Farmers insurance agent in Hillside, Illinois from 1985 to March 2020 and Plaintiff Yankus was appointed as a Farmers agent in Connecticut from January 2015 to June 2020. Farmers provides insurance products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CMaEVy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. Anthony Nguyen, Esq. William Reed, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 145 S Spring Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (310) 860 0770 E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com WReed@Shegerianlaw.com - and - Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Sarah Sears, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, N Y 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: JAK@klafterlesser.com Seth@klafterlesser.com Sarah.Sears@klafterlesser.com FCA US: Soares Appeals Consumer Suit's Final Judgment to 1st Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO SOARES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Mario Soares, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11810-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for design, manufacturing, and distribution of vehicles with defective Active Head Restraint. On Mar. 8, 2024, Defendant FCA US LLC filed a motion to modify the class definition and to order supplemental class notice. On Nov. 22, 2024, Judge Allison D. Burroughs entered final judgment in this case. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to modify the class definition and order supplemental class notice. Finally, the Court declined to award attorneys' fees and costs in relation to this motion. The appellate case is entitled Soares v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 25-1824, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on August 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARIO SOARES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ian J. Barlow, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. KERSHAW COOK & TALLEY PC 401 Watt Ave. Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 779-7000 - and - Paula S. Bliss, Esq. Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq. Kelly Anne Guagenty, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC 210 Washington St. North Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Christopher E. Coleman, Esq. Amelia A. Haselkorn, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 222 2nd Ave S., Ste. 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Defendant-Appellee FCA US LLC is represented by: Brandon L. Boxler, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 1051 E. Cary St., Ste. 1430 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (703) 621-2109 - and - Peter M. Durney, Esq. Patricia Anne Hartnett, Esq. James Paul Kerr, Esq. SMITH DUGGAN CORNELL & GOLLUB LLP 101 Arch St., Ste. 1100 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-8100 - and - Ian K. Edwards, Esq. Fred J. Fresard, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS & LEE LLC 101 W. Big Beaver, Ste. 1400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 509-9271 (248) 840-6314 FINWISE BANK: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FinWise Bank. The case is styled as John Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FinWise Bank, Case No. 2:25-cv-00645-CMR (D. Utah, Aug. 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. FinWise -- https://www.finwise.bank/ -- provides Banking and Payments solutions to fintech brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW OFFICE 1887 N 270 E Orem, UT 84057 Phone: (801) 845-2581 Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Star Equity Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Firsthand Technology Value Fund Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Star Equity class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 28, 2025, Star Equity Fund, LP ("Star Equity") filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, docketed as case no. 1:25-cv-00677-SAG, against Firsthand Capital Management, Inc., Scalar, LLC, current and former members of the board of directors of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the "Fund"), and an officer of the Fund as defendants. The complaint also names the Fund as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges putative class action claims against the defendants for violations of federal securities laws for alleged false or misleading statements relating to the valuation of the Fund's assets, and it also purports to allege derivative claims against defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and breach of contract related to management of the Fund and its assets. In connection with the derivative claims, the complaint names the Fund as a nominal defendant. Although purporting to assert the derivative claims on behalf of the Fund, Star Equity did not make a pre-suit demand on the Fund's board of directors to initiate litigation over those claims. The Fund believes that the allegations in the complaint lack merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. is an externally managed, closed-end, non-diversified management investment company. FIVE BELOW: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. FIVE BELOW, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23919-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant is a store open to the public, each of Defendant's physical stores is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA. In its physical stores, including the store Plaintiff patronized and intends to patronize at 18447 S. Dixie Highway in Miami, Defendant has installed credit/debit card reader point of sale ("POS") devices that allow customers to insert, swipe, or input their debit card information, view information displayed on the screen, and use a key pad to make and complete purchases using a confidential debit card pin number. On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff visited and sought to patronize and purchase merchandise from Defendant's S. Dixie Highway store in Miami. During her visit, Plaintiff attempted to use the store's available POS device to complete her purchase using her debit card and attempted to access the information displayed on the POS device's screen by plugging her personal headset into the device. However, Plaintiff was unable to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially pay for her order through the POS device because the device did not have any place for her to plug in her headset, nor was the device configured with screen reader software or tactile feedback that would effectively communicate to Plaintiff the visual information displayed on the POS device's screen. As a result of Defendant's POS devices not being fully accessible to and not independently usable by blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unable to fully access and use the devices to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially make her purchase in Defendant's physical store. This left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and contributed to her sense of isolation and segregation, as she was unable to participate in the same shopping experience as provided in the physical store as the non visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually disabled person. The Defendant was and still is an organization that owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of over 1,849 retail stores under the name "Five Below."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com FORTIVE CORP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org report that Fortive Corporation and several subsidiaries have agreed to pay a $3 million settlement to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit filed over two 2023 data breaches. The Fortive data breach settlement covers all individuals whose personal information may have been compromised as a result of the incidents, which occurred between January 25 and November 6, 2023. To receive benefits from the Fortive class action settlement, eligible class members must submit a timely, valid claim form by mail or online through the court-authorized website once it is launched. As part of the deal, class members who file a valid claim form will be eligible to receive three years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services at no cost, the settlement agreement shares. In addition, consumers may submit a claim for reimbursement of up to $5,000 per person for unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses that are reasonably linked to the data breach and supported by documentation, the agreement says. Per the document, qualifying losses may include bank fees; phone or data charges; postage, fax, copying, notary or travel-related costs; fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or other identity theft protection products; or instances of fraud that occurred between January 25, 2023 and the deadline to submit a claim. Class members can also file a claim to receive compensation for up to four hours of lost time spent handling issues related to the incident, at a rate of $20 per hour, the settlement agreement relays. Moreover, court documents say that consumers are eligible to receive a share of what remains of the $3,000,000 settlement fund after deductions are made for payment of the aforementioned benefits, administrative costs, attorneys' fees and service awards. Individual payout amounts will be calculated on a pro rata basis depending on how many valid claims are filed, but payments will be no less than $5 per person, the settlement agreement states. The Fortive settlement received preliminary approval from United States District Judge Richard A. Jones on August 21, 2025. It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing on January 9, 2026. Per the agreement, settlement benefits will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval and after any appeals are resolved. The class action settlement ends the lawsuit against Fortive and its subsidiaries, including Accruent LLC, Advanced Sterilization Products Services Inc., Advanced Sterilization Products Inc., Censis Technologies Inc. and Industrial Scientific Corporation -- all of which were reportedly impacted by the 2023 data breaches. The data breach lawsuit asserted that the highly sensitive information of more than 31,000 individuals, including current and former employees, was potentially exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the cyberattacks. [GN] FRED MEYER STORES: Leach Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Olivia Leach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; FRED MEYER, INC., a foreign profit corporation; FRED MEYER JEWELERS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-22589-5 was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington on Aug. 26, 2025. The Plaintiff's Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and/or some or all of the putative members of the proposed class Plaintiff seeks to represent have not been restricted, restrained, or prohibited from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed, as a result of any Wells Fargo handbook, policy, or other covenant or agreement that Plaintiff asserts as the basis for her individual and putative class claims under RCW.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anne E. Reuben, Esq. Laura Y. Davis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: areuben@littler.com ladavis@littler.com GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Partial Dismissal of Kerr Suit to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ GENERAL MOTORS LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Greg Kerr, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00582, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged misrepresentation of materials facts, and the failure to disclose material facts and safety concerns to consumers in connection with its defective 2020-2024 Chevrolet Equinox or GMC Terrain vehicles. On Aug. 2, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, motion to strike the nationwide class allegations, and motion to compel arbitration. On July 22, 2025, Judge Richard G. Andrews entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts I-V and denied as to Counts VI-IX. The Defendant's motion to strike the nationwide class allegations and motion to compel arbitration are denied. The appellate case is entitled Greg Kerr, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 25-2610, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on August 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GREG KERR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3079 (267) 831-4701 (215) 875-4601 Defendant-Appellant GENERAL MOTORS LLC is represented by: Jody C. Barillare, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2201 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-3000 - and - John Nadolenco, Esq. Daniel D. Queen, Esq. MAYER BROWN 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 GLORIA JEAN'S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffees Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-10345 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.gloriajeans.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffees provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA, says the suit. Accordingly, Gloriajeans.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, the suit alleges. Gloriajeans.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Earth's Healing Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greenlane Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from Earth's Healing Inc. antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 11, 2025, Earth's Healing, Inc. (Case No. 25-Cv-1428 (N.D. Cal.)) brought a purchaser class action antitrust action against four U.S. Distributors of Ccell products, including Greenlane Holdings. Inc. The Company believes the case is baseless and without merit, and the Company is jointly defending the case with the other named defendants. Greenlane is a global platform for the development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories, vape devices, and lifestyle products. GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Redbud Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Greenlane Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from Redbud purchaser antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 10, 2025, Redbud Roots Inc. (Case No. 3:25-cv-03221 (N.D. Cal.)) brought a purchaser class action antitrust action against four U.S. Distributors of Ccell products, including Greenlane Holdings. Inc. The Company is jointly defending the case with the other named defendants. Greenlane is a global platform for the development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories, vape devices, and lifestyle products. GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Summit Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Greenlane Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from Summit Industrial purchaser antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 17, 2025, Summit Industrial Solutions LLC. (Case No. 3:25-cv-3431 (N.D. Cal.) .)) brought a purchaser class action antitrust action against four U.S. Distributors of Ccell products, including Greenlane Holdings. Inc. The Company is jointly defending the case with the other named defendants. Greenlane is a global platform for the development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories, vape devices, and lifestyle products. HALEON US: Cross Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA CROSS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Joshua Cross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Haleon US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09325-MCS-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendant for fraud claims. On Dec. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Jan. 3, 2025. On July 28, 2025, Judge Mark C. Scarsi granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Court gave the Plaintiff leave to amend. The appellate case is entitled Cross v. Haleon US, Inc., Case No. 25-5345, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 22, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 1, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSHUA CROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. Laurence David King, Esq. Matthew George, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Defendant-Appellee HALEON US, INC. is represented by: Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Jay P. Lefkowitz, I, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 HEALTH SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWDOLYN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTH SERVICES, LLC d/b/a/ MIRACLE EAR, Case No. 0:25-cv-03429-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., Aug. 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on Aug. 12, 2025 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On Jan. 28, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a security incident on its network. Upon detection, the Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Defendant is a national provider of hearing aids and hearing care services. Defendant has a network of over 1,600 franchised and company-owned locations, the Defendant serves patients across the United States with advanced hearing technology, audiological consultations and support. Defendant is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 254-7288 E-mail: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: $720,000 PAGA Settlement in Marron Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DAVID H. MARRON, Plaintiff v. HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01534-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to approve a settlement of claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The Court also grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees: specifically, the Court awards: $180,020 in attorney's fees, $9,955 in costs, $19,410 in administration costs, and $5,000 service award to the Plaintiff. Per the Settlement Agreement, the unawarded amounts of attorney's fees, costs, and service award will become part of the Net Settlement Amount that will be distributed to the LWDA and individual employees. The Defendant is a California corporation that hires individuals to work during nursing strikes. Since Oct. 17, 2017, the Defendant has hired approximately 10,000 individuals for nursing strike assignments. David H. Marron originally filed the instant putative class action against Defendant Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., asserting violations of various credit reporting statutes and California Labor Code violations. On April 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the operative complaint, which asserted a single cause of action for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's motion to approve a settlement pursuant to PAGA, and (2) Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs, administrative costs, and a service award. After the case was removed to federal court, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration. On Sept. 13, 2019, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Arbitration as to the Plaintiff's individual claim (including his individual PAGA claim) was dismissed on April 4, 2024, after the parties settled his individual claim. On April 4, 2022, the parties attended a mediation. Following two years of post-mediation negotiations, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the non-individual PAGA claims. The Settlement Agreement covers all non-exempt employees, who worked in hourly positions in California from Oct. 17, 2017, through the date of approval, or approximately 10,000 individuals. The Settlement Agreement would release the Defendant from all PAGA claims based on the facts and theories advanced in this litigation in exchange for a Total Settlement Amount of $720,080. From the Total Settlement Amount, the Plaintiff's counsel may seek: (1) third-party settlement administration fees, (2) attorney's fees of 33% ($240,026.67), (3) costs of up to $12,000, and (4) a service award of $10,000 for the Plaintiff. This leaves a Net Settlement Amount of $438,643.33. On April 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for approval of the PAGA settlement. On April 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees, costs, administrative costs, and a service award. On May 27, 2025, the Court requested supplemental briefing. On June 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his supplemental brief. That same day, counsel in another pending PAGA claim proceeding in state court filed a statement objecting to the proposed settlement. Having considered the relevant factors under Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998), the Court finds that the settlement of the PAGA claim is fair and reasonable and promotes the goals of PAGA. In so finding, the Court acknowledges that there has been an objection filed, complaining that on average, aggrieved employees will receive only $10.96 per individual. While true, Judge Westmore says, this ignores that PAGA requires that the bulk of civil penalties bet distributed to the LWDA, not the aggrieved employees, who retain their right to sue on their individual claims. Thus, while individual employees will receive an estimated $10.96, this minimizes the fact that the Defendant is also paying the bulk of the penalties to the LWDA. In short, the sole fact that the average employee recovery is around $10 is not a ground for finding that the settlement itself is not fair or reasonable. * * * The Plaintiff's counsel seeks one-third of the Total Settlement Amount for attorney's fees, or $240,026.67. This represents a 1.49 multiplier. The Court, however, does not find that this is a case that warrants such an upward adjustment, especially when a 25% benchmark award (or $180,020) still compensates the Plaintiff's counsel for the time spent on this case. Judge Westmore points out that this was not a case with exceptional results. Rather, even assuming only a single penalty per pay period and no enhanced $200 penalty for subsequent violations, the Total Settlement Amount is approximately 16% of the likely recovery. Further, Judge Westmore opines that this is not a case where other factors warrant an upward adjustment from the benchmark award. The Plaintiff's counsel admits this was not a case of the highest complexity. The Court also notes that as to litigation of the case before the Court, the Plaintiff's substantive motions were largely denied. Accordingly, the Court finds that given the totality of the circumstances, a departure from the 25% benchmark is not warranted. Instead, the Court will award 25% of the Total Settlement Amount, i.e., $180,020 in attorney's fees. As to costs, the Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an adjusted total of $9,955.93 in costs. The costs include legal research, mediation costs, expert costs, travel costs, and filing fees. Accordingly, the costs request of $9,955.93 is approved. The Plaintiff seeks $19,410 in administrative costs. The Plaintiff has provided a declaration by Simpluris, stating their qualifications and duties. Simpluris states that the costs to administrator the case are $24,410 based on disbursement to 10,000 individuals, but that they have offered a client courtesy discount such that the administrative costs will be $19,410. The Court finds the proposal reasonable, and approves administrative costs of $19,410. Finally, the Plaintiff seeks a service award of $10,000. The Plaintiff asserts that he has spent at least 50 hours of time in connection with this case. His work included obtaining legal counsel, assisting in gathering information and contact information, discussing his damages with his expert, and participating in a full-day mediation. The Court finds that $5,000 -- a $100 hourly rate -- is sufficient to compensate for work performed and to make up for financial or reputational risks undertaken in bringing an action. Judge Westmore opines that an upward adjustment is not warranted in this case; this is not a case where the Plaintiff performed significantly more work than is typically required, or where he faces greater than normal reputational risks. The Court also observes that this $5,000 amount is also in addition to the Plaintiff's separate settlement of his individual claims; thus, this is already not a typical case where the service award also accounts for the Plaintiff agreeing to a broader release of claims than other individuals. Thus, the Court approves a $5,000 service award. The parties will file a status report, stipulated proposed judgment, or dismissal of the case within 60 days of the date of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/54hkz535 from PacerMonitor.com. HEARST MAGAZINE MEDIA: Azam Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Yasmin Azam, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., Case No. 25CV128449 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 5, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06603-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hearst -- https://www.hearst.com/magazines -- is a leading global, diversified information, services and media company with operations in 40 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Yevgeniy Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 10089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrea Butler, Esq. Jonathan R. Donnellan, Esq. Kristen Hauser, Esq. HEARST CORPORATION 300 West 57th Street, Ste 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 649-2484 Email: abutler@hearst.com jdonnellan@hearst.com khauser@hearst.com - and - Joseph Edward Addiego, III, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, Ste 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 276-6500 Fax: (415) 276-6599 Email: joeaddiego@dwt.com HIGH POINT: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Persona Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MATTHEW WEISS, HIGH POINT UNIVERSITY, AND KEFFER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-12600-MAG (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025) seeks justice for the unauthorized access and misuse of personal and private information of High Point students and student, including intimate photos and videos. According to the complaint, students and alumni connected to High Point University from 2015 to 2023 -- many of them student-athletes -- have been subjected to a troubling and unlawful breach of privacy, stemming from the actions of former University of Michigan and Baltimore Ravens football coach Matthew Weiss, whose gross and despicable violations of their privacy were facilitated by institutional negligence. The action is brought to hold the Defendants accountable for failing to protect their students from foreseeable harm. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was a student athlete at High Point University between 2006- 2010 and was a member of the Cheerleading Team. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 was a student at High Point University between 2011-2016. High Point is a private university in High Point, North Carolina (Guilford County). The University enrolls approximately 5,781 undergraduate and graduate students. Keffer is a technology and data vendor operating an electronic medical record and student athlete training system.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Mills, Esq. BURNS DAY & PRESNELL, P.A. PO Box 10867 Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: (919) 782-1441 Facsimile: (919) 782-2311 E-mail: Jmills@bdppa.com - and - Lisa M. Esser, Esq. Jason J. Thompson (P47184) SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: LEsser@sommerspc.com JThompson@sommerspc.com - and - Megan Bonanni, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonnani@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com HOLLISTER CO: Track Web Users' Browsing Activities, Frankle Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID FRANKLE and MARIA SALINAS, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. HOLLISTER CO., and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., Case No. 3:25-cv-07338-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025) is class action complaint for: -- Invasion of privacy under California's Constitution; -- Intrusion upon seclusion; -- Wiretapping in violation of the California Invasion Of Privacy Act; -- Use of a Pen Register in Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; -- Common Law Fraud, Deceit and/or Misrepresentation; -- Unjust Enrichment; And -- Trespass to Chattels. According to the complaint, when consumers visit the Defendants' ecommerce website, www.hollisterco.com, the Defendants display to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendants' cookie banner discloses that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendants assure visitors that they can choose to configure their cookie preferences by clicking the "Confirm My Preferences" button and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data. However, unlike other websites, the Defendants' Website offers consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. But Defendants' promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to configure their preferences and opt out of all but essential cookies (including those that share or sell personal data), Defendants surreptitiously cause several third parties -- including Google LLC and Adobe Inc. -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Website. The Plaintiffs visited the Website to seek information about Hollister products, while located in California, on one or more occasions during the last four years. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following group of similarly situated persons, defined as follows: Class: "All persons who browsed the Website in the State of California after rejecting all non-essential cookies in the cookie consent preferences window from August 29, 2021, to present."[BN] Hollister is a retail brand owned by Abercrombie & Fitch Co, selling apparel, accessories, and fragrances. Goods are available in-store and through the company's online store.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert Filing in Ybarra Due June 5, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD ANTHONY YBARRA, v. HYATT CORPORATION, Case No. 4:25-cv-04101-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a scheduling order. The Court sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the Sept. 26, 2025 Pleadings: Class certification motion and the June 5, 2026 Plaintiffs' expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the July 31, 2026 Defendants' expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: Sept. 11, 2026 Class certification reply due: Sept. 25, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 18, 2026 Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h0uk3M at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA: McKinney Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA. The case is styled as Cody A. McKinney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA dba KIA FINANCE AMERICA, Case No. 8:25-cv-01945 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Hyundai Capital America (HCA) -- https://www.hyundaicapitalamerica.com/ -- is the oldest and largest automotive finance subsidiary of the Hyundai Motor Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Thomas Martin, III, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Phone: (323) 940-1697 Fax: (323) 238-8095 Email: tom@mblawapc.com Nick@mblawapc.com IBOTTA INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit over IPO -------------------------------------------------------- Ibotta, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on May 20, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned "Valentine v. Ibotta, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-01615-NYW, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company's initial public offering. Valentine asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class period for the Exchange Act claims is April 18, 2024 to February 26, 2025, inclusive. It generally alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's data measurement tools, its D2C platform, and its clients' budgets in the registration statement and prospectus that were filed in connection with the company's initial public offering and in public statements subsequent to the initial public offering. The action seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On July 31, 2025, the court consolidated this with another case and appointed a lead plaintiff, purported Ibotta shareholder Mark Tcherkezian, in the consolidated action. The defendants' deadlines to respond to the complaints are currently stayed. Ibotta, Inc. is a technology company that allows consumer packaged goods brands to deliver digital promotions a single, convenient network, providing promotional services to publishers, retailers, and advertisers through mobile and web. INDEPENDENT BANK: Fourth Circuit Revives Overdraft Class Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABA Banking Journal reports that whether the South Carolina federal court erred by denying class certification in a lawsuit accusing Independent Bank of improper overdraft fee assessment practices. Case Summary: In a unanimous decision, a Fourth Circuit panel revived a class action lawsuit against Independent Bank over its overdraft practices. In 2020, Jamila Grice sued Independent Bank, alleging it treated customer accounts as overdrawn even when balances could cover transactions, imposed multiple insufficient-funds fees on a single transaction to increase revenue, and charged two separate out-of-network fees for one ATM withdrawal. Grice moved to certify nationwide classes for each type of wrongful fee that Independent Bank allegedly charged. Opposing class certification, Independent Bank argued South Carolina's "door-closing statute," S.C. Code Ann. § 15-5-150, prohibited Grice from representing class members who were not state residents. The statute generally prevents nonresidents from suing foreign corporations in South Carolina courts for claims arising outside the state. Judge Timothy Cain of the U.S. District Court of South Carolina agreed and denied Grice's motion for class certification. On appeal, the panel reversed and remanded, concluding the court erred by applying the South Carolina statute instead of Federal Rule 23. The panel applied the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates PA v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), which resolves conflicts between a federal rule and a state law. The panel explained Rule 23 provides a "one-size-fits-all formula" for class certification in federal court, but the door-closing statute imposes additional requirements on nonresident class members, and thus Rule 23 controls. The panel rejected Independent Bank's argument that Rule 23 is invalid under the Rules Enabling Act, emphasizing that Rule 23 regulates procedure, not substantive rights. Because Rule 23 is valid and governs, the door-closing statute cannot limit class certification in federal court. In concurrence, Judge Agee agreed the class action should be revived but argued the majority's Shady Grove analysis was unnecessary. In his view, the panel should have deferred to the South Carolina Supreme Court's own interpretation of the Door Closing Statute in Farmer v. Monsanto Corp., which concluded the law "clearly does not apply to federal suits." Bottom Line: The class action against Independent Bank can proceed after the Fourth Circuit ruled that a South Carolina "door-closing" statute cannot bar out-of-state plaintiffs from joining the suit. [GN] INNOVE INC: Bishop Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. INNOVE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07232 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.sjcme.edu, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on August 10, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Wake-Up Tan Face and Body Glow Bundle from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered 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, asserts the suit. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. That Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal INSTRUCTURE INC: Hernandez-Silva Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE HERNANDEZ-SILVA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jasmine Hernandez-Silva, on behalf of her minor children M.C. 1 and M.C. 2, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Instructure, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02711-SB-MAA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California Civil Code. On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (FAC), which the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 2, 2025. On Aug. 4, 2025, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim. They may file their second amended complaint (SAC) no later than Aug. 22, 2025. If they do not timely file their SAC, the dismissal of their individual claims will automatically convert to a dismissal with prejudice. On Aug. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs decided not to amend the FAC and request that the Court enter a final judgment dismissing their claims with prejudice. On same day, the Court entered final judgment. The Plaintiffs' individual claims are dismissed on the merits with prejudice. The claims on behalf of the putative class are dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Hernandez-Silva, et al. v. Instructure, Inc., Case No. 25-5438, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 27, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 2, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on September 8, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on October 8, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on November 17, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on December 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JASMINE HERNANDEZ-SILVA, on behalf of her minor children M.C. 1 and M.C. 2, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William Andrew Liddell, Esq. EDTECH LAW CENTER, PLLC P.O. Box 300488 Austin, TX 78705 - and - Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 1 US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 - and - Julie Liddell, Esq. LIDDELL, PLLC 3404 Lafayette Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Defendant-Appellee INSTRUCTURE, INC. is represented by: Mark McKane, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 555 California Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - Olivia Arden Adendorff, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 4550 Travis Street Dallas, TX 75205 - and - Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Huber Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lura Huber, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE INC. and SCL HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 2025CV30931 was removed from the District Court, Jefferson County, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on July 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02290-SBP. The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime in violation of the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA") and Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") and Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in violation of Colorado Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marielle A. Moore, Esq. Rebecca M. Lindell, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2000 South Colorado Boulevard Tower Three, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80222 Phone: 303.764.6800 Facsimile: 303.831.9246 Email: marielle.moore@ogletree.com rebecca.lindell@ogletree.com - and - Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 15 West South Temple, Suite 950 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801.658.6100 Facsimile: 385.360.1707 Email: jason.plowman@ogletree.com KEYSTONE RV: Bids to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DENNIS HINES, RICHARD PRESCOTT, JR., and JASON BURNS, Plaintiffs v. KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, FOREST RIVER, INC., and WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11476-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Dennis Hines, Richard Prescott, Jr., and Jason Burns allege that they purchased defective recreational vehicles ("RVs") from Defendants Forest River, Inc., Winnebago Industries, Inc., and Keystone RV Company. Pending before the Court are Defendants Forest River and Keystone's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Judge Talwani notes that standards for fire protection devices, including those that govern residential homes, commercial properties, and RVs, are issued by both the National Fire Protection Agency ("NFPA") and United Laboratories ("UL"). The Defendants post on their RVs that the vehicles are in compliance with NFPA 72. Furthermore, the Defendants are members of the Recreational Vehicles Industry Association ("RVIA"), and all RVIA members certify that their vehicles comply with NFPA 1192, a fire standard that applies to recreational vehicles, including the vehicles sold by the Defendants and purchased by the Plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have violated standards set forth by NFPA and UL, including NFPA 1192, UL 217, and NFPA 72, by installing ionization alarms within 10 feet of a fixed cooking appliance. The Plaintiffs contend that this defect causes a decrease in the value of the recreational vehicles. The insufficient distance between the smoke alarm and the cooking appliance increases the risk of false alarms. As a result, occupants often disable these alarms to avoid repeated disturbances and may fail to re-enable them, leaving the occupants in risk of fires without adequate protection. Plaintiffs Hines, Burnes, and Prescott have disabled the smoke alarms in their vehicles due to false alarms. Based on the alleged noncompliance with fire regulations, the Plaintiffs assert five causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty and misrepresentation. Judge Talwani finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege the necessary causal relation. Any relationship between the Defendants' installation of smoke alarms and any increased risk of fire after the Plaintiffs found their smoke alarms annoying and removed them is far too attenuated to satisfy the causation prong, Judge Talwani explains. An increased risk of fire, thus, cannot be the basis of the Plaintiffs' negligence claim, as the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the Defendants' actions caused such a risk. The Plaintiffs contend that there is an exception to the economic loss doctrine "where a plaintiff may recover if there has been an intentional or negligent misrepresentation and the action has resulted in a loss that is economic in nature, even if there is no privity between the parties, as long as the design professional knew or reasonably could foresee a third person would rely on his services," citing Nota Const. Corp. v. Keyes Associates, Inc., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 15, 19–20 (1998), et al. Judge Talwani opines, among other things, that these cited cases concern negligent misrepresentation claims, however, and are unavailing as to the Plaintiffs' ordinary negligence claim. Therefore, Keystone and Forest River's Motions to Dismiss for failure to state a claim are granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bmr7mak from PacerMonitor.com. KRIS MAYES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe, et al., v. Kris Mayes, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02259-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael Liburdi entered an order Pursuant to the Joint Case Management Report as follows as follows: The deadline for joining parties, filing a motion to amend the pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is Sept. 22, 2025. The deadline for the completion of fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be April 24, 2026. Full and complete expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are due no later than Nov. 21, 2025. Expert depositions shall be completed no later than April 24, 2026. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is Sept. 22, 2025. Dispositive motions and motions challenging expert opinion testimony shall be filed no later than June 15, 2026. All parties and their counsel shall meet in person and engage in good faith settlement talks no later than May 15, 2026. Kris Mayes is an American attorney, reporter, and politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ok7n35 at no extra charge.[CC] LANGDON & COMPANY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ginsburg Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON GINSBURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP, Case No. 5:25-cv-00544-FL (E.D.N.C., Aug. 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons whose sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Protected Health Information was entrusted to Langdon and was impacted in a data breach that Defendant recently disclosed to Plaintiff and Class Members on or about Aug. 1, 2025. The Defendant disclosed that it discovered suspicious activity on its network on April 28, 2024, and began an investigation that revealed that there was unauthorized access between April 21, 2024, and April 28, 2024. After its investigation, Defendant determined that certain files it received from Easter Seals, Inc. were impacted by the Breach. The data exposed in the Breach contained both PII and PHI. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Easterseals with their Private Information. Pursuant to engaging Defendant for its professional accounting services, Easterseals entrusted Defendant with access to the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class. Langdon is a North Carolina based Certified Public Accounting Firm serving clients throughout the southeastern United States and globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Winslow Taylor, Esq. TAYLOR & TAYLOR ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 1080 W. Fourth St. Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 418-7445 E-mail: winslow@t2legal.com - and - Gerald D. Well, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com - and - Brian Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: Brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com LESLIE'S POOLMART: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Isaak Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LESLIE'S POOLMART, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV471396 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-07347. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sophia B. Collins, Esq. Michael W. Nelson, Esq. Nicholas Gioiello, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: scollins@littler.com mwnelson@littler.com ngioiello@littler.com LEXIS NEXIS RISK: Coulter Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexis Nexis Risk Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Ramsey Coulter, Emily Coulter, individually on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. Lexis Nexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00315-RH-MAF (N.D. Fla., July 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. LexisNexis Risk Solutions -- https://risk.lexisnexis.com/global/en -- is a global data and analytics company that provides data and technology services, analytics, predictive insights, and fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Fornaro, Esq. MATTHEW FORNARO PA - CORAL SPRINGS FL 11555 Heron Bay Blvd., Ste. 200 Coral Springs, FL 33076 Phone: (954) 324-3651 Fax: (954) 248-2099 Email: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Settles Misleading Info Suit for CDN$11MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that a proposed class action was commenced against Lightspeed Commerce Inc., several of its directors and officers, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (collectively the "Defendants") before the Superior Court of Quebec. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented material facts relating to Lightspeed Commerce Inc.'s financial performance in its public filings and statements. The parties have reached a proposed settlement, without any admission of liability, subject to the approval of the Court. This notice provides a summary of the proposed settlement and of Class Members' rights. THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The Defendants will pay CDN $11 million, in full and final settlement of all claims against them. The settlement for the Class, less the lawyers' fees and disbursements, administrator's expenses, and taxes, if approved by the Court, will be distributed to the Class on a pro rata basis. A complete copy of the settlement agreement is available at https://www.faguyco.com/class-actions/lightspeed. OPTING OUT If you do not wish to participate in the proposed class action or receive any benefits from the settlement, you must opt out by October 15, 2025. The opt-out form and additional instructions are available at https://www.faguyco.com/class-actions/lightspeed. LAWYERS' FEES, DISBURSEMENTS, AND TAXES The lawyers for the Class will ask the Court to approve their legal fees in the amount of 1/3 (33.33%) of CDN $11,000,000, plus disbursements, plus taxes, in accordance with their agreement with the representative plaintiffs. THE APPROVAL HEARING The Superior Court of Quebec will be asked to authorize the proposed class action for settlement purposes only, and to approve the proposed settlement and the lawyers' fees, disbursements, and taxes at a hearing to be held on November 21, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. at the Montreal Courthouse located at 1 Notre-Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec. Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement are not required to appear at the hearing, although they may do so if they want, in person in courtroom 2.07 or virtually using the following Microsoft Teams link: click here. At this point in time, Class Members are not required to take any action to indicate their desire to participate in the proposed settlement. After the approval hearing of November 21, 2025, if the settlement is approved, further notice will be given with instructions for Class Members who wish to participate. Class Members who consider it desirable or necessary to seek the advice and guidance from their own lawyer may do so at their own expense. OBJECTIONS Class Members have the right to object to the proposed settlement. At the approval hearing, Class Members may assert their contentions regarding the proposed settlement and the distribution of any remaining balance. The Court will consider any objections to the proposed settlement by the Class Members if the objections are submitted in writing, by prepaid mail or by e-mail, to Concilia Services Inc., 1-5900 Andover Avenue, Montreal (QC), H4T 1H5, lightspeed@conciliainc.com, Attention: "Lightspeed Commerce Inc. Class Action Proceedings". Class Members who wish to object must do so before October 15, 2025. A written objection can be submitted in English or French and must include the following information: (a) the objector's full name, current mailing address, telephone number, and email address, as may be available; (b) the number of securities purchased as of March 7, 2019 and held after the close of trading on (1) September 28, 2021 or (2) November 3, 2021, along with all relevant trading records; (c) a brief statement of the nature of and the reasons for the objection; and (d) whether the objector or a representative intends to appear at the hearing in person or by counsel, and if by counsel, the name, address, telephone number, telecopier number, and email address of counsel. The Court, the plaintiffs, and the Defendants will be informed of all objections made. QUESTIONS Questions regarding the process should be directed to the Administrator: CONCILIA SERVICES INC. 1-5900 Andover Ave. Montreal (QC) H4T 1H5 Tel: (888) 350-7708 lightspeed@conciliainc.com Attention: "Lightspeed Commerce Inc. Class Action Proceedings" Other legal questions may be directed to: Mtre Lea Bruyere LPC Avocats Inc. 276, Saint-Jacques Street, Suite 801 Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 1N3 Tel: (514) 379-1572 lbruyere@lpclex.com FOR MORE INFORMATION Further information, including opt-out forms, is available at https://www.faguyco.com/class-actions/lightspeed. The main documents relating to the class action proceedings are available on the Registre des actions collectives at https://www.registredesactionscollectives.quebec/en/Consulter/RecherchePublique (search by court file no. 500-06-001164-215). NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS Please deliver this notice in English and French by email to your clients who purchased Lightspeed securities between March 7, 2019 and November 3, 2021 inclusively, and for whom you have a valid email address. If you do not have a valid email address for some of those clients, please send them this notice by regular mail. Brokerage firms may collectively request up to an aggregate of $15,000 for the expenses relating to the distribution of this notice to the Class Members. If the amounts submitted in aggregate exceed $15,000, each brokerage firm's claim shall be reduced on a pro rata basis. [GN] LIVE NATION: Lipeles Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- JUSTEN LIPELES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Justen Lipeles, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Madonna Louise Ciccone, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04896-MWC-SSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who were deceived and lulled into purchasing expensive tickets for a concert to be performed by one of the premier performers of the past 40 years. On June 20, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, which Judge Michelle Williams Court granted with prejudice on July 28, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Lipeles, et al. v. Ciccone, et al., Case No. 25-5362, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 22, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 2, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JUSTEN LIPELES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kevin Lipeles, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Defendants-Appellees MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE, et al. are represented by: Sandra A. Crawshaw-Sparks, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP 2029 Century Park, E Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 LIVEPERSON INC: Dismissal of Damri Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Liveperson, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 25, 2025, that on March 19, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the company's motion and dismissed the putative stockholder class action entitled "Damri v. LivePerson, Inc.," No. 1:23-cv-10517 with prejudice. On April 17, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal remains pending. In December 2023, said action was filed under the federal securities laws against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the company's Form 10-Q filings and forecasts for the first, second, and third quarters of fiscal year 2022 were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on its later disclosures and report on Form 10-K on March 16, 2023. On May 31, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in August 2024. LivePerson, Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered customer conversations. LKQ CORPORATION: Abarca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LKQ Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Claudio Abarca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LKQ Corporation, American Recycling International Inc., Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking, Case No. 25STCV23139 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." LKQ Corporation -- https://www.lkqcorp.com/ -- is an American provider of alternative and speciality parts to repair and accessorize automobiles and other vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Turner, Esq. TURNER DHILLON LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 3250 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3599 Phone: 213-373-5406 Fax: 213-373-5599 Email: wturner@turnerdhillon.com LOUISIANA: Appeals Renewed Injunction Order in Civil Rights Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES M. LEBLANC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Voice of the Experienced, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-1304, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The Plaintiffs brought this action against the Defendants for civil rights violations. On July 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for renewed injunctive relief. On same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite consideration of their motion for renewed injunctive relief. On Aug. 22, 2025, Judge Brian A. Jackson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for renewed injunctive relief and granting their motion for expedited consideration. The Court has considered the Plaintiffs' motion expeditiously. It is further ordered that the Defendants shall issue a "Heat Alert" on the Farm Line at Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP") whenever the heat index meets or exceeds 88 degrees Fahrenheit. The appellate case is entitled Voice of the Experienced v. LeBlanc, Case No. 25-30478, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on August 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et al. are represented by: Samantha Bosalavage Pourciau, Esq. PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (845) 826-1883 - and - Lydia Wright, Esq. RIGHTS BEHIND BARS 1800 M Street, N.W. FNT 1 Washington, DC 20033 Telephone: (202) 455-4399 Defendants-Appellants JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al. are represented by: Andrew Blanchfield, Esq. KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LIMITED 701 Main Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 - and - Jorge Benjamin Aguinaga, Esq. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1885 N. 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 506-3746 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MATTHEW WEISS, LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO, AND KEFFER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-12598-MAG (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025) seeks justice for the unauthorized access and misuse of personal information of Loyola Chicago students and student athletes, including intimate photos and videos. According to the complaint, students and alumni connected to Loyola University Chicago from 2015 to 2023 -- many of them student-athletes—have been subjected to a deeply troubling and unlawful breach of privacy, stemming from the actions of former University of Michigan and Baltimore Ravens football coach Matthew Weiss, whose gross and despicable violations of their privacy were facilitated by institutional negligence. The action is brought to hold the Defendants accountable for failing to protect their students from foreseeable harm. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was a student athlete at Loyola University Chicago between 2014-2019 and was a member of the Volleyball Team. Loyola University Chicago is a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, with over 300 student athletes competing in 16 intercollegiate sports at the Division 1 level. Keffer Development Services is a technology and data vendor operating an electronic medical record and student athlete training system, which stored the personal identifying information and personal health information of Plaintiff and Class Members across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Jacob Podell, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312.261.6193 Facsimile: 312.275.8174 E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com jpodell@wallacemiller.com LTG-DBS, LLC: Alvear Sues Over Unlawful Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Alvear, on behalf of others similarly situated v. LTG-DBS, LLC, d/b/a MULLIGAN'S LAGOON, a Florida limited liability company, ase No. 6:25-cv-01667 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://mulliganslagoon.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical mini golf course/restaurant. Defendant also sells to the public its tickets, as well as its food and beverage products, through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's tickets and Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical mini golf course/restaurant. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a mini golf course amusement center/restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com LUFKA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Evans Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DANTE EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lufka, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10326 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website, Lufka.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Lufka provides to their non-disabled customers through https://lufka.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under ADA. Lufka.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Lufka.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LULULEMON USA INC: Phan Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sandy Phan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LULULEMON USA INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-22140-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01674. The Complaint asserts one cause of action, violation of Washington's noncompetition law. It brings claims on behalf of Plaintiff and a class defined as: All current and former employees of Lululemon USA Inc. who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from July 30, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive or other equitable relief, and statutory damages of up to $5,000 per class member.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Cornelia Brandfield-Harvey, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 332-1380 Email: cbrandfieldharvey@bakerlaw.com - and - Katharine J. Liao, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 1120 Avenue of the Americas, 13th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: +1 212 872 9800 Facsimile: +1 212 872 9815 Email: katharine.liao@squirepb.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Gabourel Loses Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Passion Gabourel v. Luxottica of America Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the hearing set for September 4, 2025, is vacated and off calendar. Because the Plaintiff is "neither subject to an arbitration clause nor a class/collective action waiver," she "is not an adequate representative and [her] claims lack typicality with respect to putative Rule 23 plaintiffs who have signed" such agreements. The Plaintiff Passion Gabourel asserts claims against the Defendants Luxottica of America Inc. d/b/a LensCrafters and Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. under the California Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, pay minimum and overtime wages, and indemnify employees for necessary expenditures. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following classes: 1. Meal Break Subclass: "all persons who worked for the Defendant as nonexempt employees at Lenscrafters stores in California and worked one or more shifts over five hours at any time from Nov. 23, 2017 through the date of certification." 2. Rest Break Subclass: "all persons who worked for Defendant as nonexempt employees at Lenscrafters stores in California and worked one or more shifts 3.5 hours or longer at any time from Nov. 23, 2017 through the date of certification." 3. Meal and Rest Break Premium Subclass: "all persons who worked for Defendant as non-exempt employees at Lenscrafters stores in California and were paid a meal or rest break premium and incentive pay, including commissions, short terms sales incentives, and non discretionary bonuses, during the same pay period at any time from Nov. 23, 2017 through April 17, 2022." 4. Opening and Closing Store Subclass: "all persons who worked for Defendant as non-exempt employees at Lenscrafters stores in California and worked one or more opening or closing shifts at any time from Nov. 23, 2017 through the date of certification." 5. Wage Statement Subclass: "all persons who worked for the Defendant as non-exempt employees at Lenscrafters stores in California and received a wage statement at any time from Nov. 23, 2016 through the date of certification." Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7iFgFR at no extra charge.[CC] MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Green Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Maison Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Green and Nikitina securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On January 4, 2024, the Defendants were named in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as well as violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Rick Green and Evgenia Nikitina v. Maison Solutions Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00063). As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. The Company and Defendants believe the allegations in both complaints are without merit and intend to defend each suit vigorously. Maison Solutions Inc. is a retail company that operates grocery stores and is based in Monterey Park, CA. MISEN INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Echols Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ AZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Misen, Inc., Case No. : 1:25-cv-10376 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://misen.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Misen provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA, says the suit. Accordingly, Misen.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Misen.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Misen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- ROLAND JOHNSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-07267-VC (E.D. Mo., Aug. 28, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, for damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer 1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, the suit says. Monsanto was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, known for developing the herbicide Roundup and genetically modified seeds. It was acquired by Bayer in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 E-mail: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MUSH FOODS: Faces Charalampopoulou Suit Over Oats Protein Content ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dimitra Charalampopoulou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mush Foods, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-07316 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant markets "Mush Protein Overnight Oats" in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting the quantity and quality of the protein contained. Specifically, the Defendants' Products are comprised of inferior protein sources that do not provide same nutritional benefits as whey protein. The Plaintiff purchased the Products for her personal use during the applicable statute of limitations while residing in San Jose, California. The Defendant has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the Products to consumers throughout the United States and the State of California. The Defendant has sold the Products directly to consumers via the internet and through third-party retail stores throughout the United States, including this District. The Defendant created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, packaging, and labeling for the Products, says the suit. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the Mush Protein Overnight Oats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaneil Haim Sair, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC. 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com NEST BEDDING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cazares Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nest Bedding Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01312-LA (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://nestbedding.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Nest Bedding provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Accordingly, Nestbedding.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. Nestbedding.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Nest Bedding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Piney Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. On July 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of a settlement between the Parties. In doing so, the Parties requested certification of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action and final certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action, for settlement purposes only, and sought approval of a settlement on behalf of these putative class members. The Court has considered the Parties’ request for approval of a Rule 23 class pursuant to Rule 23(e) and collective certification for settlement purposes only, and the Settlement Agreement, filed in its final form on July 25, 2025, and the Declaration of Innessa M. Huot (Huot Decl.), and finds and orders as follows: 1. The Court grants the Parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, certification of the settlement class, appointment of class counsel, and approval of the Plaintiffs' notice of settlement and claim form. 2. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who provided services for Morton Williams in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program (the "PDP"), at any time from Jan. 23, 2019 through July 8, 2025." 3. For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who provided services for Morton Williams in New York State, through the PDP, at any time from Jan. 23, 2022 through July 8, 2025." 4. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Michael Kmiotek, Randy Chow, and Charlie Ruiz Reyes to represent the Class. 5. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Feb. 10, 2026 at Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HDJyhV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com NISSAN NORTH: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., filed on August 22, 2025, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 25-5367, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled Sherida Johnson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00517-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Andrew Chang, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS, LLP 555 California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - Holly Pauling Smith, Esq. Christopher R. Wray, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 - and - Donald Falk, Esq. SCHAERR JAFFE, LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 NVIDIA CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Evans Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANTE EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-07141 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website, www.nvidia.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Defendant has failed to ensure that its website is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is legally blind and relies on screen reader technology to navigate digital interfaces. He attempted to access Defendant's website to order products, download drivers, and review promotional content, but was repeatedly denied meaningful access due to widespread accessibility barriers. These barriers include unlabeled buttons, missing alt text, low-contrast elements, and ambiguous link structures, all of which violate the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. NVIDIA CORPORATION owns and operates the Website which is functionally integrated with its network of digital services, including product ordering, driver downloads, developer tools, and promotional access.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. James, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 E. Third Avenue, Suite 2300 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Dennison Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KRISTEN DENNISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OHIO MEDICAL ALLIANCE LLC, d/b/a OHIO MARIJUANA CARD, Case No. 1:25-cv-01799-BMB (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 28, 2025) alleges that OMA failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and Ohio Subclass. Recently it was discovered that an unencrypted and non-password protected database containing 957,434 records belonging to OMA was exposed. Information exposed includes "images of driver's licenses or identification documents that contained names, physical addresses, DOB, and license numbers. The folders were labeled with the first and last names of the patients and contained intake forms, medical records, release forms, physician certification forms with SSNs, mental health evaluations, and identification documents from multiple states," the suit says. The Defendant obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information with the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against unauthorized disclosure. On or about Aug. 19, 2025, it was discovered that OMA suffered a cyber-attack, and certain files and systems were made publicly available. The Defendant's failure to safeguard Patients' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Ohio law, and Defendant's implied contract with its Patients to safeguard their Private Information. The Defendant has not yet issued a notice of data breach, nor informed those affected. Armed with the stolen Private Information, cybercriminals can, inter alia, obtain medical services or prescriptions, open financial accounts, take out loans, file fraudulent tax returns, or obtain identification documents in Class Members' names, says the suit. OMA is an Independence, Ohio-based provider of telemedicine and in-person services across six states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com - and - Courtney Ross Brown, Esq. Cole Lorigan, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 1 Allied Dr. Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: cbrown@cbplaw.com clorigan@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com PERPETUA RESOURCES: Faces Barnes Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------- Perpetua Resources Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on March 20, 2025, a putative federal class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against the company and certain of its current officers and directors, on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of its common shares during the period from April 17, 2024 to February 13, 2025, inclusive. The case, captioned "Barnes et al. v. Perpetua Resources Corp. et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-00160, alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements during the period from April 17, 2024 to February 13, 2025 regarding the company's expected capital expenditures for the Stibnite Gold Project. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The district court has issued a scheduling order in this case requiring various procedural and substantive motions to be filed by the parties prior to the end of 2025. Perpetua Resources Corp. holds shares in wholly-owned subsidiaries that locate, acquire, develop and restore mineral properties located principally in the Stibnite – Yellow Pine mining district in Valley County, Idaho. PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Memorex Flash Drives' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that PNY Technologies has falsely advertised the storage capacity of its Memorex USB flash drives. According to the 19-page lawsuit, although the Memorex flash drives are advertised as having storage capacities of 16 GB, 32 GB, 64 GB, 128 GB, 256 GB, 512 GB or one terabyte, they actually contain "several gigabytes less" than the amount stated on labels. The lawsuit alleges that the Memorex drives' false claims, which are prominently advertised on the product packaging and the websites of third-party sellers with no qualifiers or disclaimers, have deceived reasonable consumers into paying for storage space that they will not actually receive or be able to use. The drives, the lawsuit says, are primarily marketed towards Microsoft Windows users, given that Apple operating systems measure storage differently and that Apple's products no longer include a USB-A port that would fit the Memorex flash drives. As such, the complaint argues that the drives' storage measurements should be consistent with those of Windows operating systems. However, the complaint claims that when inserted into a computer running Windows, the flash drives provide less usable storage space than stated on labels; for example, the 32 GB flash drives actually provide 29.8 GB or less of available space, the filing says. The lawsuit claims that the disparity between advertised and actual capacity increases with the advertised size. The complaint claims that the reason for the storage capacity discrepancy is that some of the advertised space is used for internal functions or is otherwise inaccessible. The used or inaccessible space remains even after the drive has been reformatted, the lawsuit says. Per the case, consumers do not discover that the Memorex flash drives contain less usable space than advertised until after they have purchased the product and started using it. The Memorex class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in California who bought a Memorex USB flash drive within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] SALESFORCE INC: Faces Canick Class Action Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIOT CANICK, DWHITNEY EMANUEL, CYNTHIA MONTALVAN, SUSAN STYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALESFORCE, INC., ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS NEW WORLD INSURANCE CO., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-07306 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to comply with their obligations, resulting in the Data Breach. On May 30, 2025, Farmers Group, Inc., one of the country's largest insurance companies, discovered suspicious activity involving an unauthorized actor accessing one of its third-party vendor's databases containing Farmers customer information (the "Farmers Data breach"). On information and belief, that third-party vendor is Salesforce, whose software was reportedly targeted through compromised customer OAuth tokens, and/or phishing attempts utilizing fake Salesforce apps to obtain victims' login details. Allianz provides financial services including annuities and life insurance. On or about July 16, 2025, Defendants Allianz experienced a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to the majority of its 1.4 million US customers, financial professionals, and select employees (the Allianz Data Breach). On July 17, 2025, Allianz became aware of the Data Breach. On Saturday July 26, 2025, Allianz notified the Office of the Maine Attorney General as required by law. Allianz later informed the public that the breach occurred due to a threat actor gaining access to a third-party, cloud based CRM system. Salesforce is a cloud-based software company providing its services to various corporate clients throughout the country in sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Rd No. 200, Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 SCYNEXIS INC: Court Dismisses Feldman Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- SCYNEXIS, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that the United States District Court, District of New Jersey granted the company's motion to dismiss a securities class action filed by Brian Feldman against the company and certain executives, with leave to amend on July 30, 2025. On November 7, 2023, said action was filed by Brian Feldman against the company and certain executives, alleging that, during the period from March 31, 2023 to September 22, 2023, the company made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the its business, operations and prospects, alleging specifically that it failed to disclose to investors that the equipment used to manufacture the drug "ibrexafungerp" was also used to manufacture a non-antibacterial beta-lactam drug substance, presenting a risk of cross-contamination, that the company did not have effective internal controls and procedures, as well as adequate internal oversight policies to ensure that its vendor complied with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), that, due to the substantial risk of cross-contamination, the company was reasonably likely to recall its ibrexafungerp tablets and halt its clinical studies and as a result of the foregoing, the company's statements about its operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased and/or acquired shares of its common stock between March 31, 2023 to September 22, 2023. SCYNEXIS, Inc. is a biotechnology company, headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, that is developing its proprietary class of enfumafungin-derived antifungal compounds as broad-spectrum, systemic antifungal agents for multiple fungal indications. SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seritage Growth Properties disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Zhengxu He shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 1, 2024, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Zhengxu He, Trustee of the He & Fang 2005 Revocable Living Trust v. Seritage Growth Properties, Case No. 1:24:CV:05007, alleging that the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between July 7, 2022 and May 10, 2024. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning the Company's alleged lack of effective internal controls regarding the identification and review of impairment indicators for investments in real estate and the Company's value and projected gross proceeds of certain real estate assets. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in these lawsuits. Headquartered in New York, NY, Seritage operates as a real estate investment trust. Its Class A Common shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "SRG." SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Allowed to Restrict Portions of Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC, and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to restrict certain portions of her motion for class certification and corresponding Exhibits. The Clerk is directed to maintain ECF Nos. 113-1 through 113-9 under Level 1 Restriction. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MwE5Fg at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Class Settlement in Mora Suit Gets Court OK ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN DANIELLE MORA SANCHEZ, BRANDON RASHARD WATERS, and KASHANA SANGFIELD on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, HIDAY & RICKE, P.A., JEFF RICKE, an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00372-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan entered a final order approving class action settlement and judgment of dismissal with prejudice. 1. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following 439-person Settlement Class that meets the following criteria: The person was a judgment debtor of State Farm between April 7, 2017 and June 11, 2024 pursuant to a judgment obtained by State Farm against that person (the "State Farm judgment"); The State Farm judgment against that person arose from an automobile accident with a State Farm insured; At the time of the accident giving rise to the State Farm judgment, the person maintained at least the minimum required insurance pursuant to Fla. Stat. section 324.021(7) (2017 to date). That minimum insurance is: (a) In the amount of $10,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, one person in any one crash; (b) Subject to such limits for one person, in the amount of $20,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, two or more persons in any one crash; (c) In the amount of $10,000 because of injury to, or destruction of, property of others in any one crash; and (d) With respect to commercial motor vehicles and nonpublic sector buses, in the amounts specified in sections 627.7415 and 627.742, respectively. The person (or their automobile insurer) tendered payment to State Farm; The person's driver's license was suspended between April 7, 2017 and June 11, 2024 pursuant to a request by Hiday & Ricke based on the person’s failure to satisfy the State Farm judgment; and The person's license was not suspended for any reason other than the Hiday & Ricke request based on the person's failure to satisfy the State Farm judgment. 2. Class Counsel is awarded an Attorneys' fee award of $1,600,000, the attorneys' fees portion of which is $1,500,000 and the costs portion of which is $100,000. Such amount shall be paid to Class Counsel in accordance with the Agreement. 3. The appointment of Named Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives is affirmed. 4. The appointment of Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Brian W. Warwick, Janet R. Varnell, Pamela Levinson, and Christopher J. Brochu of Varnell & Warwick P.A. and Irv Ackelsberg and Mary Catherine Roper of Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C. as Class Counsel is affirmed. State is a group of mutual insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U5PgQ0 at no extra charge.[CC] SUN BUM: Faces Fahey Suit Over Deceptive Sunscreen Lotion's SPF --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA FAHEY; and KEVIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUN BUM LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025) is a class action complaint against Defendant to redress and put a stop to the false, deceptive, and unlawful manner in which Defendant has labeled, distributed, advertised, promoted, and marketed its sunscreen product "Sun '25CV2263 H SBC Bum SPF 50 Mineral Sunscreen Lotion." On the Product's labeling, and in advertising and promotional materials for the Product, the Defendant represents that the Product provides a sun protection factor (SPF) that is far higher than the SPF that the Product actually provides, thereby deceiving consumers into believing that the Product offers better protection against sunburns and other dangerous effects of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (such as skin cancer and premature aging) than it actually provides, and that the Product is thus worth purchasing at a price higher than what is charged for other lower-SPF sunscreens. The Plaintiffs and members of the putative Classes purchased the Product based on Defendant's representations that the Product provides SPF 50 protection. Unbeknownst to them, however, the Product actually provides only SPF 17 protection -- nearly one-third of the protection Defendant represents -- as independent laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiffs' counsel has revealed, asserts the suit. By falsely representing the SPF protection provided by the Product, the Defendant has knowingly misled and continues to knowingly mislead consumers into believing that they are purchasing a sunscreen with better quality, filtration, absorption, and reflection capabilities against ultraviolet radiation than the lower-SPF product that they actually receive, thereby deceiving them into paying a premium price for a non-premium product, the suit added. The Defendant manufactures and labels the Product, and advertises, promotes, and markets the Product throughout the United States, including in California and Florida. Defendant’s products, including the Product at issue in this case, are sold through various online e-commerce platforms and at physical retail locations nationwide, including throughout California and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-Mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com SUZUKI MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Sportbikes' Brake Systems ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Suzuki GSXR sportbikes sold over the last 20 years suffer from a brake system defect that can pose a serious safety hazard to users. According to the 25-page lawsuit, Suzuki has long known that the front brake master cylinder of several GSXR models is easily susceptible to corrosion, which can reduce the pressure of the brake fluid and cause the brakes to no longer operate at a safe or acceptable efficiency. The Suzuki motorcycles at issue in the lawsuit include the following models: -- 2005-2025 GSX-R1000s; -- 2004-2025 GSX-R750s; -- 2004-2025 GSX-R600s; and -- 2022-2025 GSX-1300Rs. Per the complaint, the corrosion occurs when outside moisture absorbed by the brake fluid reacts with the zinc piston in the front brake master cylinder. The corrosion releases hydrogen gas that becomes trapped in the brake system and causes the piston to pit and spread, resulting in the formation of solid metallics, acid deposits and debris, the suit relays. As a result, the brake fluid pressure is significantly impacted, causing slow brake responses and, eventually, full failure, the lawsuit writes. Importantly, the brake system failure is not visually observable and only becomes noticeable after significant corrosion has already occurred, the complaint says. Many times, riders only discover the issue while attempting to brake on the road, which poses an immense safety risk to them and other drivers. Suzuki, per the filing, is fully aware of the potential for corrosion in the front brake master cylinder and applied a protective coating to the zinc pistons in an effort to mitigate the effects, but the complaint claims the coating is insufficient and ineffective. Furthermore, Suzuki has allegedly been aware of the defect in its GSXR motorcycles since at least 2012, according to internal emails and memorandums cited in the lawsuit. In 2013, Suzuki issued a recall of 2004-2013 GSX-R600s, 2004-2013 GSX-R750s and 2005-2013 GSX-R1000s over the front brake master cylinder issue, the suit relays. As part of the recall, Suzuki repositioned the brake fluid reservoir port, which was intended to allow hydrogen gas generated by the corrosion to escape, the case says. However, the complaint claims the redesign did little to nothing to stop or even slow the corrosion and subsequent hydrogen gas buildup. Since 2013, the filing writes, Suzuki GSXR drivers have continuously reported experiencing potentially dangerous braking problems, including in posts across various internet platforms and forums like GSXR.com, Gixxer.com, Facebook and Reddit. Despite this, the company still claims that the problem has been fixed and will not recall the at-issue motorcycles to repair or replace the faulty front brake master cylinders, the complaint alleges. According to the lawsuit, Suzuki has knowingly put consumers, who would reasonably expect the motorcycles to function as intended and not be defective in any way, in an unsafe position and reduced the resale value of the bikes. The Suzuki GSXR class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in California who bought a Suzuki motorcycle from a Suzuki authorized dealership. [GN] T-MOBILE USA INC: Oddo Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Oddo, Harry Hyaduck, Sr., LARRY KAHHAN, GERALD DWYER, on behalf of themself and all other persons similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc, Case No. 2:24-cv-07719 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01651 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Disabato, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 745 5th Avenue, Ste 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ddisabato@nagelrice.com - and - Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Greg Michael Kohn, Esq. Randee M. Matloff, Esq. Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE LLP 103 Eisenhower Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 618-0400 Fax: (973) 618-9194 Email: lconsidine@nagelrice.com gkohn@nagelrice.com rmatloff@nagelrice.com bnagel@nagelrice.com - and - Joseph R. Santoli, Esq. 615 Franklin Turnpike Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Phone: (201) 444-2888 Fax: (201) 444-2888 The Defendant is represented by: Reade William Seligmann, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 210-9400 Email: reade.seligmann@alston.com TASMANIA: Junior Doctors File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Scout Wallen, writing for ABC News, reports that junior doctors have lodged a class action against the Tasmanian government over unpaid overtime. The action in Tasmania's Supreme Court involves junior doctors who have worked at both the Launceston General Hospital (LGH) and the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) during the past six years. The lead plaintiff is Dr Emily Mackrill, who worked as a junior doctor at the LGH between 2019 to 2021, and claims she worked unpaid, unrostered overtime across several departments. It follows similar action in other jurisdictions; NSW and the ACT have secured settlements of $31.5 million and $230 million, respectively, and the Victorian action has been resolved for a principal sum of $175 million, pending court approval. Lawyer Hayden Stephens, who worked on those cases and is acting on behalf of the Tasmanian doctors, said while he expects a potential payout in Tasmania to be less due to its smaller workforce, individual damages can range from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands. "It really just depends on the number of years the junior doctor has worked in the system, their level of classification, and the number of unpaid hours that they have worked," he said. He said he and his team have spoken to many doctors as part of their investigation. "I am hearing stories of doctors working excessive hours . . . up to 15 per cent, even 25 per cent over and above their ordinary hours." "Doctors have a genuine concern that if they are working excessive hours and are fatigued, they're more likely to make a clinical error in relation to their care and treatment of patients." Some of the allegations of unpaid overtime from doctors who worked at the LGH between 2019 and 2022 have alarmed him. "It's probably the worst conduct I've seen in all my experience in acting for junior doctors throughout Australia," he said. He said about 1,500 junior doctors worked in Tasmania during the six years, many of whom may be eligible for compensation. In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice said the State Litigation Office has carriage of this matter on behalf of the state government, and because the matter is before the courts, it cannot comment further. A spokesperson said the Department of Health was committed to paying all valid entitlements. "All claims that are submitted with supporting evidence will be processed. "We acknowledge the hard work of our healthcare professionals." [GN] TIMELESS SKIN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Timeless Skin Care, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10307 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website Lufka.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Timeless Skin Care provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.timelessha.com. Timelessha.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, the suit contends. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Timelessha.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Timeless Skin Care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TMC the metals Co Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California On November 8, 2024, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain of its executives in federal district court for the Central District of California, captioned Lin v. TMC The Metals Company Inc., Gerard Barron, and Craig Shesky. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Messrs. Barron and Shesky violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose information regarding the classification of the non-financial asset received from its partnership with Low Carbon Royalties Inc. and the derecognition of the capitalized exploration contract related to NORI. The alleged misstatements and omissions pertain to the Company's initial classification of this non-financial asset as a gain on disposition (being a sale of future revenue) and subsequent reclassification thereof as a royalty liability (and re-capitalization of the exploration contract) and the restatement of its previously issued financial statements as a result thereof for the three months ended March 31, 2023, the six months ended June 30, 2023 and the nine months ended September 30, 2023 in March 2024. The complaint purports to represent a class of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between May 12, 2023, and March 25, 2024, and seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the alleged wrongdoings. On February 6, 2025, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on March 6, 2025. Pursuant to court-approved scheduling, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 10, 2025. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition on May 15, 2025, and the Company filed a reply on June 5, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in full but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 2, 2025. The Company's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was filed on August 6, 2025, the plaintiff's opposition is expected to be filed by September 9, 2025, and a reply is expected to be filed by September 23, 2025. The Company intends to continue defending against the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful in its defense, or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of this action. Due to the early stage of this litigation, such losses or range of possible losses cannot be reliably estimated. TMC is a deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the collection, processing and refining of polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor in international waters of the Clarion Clipperton Zone, about 1,300 nautical miles south-west of San Diego, California. TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rhonn Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Toyota of Dallas, Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, appointing the named Plaintiff Rhonn Mitchell as class representative and appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel on behalf of the following classes: Class 1 - Internal Do Not Call Request Class "All persons in the United States (i) who received more than one telemarketing text message which was made for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of the Defendant's goods or services in any twelve-month period since June 6, 2019, (ii) on a residential telephone number, (iii) where the telephone number was one for which within the previous five years the user had opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant at the time of receiving at least one such text message, (iv) where the text message contained one or more of the phrases (a) "request to send a text message", (b) "is texting the most convenient way", or (c) "is confirming request to send a message", and (v) were received more than 31 days after the user opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant." Class 2 - Texas Class "All persons in the state of Texas (i) who received more than one telemarketing text message which was made for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of the Defendant's goods or services in any twelve-month period since June 6, 2019, (ii) on a residential telephone number, (iii) where the telephone number was one for which within the previous five years the user had opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant at the time of receiving at least one such text message, (iv) where the text message contained one or more of the phrases (a) "request to send a text message", (b) "is texting the most convenient way", or (c) "is confirming request to send a message", and (v) were received more than 31 days after the user opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant." The Plaintiff requests that the Class Periods be defined as June 6, 2019, through the date of certification. The Defendant is a Toyota dealership in Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z02Nxt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 17 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lovejoy v. Transdev Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380 (S.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order setting Briefing Schedule: -- Renewed Motion to Certify Class Response due by: Sept. 10, 2025 Reply due by: Sept. 17, 2025 -- No sur-reply will be accepted. -- Motion Hearing set for: Oct. 16, 2025 The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Transdev provides passenger transportation services.[CC] TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ihrke Says --------------------------------------------------------- TINA IHRKE and JO JOAQUIM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10321 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its current and former clients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the Data Breach). According to a letter sent to Data Breach victims, the Defendant "experienced a cyber incident involving a third-party application serving our U.S. consumer support operations" which resulted in unauthorized access to personal information belonging to current and former clients. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unfettered access to steal millions of its current and former clients' PII. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. TransUnion is a global credit reporting agency with an estimated annual revenue of $4.2 billion.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Weatherford Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA WEATHERFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10404 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025) is a class action against TransUnion for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated TransUnion customers' sensitive personal information from hackers. As of Aug. 29, 2025, the type of information impacted in the breach has not been made publicly available by TransUnion. On Aug. 27, 2025, TransUnion filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. On or around the same time, TransUnion also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice, TransUnion detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on July 30, 2025. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves, such as Social Security numbers that companies like TransUnion collect and maintain. TransUnion, based in Chicago, Illinois, is a credit reporting and consumer insight service for individuals and businesses that serves millions of customers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: wsweetnam@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com UNITED PARCEL: Astramsky Sues Over Illegal Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRYSTAL ASTRAMSKY on behalf of herself and others similarly situated V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02237-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant took an adverse action based in whole or in part on the Consumer Report and failed to provide the Plaintiff the report prior to the adverse action in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant obtained information concerning the Plaintiff from a consumer reporting agency named First Advantage. The Defendant paid a fee for the information it obtained concerning the Plaintiff. The information obtained concerning the Plaintiff was a Consumer Report. The Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding the Plaintiff, and on information and belief, the Defendant relies on similar information from Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding other prospective or current employees, including, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. The Plaintiff applied online with the Defendant in October of 2024 for the position of loader/unloader. She had an interview and was offered a job. The Plaintiff received an email approximately five days later on Nov. 3, 2024, that set up orientation to begin on Nov. 5, 2024. The Defendant is a foreign company doing business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MURPHY AND MARIA MURPHY, as guardians of OLIVIA MURPHY, et.al., and all other persons similarly situated; v. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S LANDING LTD., a Florida limited partnership, et.al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00022-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them an enlargement of time to file their motion for class certification, through and including Sept. 8, 2025, or to a date the Court deems just and appropriate. If the documents from Royal American Management were timely produced, there would have been no issue as to the filing of the motion for class certification. The enlargement of time requested is thirteen days. This case is still in the inception of discovery, the motion to dismiss is pending, and the discovery period extends to July 16, 2026. This motion is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. No party will be prejudiced by the short extension requested, THE. The Plaintiffs would like to present to this court a comprehensive motion for class certification delineating which of the management entities (ROAR, Royal American, or Atala) (1) collected the monthly fees in addition to the rent; (2) the activities which were included in supportive housing services as required by the grant; (3) the identity of each party that had the obligation to provide each of these services; and (4) how much money from such fees (if any) was actually spent on activities. The Plaintiffs acted with diligence in obtaining discovery and have obtained substantial discovery to date from third parties. On May 27, 2025, this Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order, where the Plaintiffs requested a reasonable extension of time to file their motion for class certification on Aug. 1, 2025. A request for production was served on June 20, 2025. Villages is a dynamic residential community for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hXtb4s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Dietz, Esq. DISABILITY INCLUSION & ADVOCACY LAW CLINIC NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SHEPARD BROAD COLLEGE OF LAW 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 262-6138 E-mail: mdietz@nova.edu - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. Victoria Mesa-Estrada, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com vmestrada@searcylaw.com; MesaTeam@searcylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James C. Valenti, Esq. Samuel J. Hensel, Esq. JAMES C. VALENTI, P.A. 114 N. Tennessee Ave, Suite 200 Lakeland, FL 33801 Telephone: (863) 937-6056 E-mail: j.valenti@valenti-law.com s.hensel@valenti-law.com s.reger@valenti-law.com - and - Allan J. Rotlewicz, Esq. CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 940 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (877) 618-9770 Facsimile: (954) 252-2308 E-mail: arotlewicz@callahanfusco.com eserve@callahanfusco.com - and - Noel F. Johnson, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2401 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 957-1157 Facsimile: (786) 957-1158 E-mail: Noel.Johnson@Dinsmore.com Jessica.SanMartin@Dinsmore.com - and - Jeffrey M. Partlow, Esq. Allaa M. Tayeb, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 400 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, FL 32810 Telephone: (321) 972-0079 Facsimile: (321) 972-0099 E-mail: jeffrey.partlow@csklegal.com geraldine.asher@csklegal.com allaa.tayeb@csklegal.com deeana.bryant@csklegal.com kirbie.andrews@csklegal.com VIRGINIA BEACH: Hardee Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN T. HARDEE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled John T. Hardee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00088-MHL-MRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendants for civil rights violations. On June 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a request for Class Action status. On July 15, 2025, Judge M. Hannah Lauck dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice as a result of his failure to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the June 5, 2025 Memorandum Order. The appellate case is entitled John Hardee v. Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office, Case No. 25-6711, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN T. HARDEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Pay Inequality ------------------------------------------------------------ Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that Disney has been sued for pay discrimination by one of its former top lawyers, expanding a legal battle over claims from female employees who say they're paid less than their male counterparts for similar work. The lawsuit points to systemic pay inequality at Disney, which last year settled a class action from roughly 9,000 workers in California across the company's production and distribution arms, broadcast stations and theme parks, among various other corporate divisions. Under the deal, Disney agreed to pay $43.25 million and retain experts to address salary disparities between men and women employees. In that case, unsealed court filings indicated that Disney was aware of allegations of widespread pay inequality for years. Alisa Clairet, an ex-senior legal executive for Disney Channel who handled talent contracts, production agreements and licensing, was identified as a member of the class but chose to file her own lawsuit last month in California state court. Clairet alleges her tenure at Disney started on unequal footing, accusing the company of hiring a man for the same work but with a more senior title and higher pay. She later received a promotion to match her colleague's position but didn't receive a raise, the lawsuit says. When she complained to the head of legal affairs for Disney Television, which allegedly acknowledged the disparity and turned the issue over to human resources, she claims no action was taken. From 2019 to 2024, Clairet completed 173 projects with the highest-profile clients compared to 109 by her male counterpart, according to the complaint. At one point, she says she was the lead lawyer for all animated third party productions and simultaneously managed six live action series. This includes performing the legal work for her colleague, who allegedly didn't complete the necessary agreements and documentation for Raven's Home. An exec later discovered that the show was produced for over two years without basic legal requirements, like having contracts for executive producers and writers in place. Clairet, "already busy with more projects than anyone else in the department, quickly stepped in and took over the series getting all the necessary agreements negotiated and signed in short order," writes Nathan Smith, a lawyer for the now-vice president of TV legal affairs for Legendary Entertainment, in the complaint. Last year, Clairet was terminated amid the entertainment giant's $7.5 billion cost-cutting effort. She says the decision not to lay off her male counterpart was motivated by gender discrimination and her years-long campaign for equal pay. "If the reasons for the layoffs were due to cost cutting and efficiencies as Ms. Clairet was explicitly told, then the higher paid and less effective male Principal Counsel should have been selected," the complaint states. The lawsuit brings claims for violations of California Equal Pay Act and unfair competition law, disparate treatment based on sex and retaliation, among others. It seeks unspecified damages from Disney, which declined to comment for this story. [GN] WATA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Knight, et al., v. Wata, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873 (D. Colo., Filed July 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order referring to Mag. Judge Timothy P .O'Hara the First motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Wata operates as a video games company.[CC] WATERCO OF THE CENTRAL: Perez Loses Bid to Move Suit to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NATHAN PEREZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATERCO OF THE CENTRAL STATES, INC.; CULLIGAN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY; CULLIGAN BY WATERCO, DBA CULLIGAN; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00922-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand. Plaintiff Nathan Perez, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this action against Defendants Waterco of the Central States, Inc., Culligan International Company, and Culligan by Waterco DBA Culligan alleging violations of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, the applicable IWC Wage Order, and related common law principles. On April 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. He alleges that, at all relevant times, he was employed by the Defendants as a Field Technician. He alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages and overtime compensation owed to its non-exempt employees; failed to provide required meal periods; failed to provide required rest periods; failed to pay all sick leave wages; failed to furnish timely, proper, and accurate wage statements; failed to reimburse business expenses; and failed to conduct lawful and fair business practices. On April 17, 2025, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The Notice asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded CAFA's jurisdictional threshold of five million dollars. The Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, arguing the Defendants have not met their burden of establishing jurisdiction under CAFA. With respect to minimal diversity, Judge Benitez notes that the Plaintiff resides in the County of Solano, California and is, therefore, a citizen of California. Defendant Waterco is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Rosemont, Illinois. Culligan is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Rosemont, Illinois. Both are citizens of Delaware and Illinois. Therefore, neither Defendant is a citizen of California and the Plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from each Defendant. As to numerosity, the Defendants confirmed that there were over 100 employees that could be included in this class. The Court concludes that the lawsuit satisfies CAFA's requirements of minimal diversity and numerosity. The Defendants have submitted the Declaration of Mary Odegaard, Culligan's Payroll Manager since 2005. Ms. Odegaard's Declaration contains her knowledge of the number of non-exempt employees employed by the Defendants from March 14, 2021, through March 28, 2025; the number of pay periods during this time; and the number of shifts in this time period where employees had worked more than 3.5 hours. The Defendants use this data to support their calculations. The Court finds that the Defendants' assumptions here are reasonable, and founded on the allegations of the complaint. Further, the Court disagrees with the Plaintiff that attorney's fees should be entirely excluded from the amount in controversy. The Plaintiff requests the judgment to include, "attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert fees" in the Complaint. Therefore, the Court finds the Defendants' inclusion of attorney's fee in calculating the amount in controversy to be reasonable. Finally, Judge Benitez says both parties have had an opportunity to submit evidence after the amount in controversy had been contested. The Defendants submitted evidence, the Plaintiff declined. The Court finds that it has CAFA jurisdiction over the case, based on the Defendants' evidence and reasonable assumptions. Therefore, the motion to remand is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yf3a8256 from PacerMonitor.com. WATERWIPES USA: Faces Corzan Over Water Wipes' Deceptive Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- SONNI ECHEVERRIA-CORZAN and LAURA DENIZ and, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WATERWIPES (USA) INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-07330-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025) seeks redress for the Defendant's deceptive and unlawful practices in labeling and marketing its Water Wipes brand baby and adult care wipes labeled with "Just 2 ingredients," when in fact the Products contain a third harsh chemical ingredient. According to the complaint, intending to profit from parents' desire for safe products for their babies and children, the Defendant deceptively markets its Water Wipes brand wipes as containing "Just 2 ingredients," alongside the claims "99.9% water" and "a drop of fruit extract." However, the Products do not contain "Just 2 ingredients," and instead include a third ingredient, a preservative called benzalkonium chloride which studies have shown can irritate the skin, cause toxicity, disrupt skin microbiome, and even promote antibiotic resistance. Harsh chemical ingredients such as benzalkonium chloride that cause health and skin issues are the exact reasons that parents purchase a product which claims to only containing "Just 2 ingredients" "99.9% water" and "a drop of fruit extract," asserts the suit. On multiple occasions, including on or about June 2024 and January 2025, the Plaintiff purchased the Product from her local Walmart store in Fresno and Madera, California. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells Water Wipes brand baby wipes and adult wipes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ellsworth Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jarrell Ellsworth, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC.; ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL OF FONTANA, INC.; CARCO GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2519646 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02263. The Complaint in the State Court Action asserts causes of action for Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Defendant Werner and Defendant Carco Group; Violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act against Defendant Werner; Violation of the Fair Chance Act against Defendant Werner; Violation of California Labor Code against all Defendants; and Violation of the California Business and Professions Code against all Defendants.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter B. Maretz, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Peter.Maretz@jacksonlewis.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Miguel Esparza, and others similarly situated v. KEEN INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a WWW.KEENFOOTWEAR.COM, Case No. 25STCV21488 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08185. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17501 and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas A. Woods, Esq. Michelle J. Rosales, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.447.0700 Facsimile: 916.447.4781 Email: thomas.woods@stoel.com michelle.rosales@stoel.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Mason Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nebraska corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2520099 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02271. The Complaint in the State Court Action asserts causes of action for Discrimination Based on Race; Failure to Pay Minimum and Regular Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; Breach of Contract; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, against Defendant.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter B. Maretz, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Peter.Maretz@jacksonlewis.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Norman Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lauren Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 25STCV23239 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08203. The Plaintiff contends that Apple "launched a pervasive marketing campaign" "spotlighting what it branded as the groundbreaking 'Apple Intelligence' suite of features" "to promote its latest iPhone 16 model," but that "these products were not equipped with specific 'Apple Intelligence' features." The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "tens of thousands of iPhone purchasers," and asserts claims under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and the common law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Megan L. Rodgers, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Email: ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com mrodgers@cov.com WFS EXPRESS: Prado Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leobardo Valdivia Prado, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WFS EXPRESS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV18875 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08191. The Complaint purports to state causes of action for: Violation of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); Violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); Violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); Violation of California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); Violation of Labor Code sections 204 and 210 (Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment); Violation of California Labor Code section 226(a) (Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements); and Violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. Julia A. Sherwood, Esq. Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858)597-9600 Facsimile: (858)597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com jsherwood@fisherphillips.com lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com - and - Landon R. Schwob, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (213)330-4500 Facsimile: (213)330-4501 Email: lschwob@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com WIRED NYC: Francisco Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS A. FERNANDEZ FRANCISCO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WIRED NYC LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07220 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2025) seeks unpaid overtime and anti-retaliation provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case exposes the unconscionable exploitation and systematic retaliation endured by Plaintiff at the hands of Defendant. The Plaintiff, an electrical mechanic, was also subjected to Defendant's callous refusal to compensate him for 20 hours of overtime each week while maintaining a grueling schedule of 60 hours per week across two work locations, says the suit. Wired NYC is a full-service electrical contracting, service, and maintenance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Robert Kansao, Esq. Daniel Needham, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 ********* 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 ***