250912.mbx

250912.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 12, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 183 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Cyr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Gebhardt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Heater Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Hendrickson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Luedtke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: McGillan Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Minton Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ala. 3M COMPANY: Moltimore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Olivarez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Palluck Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Robbins Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ABM INDUSTRY: Acevedo Suit Removed to N.D. California ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Christianson Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Flores Sues Over Misleading Body Wash Labels ALCOHOL MONITORING: Portis Sues Over Ankle Monitors' Health Risks ALLEVIATE TAX: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hadizadeh Due Oct. 3 ALTRIA GROUP: Parties Seek to Maintain Opposition Docs Under Seal ASP ISOTOPES: Continues to Defend Corredor Securities Class Suit AUSTRALIA: Agrees to Settle Robodebt Scandal Class Suit for $475MM BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit BEAUTY HEALTH: Sept. 17 Hearing on Bid to Junk PSLRA Suit CANDYWAREHOUSE.COM INC: Hampton Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website CAPITAL ONE: Faces Tollaksen Suit Over Deceptive Rewards Program CAR WASH: Jacome Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code CIOX HEALTH: Colfer Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina COINBASE GLOBAL: Carmassi Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COINBASE GLOBAL: Edlin Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COINBASE GLOBAL: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COINBASE GLOBAL: McGuire Suit Transferred to S.D. New York DBM GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hall Suit Says DELUXE AUTO: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in California DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS: Rounds Sues Over Data Broker Software Use ELECTROLUX GROUP: Chimicles Probes Defective Frigidaire Ovens FARMERS INSURANCE: Thomas Files Suit in C.D. California FLEET QUEST: Sept. 15 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought FURNICHE LLC: Lucien Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GREENACRES NETWORK: Hernandez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HALAL GUYS: Hegazy Seeks to Certify Class HARD ROCK: Syla Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification HEALTHCARE REVENUE: $500K Class Fund in Morales Gets Final Nod HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII INDEX EXCHANGE: Baker Sues Over Unlawful Data-Sharing Arrangement INSTANT CHECKMATE: Clark Suit Removed to D. Colorado ITS LOGISTICS: Court Recommends Approval of Proposed Settlement JOINT LOGISTICS: Triplett Balks at Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice K.K.C. SHOPPING CENTER: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers KRISTI NOEM: Bangstad Sues Over Unconstitutional Practices KRISTI NOEM: L.G.M.L. Sues Over Unlawful Removal from the US LANGDON & COMPANY: Grimes Sues Over Failure to Secure Information LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Agrees to Settle Quebec Class Suit for $11MM LIONHEART EQUITIES: Continues to Defend Stanley Class Suit in Del. LOUIS VUITTON: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Miamen Alleges LOUIS VUITTON: Godinez Files Suit in S.D. New York LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Damico Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Royalties Breach Suit MCLAREN HEALTH: First Amended Complaint Filed in Wehrle Case MICALIOR LLC: Alvear Sues Over Unlawful Disability Discrimination MICHIGAN: Court Approves Class Settlement in Mental Health Suit MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Fraundorfer Suit Removed to D. Kansas MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Iskandarova Suit Removed to D. Kansas MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: O.S. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Oakes Suit Removed to D. Kansas MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Roth Suit Removed to D. Kansas MIDLAND NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 26 MONSANTO COMPANY: Wickham Suit Transferred to N.D. California MORRIS HOSPITAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.36M MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Tax Foreclosure Settlement Reaches $3.5MM MUTUAL HOUSING: Filing for Summary Judgment Extended to Sept. 16 NANO NUCLEAR: Continues to Defend Yang Securities Class Suit in NY NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Patterson Balks at Competition Eligibility NATIONAL GRID: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response NEW YORK, NY: Holmes Class Suit Seeks Back Pay Under FLSA NISSAN NORTH: Settlement Conference in Johnson Due April 1, 2026 NORDSTROM INC: Ayala Suit Removed to C.D. California NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 8, 2026 NORTH CAROLINA: Fact Discovery in Doe Suit Due Oct. 13 NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $8.5MM ONE FLAGLER: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending PRODRIVERS WEST: Cortes Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid PROFESSIONAL SECURITY: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PUBLIX SUPER: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination QUANTUM COMPUTING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NJ RB GLOBAL: McGinnis Construction Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois RCOFIII SPEC-FIN: Faces Goetting Suit Over Illegal Usury Scheme READING INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Berryman VPPA Class Suit READING INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend VPPA Valentini Suit RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Junks Bid to Stay Venet Case RICHLINE GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hampton Says ROUSE SERVICES: Conspires to Fix Equipment Prices, Signs Says RUGSUSA LLC: Filing for Class Certification in Carrell Due Dec. 8 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 3, 2026 SELECT RESTAURANTS: Roque Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SELF REGIONAL HEALTHCARE: Knight Suit Removed to D. South Carolina SHOEBACCA LTD: Faces Hampton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SIMMONS UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unauthorized Access to Personal Info SLT LENDING: Court Awards $183K Atty's Fees to Class Counsel SOUTHERN COMPANY: Tobias FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Georgia SPECTRUM CENTER: Zamora Suit Removed to C.D. California SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Partly Wins Bid for Summary Judgment SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Appeals Court Compels Arbitration in BIPA Suit SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Faces Class Suit Over Online Gambling Scheme SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Operates Illegal Online Gambling, Thomas Says TOPPOINT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Labor Class Suit TPUSA INC: Katsnelson FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York TRANS UNION: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Goldberger Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ULTA SALON: Minson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington UNILEVER UNITED: Argueta Sues Over Drink Mix Oversized Packaging UNITED AUTO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ferrara Due Dec. 16 US VENTURE INC: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California VITAL IMAGING: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Garcia Suit Says WALL TO WALL: Flores Suit Removed to N.D. California WATA INC: Filing for Third Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29 WATA INC: Knight Seeks More Time to File 3rd Class Cert Bid WATERWAYS SHOPPES: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property WEAR PACT: Class Certification Bid in Johnston Due June 30, 2026 WINNING SOLUTION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Says ZALE DELAWARE: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $7.5 Million Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Corp. Advances CCAA Restructuring ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Reports $2.0BB Reserve at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $30.5MM Accrued Liabilities ********* 3M COMPANY: Cyr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Zade Thomas Cyr, 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-08570-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 testicular 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: Gebhardt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Gebhardt, 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.; BASF CORP., 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.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, 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-08483-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. 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 was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing 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: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Phone: 939-220-2424 Facsimile: 939-220-2477 3M COMPANY: Heater Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Heater, 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 ulcerative colitis 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: Hendrickson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hendrickson, 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-08442-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 testicular 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: Luedtke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Luedtke, 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-08443-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 ulcerative colitis 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: McGillan Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Deana McGillan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08488-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph John Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9730 Fax: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com 3M COMPANY: Minton Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ala. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD MINTON, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-90308900 (July 29, 2025), was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Sept. 2, 2025. The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01475-MHH to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams and/or firefighter turnout gear that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, including perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn E. Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com gary@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King Harlan I. Prater, IV W. Larkin Radney, IV Colin J. Matthaei LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com cmatthaei@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Moltimore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Juanita Alberta Moltimore, 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-08560-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: Olivarez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Dee Olivarez, 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-08567-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 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: Palluck Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Palluck, 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-08448-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: Robbins Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Donna Robbins, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-cv-25-903068 was transferred from Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01474-ACA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com - and - Yahn Eric Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue, South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Email: yolson@elglaw.com ABM INDUSTRY: Acevedo Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria De Los Angeles Acevedo, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company; FORTINET, INC., a Delaware stock corporation; ADRIANA SOLORIO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV471141 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07370. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendant on behalf of herself and the putative class: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; Violation of Labor Code Section 227.3; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Fleming, Esq. Matthew C. Lewis, Esq. Jack M. McMenamin, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP Attorneys at Law 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, California 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: lf@paynefears.com mcl@paynefears.com jmm@paynefears.com ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Christianson Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advantage Collection Professionals, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Christianson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advantage Collection Professionals, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03491 (D. Minn., Sept. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Advantage Collection Professionals -- https://advantagecollections.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: (651) 770-9707 Fax: (651) 704-0907 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Flores Sues Over Misleading Body Wash Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ TERESA FLORES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-02476-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's claim that the Signature Care Sensitive Skin Body Wash, Hypoallergenic is hypoallergenic and formulated for sensitive skin and comparable to Dove Sensitive Skin Body Wash is false and misleading to reasonable consumers. The Product is not formulated to be hypoallergenic or for sensitive skin because it contains Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and Methylisothiazolinone (MI) and Cocamidopropyl Betaine (CAPB), common allergens. Nor is it comparable to Dove Sensitive Skin Body Wash, which does not contain MCI/MI, asserts the suit. Methylisothiazolinone was named allergen of the year in 2013 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS), a group of 2,500 health care professionals focused on advancing care for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and related inflammatory skin diseases. MCI is multiple times more potent than MI. Combined, MI and MCI, are two of the most predominant contact allergens found in personal care products. The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells Signature Care Sensitive Skin Body Wash, Hypoallergenic. The front of the Product packaging prominently states that it is for "Sensitive Skin" and is "Hypoallergenic" and compares to "Dove (TM) Sensitive Skin Nourishing Body Wash (TM)" (Dove Sensitive Skin Body Wash).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: jmacpherson@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com ALCOHOL MONITORING: Portis Sues Over Ankle Monitors' Health Risks ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PORTIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALCOHOL MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a SCRAM Systems, Case No. 1:25-cv-02697-NYW (D. Colo., August 28, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and the proposed class of those who have been injured by Defendant's ankle monitors. The Defendant sells and markets SCRAM Monitors -- continuous alcohol monitoring ankle bracelets that provide transdermal alcohol testing. The SCRAM device monitors the wearer's alcohol consumption by sampling the ethanol vapor that is excreted through the skin. In November 2023, Plaintiff Portis was transported by ambulance to the emergency room at Summa Health after sustaining serious injuries caused by a SCRAM continuous alcohol monitoring device affixed to his ankle. Upon examination, the Plaintiff was evaluated and it was determined that Mr. Portis had developed acute or chronic pressure injuries to his legs caused by the alcohol monitoring ankle device rubbing against his skin, says the suit. It was further advised that continued use of the SCRAM device in its condition posed significant health risks, including the possibility of systemic infection and irreparable damage to Mr. Portis' legs. The injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were directly caused by the defective and unsafe condition of the SCRAM device and its prolonged contact with his skin, the suit asserts. Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. is a provider of electronic monitoring solutions with its principal place of business in Littleton, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY |ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.Doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com ALLEVIATE TAX: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hadizadeh Due Oct. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARBOD HADIZADEH MOGHADAM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLEVIATE TAX, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01810-MWC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting stipulation to continue deadlines in the governing scheduling order: 1. Last date to file class certification motion shall be continued to Oct. 3, 2025; 2. Fact discovery cutoff shall be continued to Dec. 22, 2025; 3. Expert disclosure (Initial) shall be continued to Dec. 29, 2026; 4. Expert disclosure (Rebuttal) shall be continued to Jan. 12, 2026; and 5. Expert discovery cut-off shall be continued to Jan. 26, 2026. The remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order shall remain intact. Alleviate provides tax relief services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mYhUjB at no extra charge.[CC] ALTRIA GROUP: Parties Seek to Maintain Opposition Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al. (IN RE JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to maintain under seal a limited subset of material from Defendants' oppositions to the Plaintiffs' class certification motions, the Parties' Daubert motions, and supporting materials. The Parties append the Declarations of Elana Katcher, Nowell D. Bamberger, Jeremy Barber, and Michael J. Guzman, respectively, in support of their requests to keep the information described in the chart under seal. The Defendants do not object to Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' or Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' requests for sealing. The Plaintiffs are in the process of reviewing the Defendants' materials in support of the requests for the materials listed to remain under seal and take no position at this time on these requests. The Plaintiffs reserve their rights to object to the sealing of materials subject to the Defendants' requests for sealing. Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8FVDM0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Ronnie S. Spiegel, Esq. David H. Seidel, Esq. Itak K. Moradi, Esq. Christopher J. Hydal, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California St. Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com dseidel@saverilawfirm.com imoradi@saverilawfirm.com chydal@saverilawfirm.co - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: David I. Gelfand, Esq. Jeremy J. Calsyn, Esq. Nowell D. Bamberger, Esq. Caleb J. Robertson, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202)974-1500 Facsimile: (202)974-1999 E-mail: dgelfand@cgsh.com jcalsyn@cgsh.com nbamberger@cgsh.com cjrobertson@cgsh.com - and - Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. James M. Rosenthal, Esq. Matthew Skanchy, Esq. Alysha Bohanon, Esq. Jenna Pavelec, Esq. Moira K. Penza, Esq. Jeremy Barber, Esq. WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4000 Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com jrosenthal@wilkinsonstekloff.com mskanchy@wilkinsonstekloff.com abohanon@wilkinsonstekloff.com jpavelec@wilkinsonstekloff.com mpenza@wilkinsonstekloff.com jbarber@wilkinsonstekloff.com - and - Lauren Sachi Wulfe, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLC 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4211 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: lauren.wulfe@arnoldporter.com - and - Mark C. Hansen, Esq. Michael J. Guzman, Esq. David L. Schwarz, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: mhansen@kellogghansen.com mguzman@kellogghansen.com dschwarz@kellogghansen.com ASP ISOTOPES: Continues to Defend Corredor Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASP Isotopes 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 Corredor securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 4, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 30, 2024 through November 26, 2024 against ASP Isotopes Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Corredor v. ASP Isotopes Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09253 (S.D.N.Y)) (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action alleges that the Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer ("Defendants") made materially misleading or false statements or omissions regarding the Company's business and asserts purported claims under 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs. On May 2, 2025 the Court appointed Mark Leone (“Leone”) as lead plaintiff and directed the Clerk of court to amend the caption to substitute Leone for Alexander Corredor as plaintiff. On May 2, 2025 the Court also appointed lead counsel and set deadlines for filing an amended consolidated class action complaint and briefing schedules for a motion to dismiss, if any, and class certification. On May 27, 2025, Leone and two additional named plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") filed the amended class action complaint ("Amended Complaint"), that asserts the same causes of action and seeks the same relief as the initial complaint and is based upon substantially similar factual allegations as the initial complaint. On June 27, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Also on June 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On July 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Also on July 25, 2025, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Securities Class Action. ASP engages in the production, distribution, marketing, and sale of isotopes. AUSTRALIA: Agrees to Settle Robodebt Scandal Class Suit for $475MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Samantha Dick, writing for ABC News, reports that the federal government has agreed to pay $475 million in compensation to the victims of the Coalition government's Robodebt scandal. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said if approved by the Federal Court, the payout would be the largest class action settlement in Australian history, covering hundreds of thousands of people. What's next? Class action members are not required to take any action at this stage, other than ensuring their contact details are up to date with Services Australia. The federal government has agreed to pay $475 million in compensation to the thousands of victims of the Coalition government's Robodebt scandal. Robodebt was an automated government scheme that used a faulty algorithm to incorrectly demand tens of thousands of welfare recipients pay debts they did not owe. The scandal pushed some of Australia's poorest people further into debt, with many taking out loans they could not afford to make the urgent repayments. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said if approved by the federal court, the payout would be the largest class action settlement in Australian history, covering hundreds of thousands of victims. Peter Gordon, the founder of law firm Gordon Legal, said the day was a "day of vindication and validation for hundreds of thousands of Australians afflicted by the Robodebt scandal." "More than 450,000 Australians have or will benefit from this settlement," he told reporters. "It is, of course, far and away the largest class action settlement in Australia's history." A previous class action in 2020 resulted in the refunding of incorrect debts with interest and wiping of other debts accrued through the illegal system, but did not provide compensation for associated losses, including distress and suffering. In a statement, Ms Rowland said the royal commission described Robodebt as a "crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal". "Settling this claim is the just and fair thing to do," she said. Former Labor leader Bill Shorten, who called for a royal commission into the Robodebt scandal from opposition, welcomed the historic settlement. "Along with Gordon Legal, when we started the class action in 2019, I said that Robodebt was unlawful, unjust, and unconscionable," he said in a statement. "Today's outcome shows that those warnings were right -- and that governments must never again put expedience ahead of justice." Australia Council of Social Service chief executive Cassandra Goldie said the settlement recognised the scheme's "devastating impacts", but said those responsible have not been held to account. "Ten years on from when Robodebt commenced, no one responsible for its design, implementation and continuation has been publicly held accountable in a way that delivers justice for its victims and their families," she said in a statement. The agreement would also allow the court to determine separate amounts for the applicants' reasonable legal costs, not exceeding $13.5 million, and for the reasonable costs of administering the settlement, not exceeding $60 million. Class action members are not required to take any action at this stage, other than ensuring their contact details are up to date with Services Australia. Law firm Gordon Legal said class actions had now resulted in more than $2.4 billion of financial redress in total. Class action member and Robodebt victim Felicity Button said the announcement was "bittersweet". "It doesn't matter how vulnerable a population is, and it doesn't matter where you come from or what your circumstances are, there is no room in Australia for unethical and illegal conduct, particularly within our government," she said. Mr Gordon said he recognised the mental health impacts of the Robodebt scheme, which the Royal Commission linked to at least two known suicides. "For some, there are wounds that will never heal and we can never do justice to those people, and the system can't," he said. "But what we do hope and feel is that people today feel that their voices have been heard." Gordon Legal senior partner Andrew Grech said class action members will have the option of individualised assessments. "One of the problems brought about was Robodebt was people being treated like numbers," he said. "We're not going to do that in this settlement." [GN] BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Beauty Health Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend a consumer class suit. On October 24, 2024, Jason Davalos ("Jason Davalos"), Sonia Davalos ("Sonia Davalos", and collectively with Jason Davalos, the "Davaloses"), and Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC ("Sol Tan", and collectively with the Davaloses, the "Class Action Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Hydrafacial LLC d/b/a The Hydrafacial Company and The Beauty Health Company (collectively, the "Class Action Defendants") for alleged violations of New York consumer fraud statutes, breach of contract, and common law breach of implied warranties (the "Consumer Class Action"). The case is captioned Jason Davalos, Sonia Davalos, Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hydrafacial LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company, and The Beauty Health Company, Case No. 24-cv-8073 (S.D.N.Y.) (Caproni, J.) The complaint alleges that all three versions of the Syndeo machine (Syndeo 1.0, Syndeo 2.0, and Syndeo 3.0) were defective and did not perform in the manner in which it had been represented by Class Action Defendants. Class Action Plaintiffs claim that Class Action Defendants made various misrepresentations in its marketing and sales of the Syndeo machines and, rather than provide a refund to customers for the defective machines, replaced them with another Syndeo machine that exhibited the same defects. Class Action Plaintiffs purport to bring claims on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated purchasers within the United States, of Class Action Defendants' Syndeo machines. The complaint asserts five causes of action: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349, the state consumer production statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 350, the state's false advertising statute; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The relief sought in the complaint includes monetary damages allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants' alleged violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., Sec. 349 and § 350. On December 30, 2024, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consumer Class Action complaint in its entirety. On January 3, 2025, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery during the pendency of their motion to dismiss. On January 8, 2025, the Davaloses voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Class Action Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving Plaintiff Sol Tan as the sole remaining Consumer Class Action Plaintiff. Plaintiff Sol Tan filed their opposition brief on January 9, 2025, and the Class Action Defendants filed their reply brief on January 13, 2025. On January 16, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to adjourn the January 17, 2025 initial pretrial conference and stay the action pending the parties' completion of a private mediation. As part of its order, the court also (1) adjourned Plaintiff Sol Tan's deadline to respond to the Class Action Defendants' motion to dismiss sine die pending the outcome of mediation; (2) denied as moot the Class Action Defendants' motion to stay discovery in light of the parties' agreement to stay discovery pending the outcome of mediation; and (3) directed the parties to (a) file a joint letter on or before February 7, 2025, indicating the date (not later than May 8, 2025) on which the mediation is scheduled to occur; and (b) within seven days after the mediation, either (i) file a joint letter indicating that settlement was reached; or (ii) file a revised proposed case management plan and a revised joint letter required by the court's Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. On February 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint letter notifying the court that they had agreed to mediate before Greg Danilow of Phillips ADR Enterprises. The parties conducted the private mediation on April 29, 2025; however, the parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation. Pursuant to the parties' so-ordered January 16 joint stipulation, on May 7, 2025, the parties filed a revised proposed case management plan and a revised joint letter in accordance with the court's Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. On the same day, the court endorsed the joint submission and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than June 2, 2025, and scheduled an initial pretrial conference for July 18, 2025. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff and fifteen other alleged purchasers of the Syndeo machines filed an amended complaint asserting: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349 (Count IV), the state consumer protection statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 350 (Count V), the state's false advertising statute; (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Count I); (4) breach of express and implied contract and class-wide rescission (Count II); and (5) breach of express warranty (Count III). The relief sought in the amended complaint includes monetary damages allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants' alleged violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349 and § 350. On June 23, 2025, Defendants moved to (i) dismiss Counts I, II, IV, and V in full; (ii) partially dismiss Count III to the extent it alleges design defects; (iii) dismiss all claims brought by plaintiff Jennifer Skuratov d/b/a Spa Thirsty in full; (iv) dismiss all claims against the Company in full; and (v) dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. The initial pretrial conference originally scheduled for July 18, 2025 has been adjourned to August 15, 2025. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consumer Class Action have no merit and Class Action Defendants intend to vigorously defend them. BEAUTY HEALTH: Sept. 17 Hearing on Bid to Junk PSLRA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Beauty Health Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a hearing is scheduled on for September 17, 2025, its motion to dismiss the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act lawsuit. On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown, Priscilla and Martjn Dijkgraaf, and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 17 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3). On January 31, 2024, Joseph Jou filed a notice of non-opposition to the Browns' and Dijkgraafs' motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2024, the court granted the Dijkgraafs' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the Dijkgraafs' counsel, Hagens Berman, as lead counsel. On July 1, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting the same causes of action as the original complaint. The Securities Class Action case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. On September 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on November 22, 2024, and the Company filed its reply brief on December 23, 2024. A hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 15, 2025. On January 10, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to adjourn the January 15, 2025 hearing. On January 17, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to withdraw briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling and to briefly stay proceedings so that the parties can complete a private mediation. The parties conducted the private mediation on March 27, 2025. The parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation. On April 16, 2025, the court so-ordered the parties' stipulation. On May 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On July 11, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. A hearing is scheduled on Defendants' motion for September 17, 2025. CANDYWAREHOUSE.COM INC: Hampton Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Candywarehouse.com, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10370 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.candywarehouse.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, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Candywarehouse.com 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. Yet, Candywarehouse.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. Candywarehouse.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Candywarehouse.com.[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 CAPITAL ONE: Faces Tollaksen Suit Over Deceptive Rewards Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF TOLLAKSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE, N.A.; WIKIBUY, LLC; AND WIKIBUY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01426 (E.D. Va., August 28, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged engagement in unlawful bait-and-switch scheme in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, Capital One offers its own type of tool -- Capital One Shopping -- which has attracted millions of users nationwide, with promises for exclusive deals, coupons, and better prices. Originally launched as Wikibuy, Capital One Shopping automatically scans thousands of retailers to find and apply the best available coupon codes at checkout. It also compares prices in real time, alerting users if a better deal is available from another seller, factoring in shipping costs and membership discounts. The suit alleges that Capital One Shopping operates as a bait-and-switch scheme wherein it promises rewards and incentives to consumers, but frequently and systematically fails to honor its promises. The rewards and incentives often never materialize -- despite a customer making a qualifying purchase -- and when they do, the so-called "rewards" are often for lower amounts than advertised, it adds. Plaintiff Tollaksen is one of millions of customers who used Capital One Shopping. The Defendants routinely did not credit to him rewards which he had earned, often failing to record legitimate transactions, providing a reward at a substantially lower rate than advertised, reducing his reward to zero, or even deciding, retroactively, that his purchase was ineligible for rewards, says the suit. Capital One Financial Corporation is an American bank holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry Coburn, Esq. COBURN, GREENBAUM & EISENSTEIN PLLC 1710 Rhode Island Avenue NW, 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 630-2844 E-mail: barry@coburngreenbaum.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. Daniel Schwartz, Esq. James Ulwick, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com julwick@dicellolevitt.com CAR WASH: Jacome Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------- OLIVERIO GOMEZ JACOME, on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. CAR WASH ON BROADWAY LLC dba CITI CAR WASH, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV25658 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked because Defendants had a policy and/or practice whereby they required and/or pressured Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to work under Defendants’ control while off-the-clock, including but not limited 24 to forcing or requiring Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to work while they were clocked out for their meal periods. Mr. Jacome was employed by Defendants as a Car 4 Washer, a full-time nonexempt position, from approximately June 2023 through the present day. The Defendant offers car wash services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bardia A. Akhavan, Esq. AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1720 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (855) 463-4733 E-mail: Bardia@baalaw.com CIOX HEALTH: Colfer Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathryn Colfer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 25CV007764-310 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court Division of Durham County, North Carolina, to the United States District Court for Middle District of North Carolina on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00792. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts various claims against Datavant and seeks to recover actual and compensatory damages, statutory damages, treble damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Datavant is liable for treble the amount of fees Plaintiff alleges were charged in excess of the Fee Statute under North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the "NCUTP"), and that Datavant is liable for statutory damages "in the maximum amount allowed by law" each instance in which Datavant has allegedly collected or attempted to collect the disputed fees under North Carolina's Debt Collection Act (the "Debt Collection Act").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mason Veal, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610 Charlotte, NC 28280 Phone: (704) 347-1170 Fax: (704) 347-4467 Email: mveal@burr.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Carmassi Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Giovanni Carmassi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04838 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07266-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dustin Lamm Schubert, Esq. Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Email: dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com aschubert@sjk.law The Defendants are represented by: Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2600 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6000 Fax: (650) 858-6100 COINBASE GLOBAL: Edlin Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Matthew Edlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01135 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07271-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2600 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6000 Fax: (650) 858-6100 COINBASE GLOBAL: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Miguel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04689 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07262-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Marc Poulin, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 The Defendants are represented by: Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2600 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6000 Fax: (650) 858-6100 COINBASE GLOBAL: McGuire Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher McGuire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04299 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07257-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore Walter Maya AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR (DC) 2600 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6000 Fax: (650) 858-6100 DBM GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hall Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DBM GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03175-DGC (d. Ariz., Aug. 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information, including names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, DBM Global has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite DBM Global's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's data, storage system and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about Nov. 12, 2024 (the Data Breach). The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept there. After DBM Global discovered the Data Breach on Nov 20, 2024, it conducted an investigation, which determined that some data may have been acquired on November 12, 2024. DBM Global is an industrial services company that provides steel fabrication, construction, and related services nationwide. 3. Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anasuya E. Shekhar, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: Anasuya@lcllp.com Jerry@lcllp.com Rob@lcllp.com DELUXE AUTO: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Proficient Auto Logistics 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's subsidiary, Deluxe Auto Carriers, continues to defend itself from a labor class suit in the Riverside County Superior Court in California. In May 2024, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit against Deluxe Auto Carriers, Inc., in Riverside County Superior Court in California. The lawsuit alleges class claims against Deluxe for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, non-compliant meal and rest periods, unreimbursed business expenses, and inaccurate wage statements, among other claims. A class settlement was reached for $400,000, in which Deluxe continues to deny liability. The settlement is subject to court approval processes, after which payment will be due, and is included within accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2025. The Company is entitled to indemnification from the sellers of Deluxe for the potential liability relating to this contingency. Deluxe Auto Carriers provides vehicle transport services. DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS: Rounds Sues Over Data Broker Software Use ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS ROUNDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08145 (C.D. Cal., August 28, 2025) arises from the Defendant's installation and use of a data broker software without obtaining consent which is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses data broker software on its website, https://www.ddiworld.com, to secretly collect data about Website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. Allegedly, the Defendant has partnered with at least one registered California Data Broker in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous visitors to the Website. The Defendant has done this by installing at least one Data Broker Software Development Kit on the Website. This is accomplished through "browser fingerprinting," a process by which Data Brokers are able to ascertain the identity of a website visitor by plotting hundreds of personal identifiers, including a user's geolocation, device information, identification and cross-referencing of malicious cookies installed on their devices, and other traits evident from a user's browser, says the suit. Development Dimensions International, Inc. is a global leadership consulting firm with a headquarters in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. AULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com ELECTROLUX GROUP: Chimicles Probes Defective Frigidaire Ovens ------------------------------------------------------------- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith is investigating potential class action claims concerning certain Frigidaire ovens whose outer glass door panels may spontaneously shatter without warning. Consumers have reported that the glass in the oven door may suddenly break at any time regardless of whether or not it is being actively used. These incidents often involve a loud popping sound followed by shattered glass scattering across the kitchen, creating a safety hazard for nearby individuals and pets. Several consumers who have gotten repairs or replacements often report reoccurrences of shattered glass breakage. If you own a Frigidaire oven and have experienced the glass on the oven door shattering or breaking unexpectedly, please fill-out the form provided below with details of your situation. [GN] FARMERS INSURANCE: Thomas Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. The case is styled as Richard Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Group, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-08248 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Farmers Insurance Exchange -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is one of the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com FLEET QUEST: Sept. 15 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAZMINE WALTON, JOHN WARLICK, and SHERROD HUTCHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLEET QUEST LOGISTICS, LLC, FLEET QUEST, L.L.C., and SN TRANSPORTATION LLC, Jointly and severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-00770-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Parties have stipulated and agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to Sept. 15, 2025. Fleet is a transportation and logistics trucking company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6y2AjR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack W. Schulz, Esq. SCHULZ GHANNAM PLLC 645 Griswold St Ste 4100 Detroit, MI, 48226 Telephone: (313) 788-7446 E-mail: jack@michiganworkerlaw.com - and - Kevin Ernst, Esq. Hannah R. Fielstra, Esq. ERNST LAW FIRM, PLC 645 Griswold, Ste. 4100 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-5555 E-mail: kevin@ernstlawplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Ronald G. DeWaard, Esq. Jeffrey D. Koelzer, Esq. VARNUM LLP 333 Bridge Street, NW, Suite 1700 Grand Rapids, MI 49504 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 E-mail: rgdewaard@varnumlaw.com jdkoelzer@varnumlaw.com FURNICHE LLC: Lucien Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR LUCIEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FURNICHE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07142 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the its website, https://www.furniche.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. On multiple occasions, including August 4, 2025, and August 5, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's website, using the NVDA screen-reading software. The Plaintiff sought to browse and purchase furniture, explore design services, and participate in promotional programs advertised to consumers in New York. Despite repeated attempts, the Plaintiff was unable to meaningfully engage with website offerings due to pervasive accessibility barriers. These barriers materially interfered with Plaintiff's ability to browse products, understand specifications, complete purchases, and access design services, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Furniche LLC is a national online furniture and interior design platform operated from its principal office in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. James, Esq. Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave. Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: Mjames@employeejustice.com jon@norinsberglaw.com GREENACRES NETWORK: Hernandez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenacres Network, LLC. The case is styled as Jorge Enrique Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Greenacres Network, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23938-BB (S.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Green Acres is an established commercial and residential landscape and grounds maintenance company serving the greater Indianapolis area since 1986.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett O. Berg, Esq. GARRETT BERG LAW, P.A. 555 NE 15th St., Ste. Ph. A Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 298-2253 Email: garrett@gberglegal.com - and - Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Phone: (561) 789-4413 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com HALAL GUYS: Hegazy Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED HEGAZY, SHRIEF SROR, RAMIZ SHEHATTA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. THE HALAL GUYS, INC., ALL 53 SW INC., NIGHT 53 SE INC., THE HALAL GUYS FRANCHISE INC., ALTAWHID FOOD SUPPLY INC., DAY 53 SE INC., ELSALAM ENTERPRISE INC., AHMED ELSAKA, ABDELBASET ELSAYED, MOHAMED ABOUELENEIN a/k/a MOHAMMED ABOUELENEIN, AHMED ABOUELENEIN, and ABDALLAH ABOUELENEIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-LAP-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying both the Spread of Hours Class and the Food Carts Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) defined as follows: The Spread of Hours Class defined as: "All individuals who worked as non-exempt employees at the Defendants' restaurant located at 720 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY and/or at their food carts in New York City between April 20, 2014 and April 1, 2021 (the "Class Period") and worked shifts where the spread of hours between the beginning and end of the individual's workday exceeded ten hours and for which the Defendants did not pay them spread of hours pay of an extra hour of pay at the basic minimum wage rate, excluding any immediate family member of the individual defendants (Ahmed Elsaka, Abdelbaset Elsayed, Mohamed Abouelenein A/K/A Mohammed Abouelenein, Ahmed Abouelenein, and Abdallah Abouelenein) and any individuals who released their NYLL claims against the Defendants in previous wage and hour settlements"; and The Food Carts Class defined as: "All individuals who worked as non-exempt employees at the Defendants' food carts in New York City between April 20, 2014 and Feb. 12, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and worked more than 40 hours in a workweek for which the Defendants did not pay them overtime pay for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek at the rate of one and one half times their regular hourly rate of pay and/or from whom Defendants improperly retained gratuities that customers intended to be paid to the Defendants' employees and/or to whom the Defendants did not provide proper section 195(1) wage rate notices and section 195(3) wage statements as required by the section 195 of the NYLL, excluding any immediate family member of the individual defendants (Ahmed Elsaka, Abdelbaset Elsayed, Mohamed Abouelenein A/K/A Mohammed Abouelenein, Ahmed Abouelenein, and Abdallah Abouelenein) and any individuals who released their NYLL claims against Defendants in previous wage and hour settlements"; (2) Appointing Named Plaintiffs Ahmed Hegazy and Shrief Sror as class representatives for each class; (3) Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; (4) Directing Defendants to provide class counsel with a list of members of the Spread of Hours Class and their last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses, and a separate list of members of the Food Carts Class and their last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses, within fourteen days of the grants of class certification; and (5) Authorizing dissemination of the proposed Spread of Hours Notice of Class Action to the Spread of Hours Class Members and dissemination of the proposed Food Carts Notice of Class Action to the Food Carts Class Members via U.S.P.S first class mail and via text message link to a website with the complete Notices of Class Action, and The Plaintiffs include WALED SOLTAN, AHMED ABOUELKHAIR, AHMED ABDELMONEIM, KHALED HASSAN, HOSSAM AHMED, ISLAM SOLIMAN, NASER DAKHLY, MOHAMED AHMDEIN, ABDALLAH ELBASUONY, AHMED AWD, AHMED ELBOHY, ALLEN ETI, HAKEEM HARUNA, HAMDY DESOUKY, HANY MOHAMED, JOANNA ROMERO, KARIM FAYED, KAVON BRERETON, MAHMOUD ELGANZOURY, MAHMOUD ELNAGAR, MAHMOUD ELNAHTAWY, MAHMOUD GOUDA, MOHAMED ESHIBA, MOHAMED HAMZA, MOUSTAPHA FALL, NDEYE SOUKEYE THIAM, PATRICIA MARQUEZ, SAEED ELNAGAR, SAMANTHA CORNELIUS, TAREK AHMED, YARIELIZ RIVERA, and YASSER FARES. Halal is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LVc3ex at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Harrison, Esq. Julie Salwen, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Kimmel, Esq. Mohammad Adil Yaqoob, Esq. AKERMAN, LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 880-3800 E-mail: jeffrey.kimmel@akerman.com HARD ROCK: Syla Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JETNIK SYLA and BESNIK BERISHA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., HARD ROCK HOTELS, INC., HR HOTEL NYC LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK HOTEL NEW YORK, NYY STEAK LLC, NYY STEAK MANHATTAN, LLC and KLAUBER PINTO, Case No. 1:24-cv-08247-JLR-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Granting conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), -- Mailing of a court-authorized notice to the putative collective action members, as well as such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Hard Rock provides hospitality services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iMmZ6k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Brown, Esq. Angela Kwon, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com akwon@bkllawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq. Sarah Wieselthier, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 400 Connell Drive, Suite 4000 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Telephone: (908) 516-1064 E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com swiesselthier@fisherphillips.com HEALTHCARE REVENUE: $500K Class Fund in Morales Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO MORALES, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08401-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James Clark entered an order granting final approval of the class action settlement as follows: As set forth in Section III of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants agree to pay $500,000 ("Class Fund") to the Settlement Class to be distributed in equal shares to the Remaining Class Members within 21 days from the date this Order is entered. For efforts on behalf of the Class and to settle individual claims, the Defendants shall pay $15,000 to the Plaintiff Alejandro Morales within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. The Defendant shall pay Class Counsel's fees and costs in the amount of $600,000, which payment includes costs and expenses (excluding the expenses of the Settlement Administrator), and time already spent. The Settlement Class was defined in the Settlement Agreement as: "All consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom, from Dec. 2, 2014 to Dec. 2, 2015, the Defendant sent a collection letter; which letter (a) was seeking to collect a consumer debt on behalf of creditor EMER PHY ASSOC N JERSEY; and (b) was sent in a window envelope such that the barcode was visible from outside the envelope which a smartphone could scan to reveal an IRN and the first ten characters of the recipient's street address." Healthcare provides collection services to health care sector. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FDXZvB at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Harold Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05004 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 31, 2025), is brought arising from 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 behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (“PII” or “Private Information”) that was impacted in a cyber incident (the “Data Breach” or the “Breach”). On October 7, 2024, Defendant learned of potential unauthorized access to certain computer systems. Upon learning of the activity, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant’s investigation determined that an unauthorized actor may have accessed and copied certain files on Defendant’s computer systems between September 27, 2024, and October 3, 2024. As a result, Defendant conducted a review of the files involved to determine whether they contained sensitive information and to whom the information relates. On August 25, 2025 – more than 10 months after becoming aware of the Data Breach - Defendant issued a public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letters (“Notice”) to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals’ Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach contained highly sensitive data, representing a gold mine for data thieves. The data included, but is not limited to, Social Security numbers, that Defendant collected and maintained on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a national provider of housekeeping, dining, and nutrition services within the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com INDEX EXCHANGE: Baker Sues Over Unlawful Data-Sharing Arrangement ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INDEX EXCHANGE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10517 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged dangerous and unlawful data-sharing arrangement between a Canada-based advertising platform that conducts extensive business in the United States and a foreign adversary of the United States. According to the complaint, Defendant Index Exchange knowingly and systematically transmitted sensitive user data intercepted from U.S. websites to Temu, an e-commerce platform owned and operated by a Chinese-founded parent company with deep ties to China and widely reported links to its intelligence apparatus. In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice implemented the Data Security Program, a national security initiative codified at 28 C.F.R. Part 202 (the "Bulk Sensitive Data Rule" or "BSD Rule") pursuant to Executive Order 14117. In direct violation of the BSD Rule, Index Exchange, through its automated advertising infrastructure, transmits U.S. user data to Temu. Temu receives this data in real time as part of its participation in Index Exchange’s ad delivery system. Temu has come under increasing scrutiny from regulators and members of Congress over concerns that its data practices may facilitate surveillance by the Chinese government. Investigators have even warned that Temu may operate as a conduit for state directed data collection targeting U.S. residents, says the suit. Index Exchange is a global advertising supply-side platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ovca, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: movca@edelson.com INSTANT CHECKMATE: Clark Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Clark, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Instant Checkmate, LLC, Intelius LLC, Truthfinder, LLC, Case No. 25CU023563C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02724-MDB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Instant Checkmate -- https://www.instantcheckmate.com/ -- is a public records search service.[BN] ITS LOGISTICS: Court Recommends Approval of Proposed Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH GUTHRIE, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00729-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean recommends as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion to preliminarily certify the settlement class and approve the parties proposed settlement be granted. 2. The following class be conditionally certified: "All current and former truck drivers who resided in California and who were employed by the Defendant and paid on a piece rate basis (e.g., per day or per mile) at any time during the period of March 1, 2019, through June 28, 2024 (the Class Period). 3. The Plaintiff's PAGA Claims be conditionally approved for settlement purposes only as representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act under California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. on behalf of the following: "All current and former truck drivers who resided in California and who were employed by the Defendant, ITS Logistics, LLC and paid on a piece rate basis (e.g. per day or per mile) at any time during the period of March 9, 2020, through June 28, 2024 (the PAGA Period). 4. The Plaintiff Keith Guthrie be appointed as the class representative. 5. The Plaintiff's counsel Brian Mankin and Misty Lauby be appointed as class counsel. 6. The proposed class notice be approved, with corrections to the typographical errors, and then be disseminated according to the notice plan described in the parties' settlement agreement. a. Specifically, the notice states as follows: "Up to one- third of the Settlement Amount to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees ($137,500) and up to $27,000 for their litigation expenses." This notice should be corrected to read, "Up to one-quarter of the Settlement Amount to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees ($137,500) and up to $27,000 for their litigation expenses." b. Also, the notice shall omit the language requiring a person to provide the "last four digits of your social security number." The complaint alleged that, in connection with the Defendant's employment of the Plaintiff and other truck drivers, the Defendant violated California employment and unfair-and unlawful competition laws. The Defendant provides logistics solutions. A copy of the Court's recommendations dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HCKLpD at no extra charge.[CC] JOINT LOGISTICS: Triplett Balks at Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Triplett, Marquis Cannon, and Jessie Logan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated former employees, Plaintiffs v. Joint Logistics K7 Incorporated d/b/a Joint Logistics K7, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00137-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss., August 28, 2025) is a class-action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other employees for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act which requires employers to give 60 days' notice prior to a plant closing or 60 days' pay. The Defendant notified the Plaintiffs and all employees on July 22, 2025, that their last date of work would be on or around July 27, 2025. More than 200 employees were impacted by this mass layoff. According to the complaint, no reason was provided to the employees for this decision. The Defendant violated the WARN Act by failing to give the Plaintiffs and other class members 60 days' notice of the plant closing. The Defendant also breached its contract with the Plaintiffs and other members of the class by failing to pay accrued vacation and paid time off in violation of Mississippi state law, says the suit. Joint Logistics K7 Incorporated is a freight service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip C. Hearn, Esq. HEARN LAW FIRM, PLLC PO Box 5009 Jackson, MS 39296 Telephone: (662) 766-7777 Facsimile: (662) 524-3530 E-mail: philip@hearnlawfirm.net K.K.C. SHOPPING CENTER: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Garcia, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. K.K.C. SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-04124 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 31, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Saltgrass Steakhouse, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access. As such, Plaintiff is dissuaded from returning back to the Property as a customer until after the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. K.K.C. SHOPPING CENTER, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Texas and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com KRISTI NOEM: Bangstad Sues Over Unconstitutional Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Kirk C. Bangstad, and others similarly situated v. Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, The Department of Homeland Security, and United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement, Case No. 3:25-cv-00733 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 31, 2025), is brought arises from the unconstitutional and unlawful practices of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in conducting civil immigration enforcement operations in Wisconsin. ICE officers have repeatedly carried out “raid-style” arrests in residential neighborhoods and public spaces, arriving not as identifiable law enforcement but as heavily armed soldiers. The Constitution does not grant ICE the authority to terrorize communities through the use of military-style raids for civil immigration enforcement. Unlike combat zones such as Fallujah or Kandahar, where such tactics might be expected, ICE is not engaged in warfare. ICE is enforcing civil immigration violations, not pursuing armed insurgents. Yet its officers storm neighborhoods as though they are combatants in a foreign conflict, despite the reality that their targets are often elderly men and women, mothers with small children, or lawful residents mistakenly swept into dragnet operations. These raids are particularly alarming because ICE officers conduct them without proper insignia or identification. Residents cannot discern whether the masked and heavily armed figures approaching their homes are legitimate government agents, criminal impostors, or vigilantes. This lack of accountability not only violates constitutional protections but also places the public in immediate danger, as people confronted by masked and unidentified armed men may act to defend themselves or their families As a direct result, Wisconsin residents endure a climate of fear that suppresses civic life. Parents hesitate to attend school functions, neighbors avoid community meetings, and congregants fear gathering for worship, because they cannot be sure masked and unidentified ICE officers will not descend without warning. This pervasive fear chills core First Amendment freedoms, discouraging speech, association, and the ability to petition government for redress of grievances. The constitutional injury is ongoing and irreparable, as the right to participate in civic life loses meaning when exercised under the shadow of armed and anonymous raids, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Dane County, Wisconsin. United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet-level agency of the United States government headquartered in Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick B. Melms, Esq. MELMS LAW 219 S. Main St. Eagle River, WI 54521 Phone: (715) 892-3023 Email: Frederick@melmslaw.com KRISTI NOEM: L.G.M.L. Sues Over Unlawful Removal from the US ------------------------------------------------------------ L.G.M.L., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; L.M.R.S., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; M.O.C.G., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; H.L.E.C, address omitted per LCvR 5.1; T.A.C.P., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; M.F.A.P.V., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; L.F.M.M., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; G.A.B.B., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; A.R.M.D., address omitted per LCvR 5.1; and M.Y.A.T.C. 1, address omitted per LCvR 5.1, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated by and through their next friend v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02942 (D.D.C., Aug. 31, 2025), is brought as an emergency complaint accompanied by a request for a temporary restraining order on behalf of hundreds of Guatemalan children at imminent risk of unlawful removal from the United States. The Plaintiffs are 10 unaccompanied minors whom Defendants are seeking to remove from the United States in clear violation of the unambiguous protections that Congress has provided them as vulnerable children. The Plaintiffs have active proceedings before immigration courts across the country, yet Defendants plan to remove them in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Constitution. On August 29, 2025, several media outlets reported that Defendants are planning to imminently remove hundreds of Guatemalan unaccompanied minors to Guatemala. Although Congress requires that unaccompanied minors be in the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) and permits their removal only in specific circumstances provided by statute, Defendants are imminently planning to illegally transfer Plaintiffs to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody to put them on flights to Guatemala, where they may face abuse, neglect, persecution, or even torture, against their best interests, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are 10 unaccompanied minors from Guatemala between the ages of 10 and 17. The Defendant Kristi Noem is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is a cabinet-level department of the United States government.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hilda Bonilla, Esq. Efren Olivares, Esq. Lynn Damiano Pearson, Esq. Kevin Siegel, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 1101 14th Street, Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (213) 639-3900 Fax: (213) 639-3911 Email: bonilla@nilc.org olivares@nilc.org damianopearson@nilc.org siegel@nilc.org LANGDON & COMPANY: Grimes Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Grimes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP, Case No. 4:25-cv-00159-FL (E.D.N.C., Aug. 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated Langdon customers’ private information including, but not limited to: name, Social Security number, date of birth, address, taxpayer identification number, financial account numbers, medical information, health insurance information and digital signatures (the “Private Information”) from hackers. On August 1, 2025, Langdon announced that it had experienced a data breach in which the sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information in its’ care may have been compromised. Langdon’s announcement states that Defendant initially became aware of the discovery of such unusual activity on approximately April 28, 2024, and launched an investigation to determine the nature of the incident thereon. Under state law, organizations must report breaches involving sensitive personal information within 60 days of breach discovery and Langdon waited over one year later to report the breach well over the deadline legally required of Defendant. On August 20, 2025, Langdon also sent out data breach letters (the “Notice”) to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice, Langdon detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on approximately April 28, 2024. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files between “April 21-28, 2024,” as Langdon vaguely states within the body of their letter (the “Data Breach”). Yet, Langdon waited exactly 1-year and 3 months later (479 calendar days – over 400 days past the legal deadline) to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and “Class Members” had no idea for over a year and three months that her Private Information had been compromised, and that she was, and will continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for Plaintiff’s respective lifetime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Langdon & Company, LLP., based in Garner, NC is an accounting firm that serves more than 46,000 individual and/or business customers in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212)532-1091 Email: dmsith@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Agrees to Settle Quebec Class Suit for $11MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that Lightspeed Commerce Inc. has agreed to pay $11 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in Quebec that alleged the company misrepresented its financial performance. The proposed settlement agreement reached in June does not include any admission of liability by the company which denied the allegations of any wrongdoing. The lawsuit was brought in 2021 by shareholders after Lightspeed shares fell following a critical short seller report by Spruce Point Capital Management. A similar lawsuit in the U.S. was dismissed earlier this year. Lightspeed said at that time that the allegations had no adequate legal basis and that the decision was a victory for the company. A Quebec Superior Court will be asked to approve the settlement at a hearing set for Nov. 21 in Montreal. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 3, 2025. [GN] LIONHEART EQUITIES: Continues to Defend Stanley Class Suit in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MSP Recovery 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’s subsidiary, Lionheart Equities LLC, continues to defend itself from the Stanley class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On May 7, 2025, Lionheart Equities, LLC, the sponsor of Lionheart Acquisition Corporation II, and certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), Stanley v. Lionheart Equities, LLC, No. 2025–0505–LWW (Del. Ch. filed May 7, 2025) (the "Shareholder Litigation"). The complaint alleges fiduciary-duty breaches and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants intend to vigorously defend their position in the Shareholder Litigation. As the Shareholder Litigation is in preliminary stages, and the nature of litigation outcomes is inherently uncertain, it is the opinion of the Company’s management, based upon the information available at this time and the stage of the proceedings, that it is not possible to determine the probability of loss or estimate of damages, and therefore, the Company has not established a reserve. Lionheart Equities, LLC is a diversified investment firm.[BN] LOUIS VUITTON: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Miamen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ EMMANUEL MIAMEN and TIFFANY HAWES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07183 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other individuals similarly situated against LVNA for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. On July 2, 2025, LVNA became aware that an unauthorized third party previously gained access to LVNA's information technology systems (same occurring on June 7, 2025). The unauthorized third party accessed information containing PII of LVNA's customers, including Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, LVNA owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. LVNA breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or contracting with companies that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect customers' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. The Plaintiffs and the Class will have to incur costs to pay a third-party credit and identity theft monitoring service for the rest of their lives as a direct result of the data breach, alleges the suit. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. is a global luxury brand that markets and sells a variety of products, including leather goods, apparel, footwear, watches, jewelry, accessories, and eyewear.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martha A. Geer, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: mgeer@brysonpllc.com - and - Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7896 E-mail: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com hbryson@brysonpllc.com sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com LOUIS VUITTON: Godinez Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. The case is styled as Anabel Godinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07280 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Louis Vuitton North America -- https://eu.louisvuitton.com/ -- offers fashion and leather goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Samuel Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Damico Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Angelica Damico, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. LULIFAMA.COM, LLC, MY LULIBABE, LLC, EARTH, SEA & WEAR, LLC d/b/a LULIFAMA, ORLANDO BATHING SUIT, LLC d/b/a EVERYTHING BUT WATER, CINDY PRADO, MICHELE SOEL, LAURA MARGESIN, LINDSEY VAN DER HOEVEN, ALEXIS BELBEL, and JESS HULL, Case No. 2025L008727 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10487. On this basis, Plaintiff brings claims for: violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; violations of consumer protection laws of various states; unjust enrichment under Illinois law; unjust enrichment under California law; violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act; violations of California's Unlawful Business Practices Act; and negligent misrepresentation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan H. Claydon, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 360 North Green Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: (312) 456-8400 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 Email: claydonj@gtlaw.com MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matrix Medical Network, LLC. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Matrix Medical Network, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-04101 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Matrix Medical Network -- https://www.matrixmedicalnetwork.com/ -- provides expert care and health services to millions of at-risk individuals anywhere that's convenient.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED 539 W. Commerce St., Ste 1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (972) 767-9099 Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Royalties Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- McGraw-Hill 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 McGraw-Hill Education Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated royalties breach class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2021, and February 2021, two purported class actions were filed against McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company's refined methodology for calculating royalties breaches the terms of its author agreements and breaches McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.'s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs subsequently consolidated their claims in a single complaint. In May 2021, McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. In January 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim but denied McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the breach of implied covenant claim. In September 2022, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their breach of implied covenant claim and in October 2022, filed an appeal on the Court's granting of McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s motion to dismiss their breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In November 2024, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further adjudication on one element of the breach of contract claim. The issue of class certification remains open. Discovery in the District Court proceeding has concluded. McGraw Hill Education, Inc. intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Court in the late second or early fiscal third quarter of fiscal year 2026. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result from the litigation and will continue to assess these conclusions as the litigation progresses. McGraw-Hill Education publishes educational materials. MCLAREN HEALTH: First Amended Complaint Filed in Wehrle Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Joyce Wehrle, Yvette Griffin, Alice Kleinschmidt have filed an amended complaint with jury demand against McLaren Health Care Corporation, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute to add new parties to the case. Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, directed the Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint by Sept. 8, 2025. On May 14, 2025, Wehrle filed this putative class action against McLaren, alleging that McLaren disclosed her personally identifiable information and protected health information to third-parties without her consent. McLaren filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). While McLaren raises several bases for its motion, one of its arguments is that Wehrle has failed to plead sufficient facts in support of at least some of her claims under the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Without expressing any view regarding the merits of the motion, the Court granted Wehrle the opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint in order to remedy the alleged deficiencies in her allegations. The Court does not anticipate allowing Wehrle another opportunity to amend to add factual allegations that she could now include in a First Amended Complaint. Judge Leitman said this is Wehrle's opportunity to amend her allegations to cure the alleged deficiencies in her claims. With the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the Court terminated McLaren's pending motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot. McLaren may file a renewed dispositive motion directed at the First Amended Complaint if it believes that such a motion is appropriate after reviewing that pleading. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4u6z5yua from PacerMonitor.com. MICALIOR LLC: Alvear Sues Over Unlawful Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Alvear, on behalf of others similarly situated v. MICALIOR, LLC, d/b/a GOOD LIFE SPA BOUTIQUE, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 6:25-cv-01664 (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://goodlifespaboutique.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical health spa. Defendant also sells to the public its treatment packages through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's health spa treatment packages that are also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical health spa. 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 health spa offering and selling various services and treatment packages.[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 MICHIGAN: Court Approves Class Settlement in Mental Health Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Honigman, legal counsel appointed by a federal court to represent a class of Michigan children and young adults with mental health disorders, lauded the court's approval on August 27, 2025, of a landmark settlement agreement in D.D. v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (formerly titled K.B. v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services) that requires sweeping reforms to the state's Medicaid behavioral health system for children and young adults under age 21. The agreement resolves a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Medicaid-eligible children with intensive mental and behavioral health care needs who were denied the services they needed in their homes and communities. The families sought injunctive relief to require the state to provide the medically necessary mental health services children are entitled to under federal law. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2018, alleging that Michigan violated the Medicaid Act's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) mandate requiring the State to ensure that children and young adults under age 21 receive all medically necessary care. The class action lawsuit, the settlement agreement, and the Court's decision approving the agreement and retaining jurisdiction to enforce it, were also based on the US Supreme Court's landmark Olmstead decision, which held that persons with disabilities have a "right to live in the world" and participate in community life. The lawsuit also alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Due Process guaranteed by the US Constitution. The settlement agreement requires the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) to make comprehensive systemic reforms, including: -- Ensuring statewide timely access to medically necessary intensive home and community-based services for children with significant behavioral health needs; -- Establishing a standardized eligibility and assessment process so that children are identified and connected with services consistently and equitably; -- Improving data collection and oversight to track timeliness and adequacy of services and outcomes; -- Implementing continuous quality improvement measures to sustain progress; and -- Demonstrating the capacity to provide medically necessary mental health services before the State of Michigan may exit from monitoring and supervision by Class Counsel and the Court. The settlement agreement establishes a five-year target date for implementation of the systemic reforms. Prior to the full enactment of the reforms contemplated by the settlement agreement, children with mental health disorders remain entitled to medically necessary mental health care. At the hearing, Class Counsel Honigman offered profuse thanks to Gov. Gretchen Witmer, MDHHS, and the many attorneys from the Michigan Atty. Gen.'s staff that worked on the case. Honigman expressed gratitude to US District Court (Eastern District of Michigan) Judge Thomas Ludington and Kelly Winslow, Judge Ludington's case manager and staff attorney, for "patiently monitoring the progress of the parties and helping to guide us on our journey." Honigman concluded his presentation to the Court by stating: "I have always believed that the most incredible thing about miracles is that they happen. The settlement before you is a miracle that has indeed happened." Co-counsel Gerard Mantese, at Mantese Honigman, PC states: "I conceived of this case 8 years ago with the goal of helping people who are struggling with obtaining medical care under the Medicaid system. I'm proud of what we achieved and confident that this settlement will provide needed care to tens of thousands of families." Class Counsel Honigman encouraged families experiencing problems obtaining services to contact him by email at KBSettlement@drmich.org or by phone at 248-457-9200, extension 2050. If journalists have questions or wish to discuss the lawsuit, please feel free to contact Mr. Honigman by email at dhonigman@manteselaw.com or by phone at 248-330-2962 (cell phone) or 248-457-9200 (law office). [GN] MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Fraundorfer Suit Removed to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sarah Fraundorfer, on behalf of herself, her minor child, I.F., and all others similarly situated v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. JO-2025-CV-001869 was removed from the District Court of Johnson Couty, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02503. The Plaintiff alleges that MAPS failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines. Additionally, the Plaintiff allege that MAPS failed to comply with HIPAA Guidelines.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Iskandarova Suit Removed to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Mukhlisa Iskandarova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mid America Physician Services, LLC, Case No. JO-2025-CV-001818 was removed from the District Court of Johnson County, KS, Civil Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Aug. 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02504 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Mid America Physician Services -- https://www.midamericaphysicians.com/ -- is a healthcare company that provides infertility, gynecology, and hysterectomy treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM, LLP - KANSAS CITY 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 460-5843 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: O.S. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as O.S. and F.C., individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2516-CV23113 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for Western District of Missouri on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00685-RK. The Plaintiffs alleges that MAPS failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines. Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that MAPS failed to comply with HIPAA Guidelines.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Oakes Suit Removed to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Susan Oakes, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. JO-2025-CV-001833 was removed from the District Court of Johnson Couty, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02507-TC-TJJ. The Plaintiff alleges that MAPS failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines. Additionally, the Plaintiff allege that MAPS failed to comply with HIPAA Guidelines.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Roth Suit Removed to D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chelsea Roth, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. JO-2025-CV-001803 was removed from the District Court of Johnson Couty, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02509-JAR-TJJ. The Plaintiff alleges that MAPS failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines. Additionally, the Plaintiff allege that MAPS failed to comply with HIPAA Guidelines.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 26 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL J. ZIMMERMAN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge William P. Kelly entered an order granting joint motion to amend scheduling and trial setting. A Jury Trial shall begin on May 17, 2027, at 9:00 AM before United States District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa. Trial is estimated to take 10 days. A Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on April 7, 2027, at 10:00 AM at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa, before Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger. The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification and any supporting declarations or evidentiary submissions shall be on or before Sept. 26, 2025. The deadline for the Defendant's resistance to the motion for class certification and any supporting declarations or evidentiary submission shall be on or before Jan. 23, 2026. The deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be on or before April 24, 2026. The Mediation deadline agreed to the parties is May 5, 2026. Discovery shall be completed by Oct. 13, 2026. Dispositive motions shall be filed by Oct. 23, 2026. Any resistance(s) to the dispositive motions must be filed by Dec. 7, 2026, and replies must be filed by Jan. 8, 2027. Midland is a privately held, life insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5DWYye at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Wickham Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Wickham, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00924 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07265-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MORRIS HOSPITAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.36M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that Morris Hospital & Healthcare Centers has agreed to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit that alleged negligence for failing to prevent an April 2023 data breach that affected 248,943 individuals. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Morris Hospital will establish a $1,361,571.77 settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees, legal expenses, and benefits for the class members. In April 2023, Morris Hospital identified unauthorized access to its network. Hackers had access to the personal and protected health information of current and former patients, employees, and their dependents and beneficiaries. The Royal ransomware group was behind the attack and posted the stolen data on its data leak site. Several class action lawsuits were filed in response to the data breach, which were consolidated into a single lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Grundy County, Illinois -- In re: Morris Hospital Data Breach Litigation. In addition to negligence, the lawsuit asserted claims of negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Morris Hospital denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, while the plaintiffs believe the claims have merit. All parties agreed to a settlement, which was viewed as being in the best interests of all parties considering the risks and costs of continuing with the litigation. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final fairness hearing is scheduled for October 24, 2025. Benefits for class members will be paid after all costs and expenses have been deducted from the settlement fund, which includes up to $453,857.26 for attorneys' fees, $2,000 service awards for each of the 13 named plaintiffs, and yet to be determined settlement administration costs, and attorneys' expenses. All class members may submit a claim for 24 months of comprehensive credit monitoring and identity theft protection services through CyEx Medical Shield Total. In addition, class members may choose to submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. If a claim for losses is not submitted, class members may instead claim a pro rata cash payment, which is expected to be approximately $100, depending on the number of claims received. Further information can be found on the settlement website: https://www.morrishospitalsettlement.com/ Individuals wishing to object to or be excluded from the settlement have until September 29, 2025, to do so, and all claims must be submitted by October 28, 2025. [GN] MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Tax Foreclosure Settlement Reaches $3.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Oregon's largest County has reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit on behalf of former owners whose properties were sold at tax sales. Many former owners, heirs, and valid lienholders are now eligible to claim surplus funds generated after their properties were sold at tax foreclosure auctions. The lawsuit, Lynch, et al. v. Multnomah County, et al. pending in federal court in Portland, Oregon, alleges that Oregon Counties' practice of retaining surplus proceeds obtained in a tax sale above the amount of the taxes owed was a "taking" of the owners' property in violation of the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions. Under the settlement agreement between Multnomah and the Plaintiff Class, the county is paying all surplus proceeds it has received since 2017, plus interest, into a settlement fund to pay valid claims of all owners, heirs of deceased owners and valid lienholder interests. The Class Members will be able to complete claim forms online, or by mail. The total amount of the Settlement Fund is $3,515,759.25. The lawsuit was filed in October, 2023, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Tyler v. Hennepin County, a case involving a Minnesota County, that it is an unconstitutional "taking" for a municipality to retain any proceeds of the tax sale in excess of the taxes, fines or costs owed. The Plaintiffs in the Lynch case seek to recover tax surplus from all Oregon Counties. Only Multnomah County has entered into a settlement. The federal district court has authorized notice to be provided to the class members and will hold a hearing on November 10, 2025 to determine if the settlement should receive final approval. The information in the court approved notice to the Class Members including all deadlines is attached. The Plaintiff Class is represented by the law firms of Fink Bressack in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, Chartered, LLP in Portland, Maine and Sugerman Dahab in Portland, Oregon. Kroll Settlement Administration has been appointed to administer the settlement claims process. [GN] MUTUAL HOUSING: Filing for Summary Judgment Extended to Sept. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rasheida Alston. v. Mutual Housing Association of New York Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02080-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order granting one additional week to file motion for summary judgment. The parties jointly propose the following deadlines: 1. The Defendants to file their motion for summary judgment: Sept. 16, 2025 2. The Plaintiff to file her opposition to the Defendants' motion: Oct. 21, 2025 3. The Defendants to file their reply in support of their motion: Nov. 4, 2025. MHANY is a nonprofit housing management organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MB44QR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 NANO NUCLEAR: Continues to Defend Yang Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nano Nuclear Energy 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 Yang securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 9, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Yvette Yang v. Nano Nuclear Energy Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-06057 (S.D.N.Y.). On October 28, 2024, the court entered an order appointing Hongyu Xie as lead plaintiff. On January 6, 2025, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Jay Yu, James Walker, and Jaisun Garcha. The amended complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities from May 8, 2024 through July 30, 2024. The claims in the amended complaint relate to statements made by the Company and/or its directors or officers concerning its business and prospects, including our progress toward development of nuclear microreactors and fuel manufacturing facilities. On February 21, 2025, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On February 24, 2025, the court sua sponte entered an order permitting lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint or stand on her amended complaint. On March 14, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, asserting the same claims asserted in the amended complaint. On April 11, 2025, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing on the motion has not been scheduled. The Company disputes the allegations in the amended complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously. The case is at an early stage and it cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from the lawsuit. NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. is an early-stage, pre-revenue nuclear energy company developing portable clean energy solutions. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Patterson Balks at Competition Eligibility --------------------------------------------------------------- LANGSTON PATTERSON, YILANAN (ISSA) OUATTARA, CHAD MAURICE (CJ) TAYLOR JR., QUINCY SKINNER JR., BRAYDEN SCHAGER, BERNARD (BJ) HARRIS JR., JOHN (JOHNNY) LUETZOW, HENRY STEWART, JAKOB RUSSELL, AND TIMO LEGOUT, on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00994 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 2, 2025) is class action lawsuit on behalf of an Injunctive Relief Class and a Lost Opportunity Damages Class of Division I college athletes challenging the NCAA's unreasonable restrictions that arbitrarily cut short college athletes' ability to compete. According to the complaint, for almost fifty years, the NCAA has enforced a rule providing Division I college athletes with a five-year window to exhaust their competition eligibility (the Five-Year Rule). However, within those five years, the NCAA limits college athletes to competing in only four seasons of intercollegiate competition (the Four Seasons Rule) and otherwise dictates that a college athlete may use the fifth year only to compete in team activities without, or with limited, participation in intercollegiate competition (the Redshirt Rule). By operation of the Four Seasons Rule and the Redshirt Rule, Division I college athletes are denied the opportunity to fully use the five-year eligibility window that the NCAA itself prescribes. The Rules therefore have the unjustifiable effect of suppressing athletic careers, limiting college athletes' institutional mobility, and unlawfully restraining the market for college athletes' services, asserts the suit. The NCAA's Rules force college athletes to the sidelines not because of injury, misconduct, or academic ineligibility, but because of an arbitrary, anticompetitive cap imposed by the governing body itself. The Plaintiffs seek relief under federal law to strike down these unreasonable restraints and vindicate college athletes' rightful opportunity to compete throughout their eligibility window. The Plaintiffs do not challenge the concept of a defined eligibility period or the NCAA's Five-Year Rule itself. Rather, they challenge the NCAA's additional restrictions that arbitrarily limit college athletes' competitive opportunities. Specifically, the Four Seasons Rule, when combined with the so-called Redshirt Rule, functions not as a reasonable eligibility boundary but as an anticompetitive device, the suit adds. The "Injunctive Relief Class" is defined as: "All NCAA Division I college athletes who first enrolled in college in the fall of 2022 or beyond who (i) have not taken a redshirt year, and (ii) will have at least one of their five years of eligibility available for the 2026-27 academic year." This Class excludes NCAA officers, directors, and employees. This Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action. The "Lost Opportunities Damages Class" is defined as: "All NCAA Division I college athletes who first enrolled in college no earlier than the fall of 2020 and no later than the spring of 2022, who (i) did not take a redshirt year, and (ii) whose four-seasons of eligibility was extinguished by application of NCAA Bylaw 12.6 at the conclusion of the 2023-2024 season (for Spring sports) or 2024-2025 season (for all sports)." This Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a self-described unincorporated, not-for-profit, educational organization founded in 1906, and maintains its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. The NCAA is the governing body of college sports. The NCAA includes more than 1,100 member colleges and universities throughout the United States, including institutions in the Middle District of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Downton, Esq. THE TEXAS TRIAL GROUP 875 Carr 693, Ste. 103 Dorado, PR 00646 Telephone: (512) 680-7947 E-mail: Ryan@TheTexasTrialGroup.com - and - Salvador Hernandez, Esq. Milton S. McGee III, Esq. RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 West End Ave. Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 320-3700 Facsimile: (615) 320-3737 E-mail: shernandez@rjfirm.com tmcgee@rjfirm.com - and - JoAnna B. Adkisson, Esq. Christopher P. Wilson, Esq. Erik T. Koons, Esq. Bridget Moore, Esq. Michael A. Munoz, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 700 K Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-7700 E-mail: joanna.adkisson@bakerbotts.com christopher.wilson@bakerbotts.com erik.koons@bakerbotts.com bridget.moore@bakerbotts.com michael.munoz@bakerbotts.com NATIONAL GRID: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA CONSTANTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10500-AK (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, up to and including Sept. 5, 2025. This is the Defendant's second request for an extension of time to respond to the motion for class certification. No party will be prejudiced by the Defendant's motion. The Plaintiff assents to the Defendant's motion. On July 29, 2025, the Plaintiff Laura Constantine filed a motion for class certification. On Aug. 8, 2025, the Defendant requested an assented-to extension to Aug. 28, 2025 to investigate, evaluate, and respond to the arguments and finalize its response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. National distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VULfTF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq. Alexa M. Esposito, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: ckaczmarek@littler.com aesposito@littler.com NEW YORK, NY: Holmes Class Suit Seeks Back Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HOLMES, et al. v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-07231 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2025) is a class action seeking declaratory judgment, back pay and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant's violation of the FLSA as it fails to properly calculate the regular rate of pay upon which Plaintiffs' overtime rate is based as well as fails to pay overtime compensation in a timely manner. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, who work or have worked in the position of Motor Vehicle Operator (MVO). The Plaintiffs include VIKKI RIVERA, MANSUR AFTAB, RAUL BARRIENTOS, ANGEL BATISTA, CHRISTOPHER BEATTY, CALVIN BROWN, RICHARD BROWN, JOSEPH BURKE, THURMAN BURKE, CARLOS CABRERA, WARNER CANAAN, LUIGI CARRASCO, JEFFREY CHAN, RENAUD CHERY, BRIAN DAVIS, LORETO DE OCAMPO, JOHN DECESARE, LUZ DELVALLE, JAMES DILLON, HASIM DJENCIC, HERMAN ELIAS, JUAN ESQUINA, ABUNAYIM FOURKAN, EDWIN GUTIERREZ, JOSEPH HOWELL, WILLIAM JIMENEZ, KENDRA KEARNEY, PHILISA LINYARD, MICHAEL MAMAKAS, SEAN MATTHEWS, NATHANIEL MCMILLON, GIUSEPPE MESORACA, DIONYSIOS MESSARIS, BERNELLE MITCHELL, IGOR MORDKOVICH, GREGORY OLSZEWSKI, HERMAN PAUL, ANTHONY PINCKNEY, PETE RICHARDS, ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ, LUIS RODRIGUEZ, ELIZABETH ROQUE, MIKHAIL RUDASHEVSKIY, EDWARD SCHUBERT, MOHANLALL SHANKER SYLVESTER SHULER, KWOK KEUNG SIN, JAGPREET SINGH, KENNETH SMITH, MARKEN SULLY JOSE URENA, and JOSEPH YNOA. The Defendant is a Public Benefit Corporation under the state laws of New York and, among other things, a juridical entity amenable to suit under the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com esprotzer@spivaklipton.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com NISSAN NORTH: Settlement Conference in Johnson Due April 1, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERIDA JOHNSON, SUBRINA SEENARAIN, ANNA WALL, SANDRIA SMITH, LINDA SPRY, and LISA SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00517-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order extending time of deadlines: Event Deadline Deadline for Nissan to depose Mr. Gaskin March 2, 2026 and Mr. Weir on their executed damages model: Last day to hold settlement conference April 1, 2026 or private mediation: Hearing on class notice: April 1, 2026 Close of discovery: June 15, 2026 Last day for dispositive motions to be June 24, 2026 heard; such motions shall be filed in time to comply with this deadline: Pretrial conference and hearing on motions Aug. 31, 2026 in limine and jury instructions: Trial (Estimate Three Weeks): Sept. 28, 2026 Nissan operates in the automotive industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VUDkv9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 facsimile: (865) 533-0049 E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Amir M. Nassihi, Esq. Ryan Sandrock, Esq. Holly Pauling Smith, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com rsandrock@shb.com hpsmith@shb.com - and - Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com NORDSTROM INC: Ayala Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mark Ayala, individually, and on behalf of members of the general public and the putative class members similarly situated v. NORDSTROM INC., a Washington State corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01497014-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08256. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains ten causes of action for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages at termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Phone: (858) 677-1400 Fax: (858) 677-1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com - and - Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 3203 Hanover St., Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1123 Phone: (650) 833-2000 Fax: (650) 833-2001 Email: stephen.taeusch@us.dlapiper.com - and - Andrea O. Bergam, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 303 Colorado Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 457-7000 Fax: (512) 457-7000 Email: andrea.bergam@us.dlapiper.com NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 8, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buescher v. North American Lighting Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02076 (C.D. Ill., Filed April 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order as follows: -- Deadline for Plaintiff's motion for Jan. 8, 2026 class certification shall be: -- The Plaintiffs expert reports shall July 30, 2026 be served 30 days after fact discovery has been completed, or: -- The Defendants' expert reports shall Sept. 14, 2026 be served 45 days after Plaintiff serves his expert reports, or: -- The Plaintiff's rebuttal expert reports, Sept. 28, 2026 if any, shall be served 14 days after Defendants serve their expert reports, or: -- Deadline for expert discovery shall Oct. 28, 2026 be 30 days after Plaintiffs rebuttal experts are served, or: -- Deadline for dispositive motions shall Dec. 11, 2026 be 45 days after expert discovery has been completed, or: The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). North is a producer of innovative automotive lighting systems.[CC] NORTH CAROLINA: Fact Discovery in Doe Suit Due Oct. 13 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00017-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: 1. The motion to modify and extend certain case management deadlines is granted and the case management deadlines are modified and extended as follows: a. Completion of fact discovery on Oct. 13, 2025; b. Expert reports by the Plaintiffs due Nov. 3, 2025; c. Expert reports by the Defendants due Dec. 1, 2025; d. Any rebuttal expert reports due Jan. 5, 2026; and e. Completion of expert discovery/overall discovery on Jan. 26, 2026. f. Dispositive motions are due as required by LR 56.1. g. The parties should not wait for a decision to complete discovery. NC Department of Public Safety is North Carolina's statewide public safety and homeland security agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=350Pje at no extra charge.[CC] NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $8.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Nuance Communications has agreed to pay an $8.5 million settlement to resolve multidistrict litigation over a May 2023 data breach involving third-party file transfer service MOVEit. The Nuance data breach settlement received preliminary approval from United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs on August 14, 2025. The deal covers a class of approximately 1,225,054 individuals in the United States whose personal information was included in the files impacted by the MOVEit data breach, which occurred between May 27 and May 31, 2023, as it related to Nuance. To receive benefits from the deal, eligible class members must submit a timely, valid claim form by mail or online through the Nuance class action settlement website once it is launched. According to the 11-page preliminary approval order, consumers will have until December 24, 2025 to file a Nuance settlement claim form. As part of the deal, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive two years of medical data monitoring, credit monitoring and identity theft protection services at no cost, the settlement agreement says. In addition, consumers may file a claim for reimbursement of up to $2,500 per person for "ordinary" monetary losses that were incurred as a result of the data breach and are supported by documentation, the agreement shares. Court documents state that qualifying expenses may include bank fees, phone or data charges, postage, gas, credit monitoring or identity theft insurance costs, and other miscellaneous expenditures. As part of this benefit, class members can also make a claim for up to four hours of lost time spent remedying issues related to the incident, at a rate of $25 per hour, the settlement agreement adds. Furthermore, the agreement relays that consumers may submit a claim form for reimbursement of up to $10,000 for documented "extraordinary" losses that were "more likely than not" caused by the incident and occurred between May 31, 2023 and the claims deadline. Qualifying losses include expenses that have not been reimbursed and are not covered by the aforementioned benefit, the document says. Extraordinary losses may include those related to fraud or identity theft, professional fees (lawyers, accountants, etc.) and fees for credit repair services. Alternatively, class members may forgo reimbursement of ordinary or extraordinary losses in favor of a pro-rated cash payment of up to $100, the agreement shares. The final payout amount will depend on how many valid claims are filed, court documents note. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the Nuance settlement at a hearing on March 31, 2026. Settlement payments will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal is ultimately OK'd by the court and becomes final, the agreement says. According to the lawsuit against Nuance, the artificial intelligence software company was one of thousands of MOVEit clients impacted by the cyberattack. The Nuance data breach lawsuit asserted that the incident exposed individuals' names, details of radiology studies, medical providers, dates of service, facility names, Social Security numbers and other confidential data. Court documents point out that litigation is still ongoing against MOVEit's licensor, Progress Software Corporation. [GN] ONE FLAGLER: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohan, and others similarly situated v. ONE FLAGLER F&B TENANT LLC, d/b/a ESTIATORIO MILOS, Case No. 9:25-cv-81082-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of discriminative property. The Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and others who are similarly situated by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as prohibited by the ADA, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises in the near future and avail himself to the services offered at the Premises when Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities. The Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination. The Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited the Premises and has been denied full and safe equal access to the facilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. The Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and/or lessor of the Real Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Weiss, Esq. WEISS LAW GROUP, P.A. 5531 N. University Drive, Suite 103 Coral Springs, FL 33067 Phone: (954) 573-2800 Email: Jason@jswlawyer.com OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Outlook Therapeutics 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 securities class suit dismissal motion is pending before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On November 3, 2023, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the Company's BLA during the period from August 3, 2021 through August 29, 2023. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose that there was an alleged lack of evidence supporting ONS-5010/LYTENAVA as a treatment for wet AMD and that the Company and/or their manufacturing partner had deficient CMC controls for ONS-5010/LYTENAVA, which remained unresolved at the time the Company's BLA was re-submitted to the FDA and, as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company’s BLA, and that the Company's stock price dropped when such information was disclosed. The plaintiffs in the class action complaint seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees. On June 25, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint in its entirety. On February 6, 2025, the court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their second amended class action complaint. On April 23, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss is currently pending before the court. About Outlook Therapeutics Headquartered in Iselin, New Jersey, Outlook Therapeutics -- www.outlooktherapeutics.com -- is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of ONS-5010/LYTENAVA (bevacizumab-vikg; bevacizumab gamma), for the treatment of retina diseases, including wet AMD. LYTENAVA (bevacizumab gamma) is the first ophthalmic formulation of bevacizumab to receive European Commission and MHRA Marketing Authorization for the treatment of wet AMD. Outlook Therapeutics is working to initiate its commercial launch of LYTENAVA (bevacizumab gamma) in the EU and the UK as a treatment for wet AMD, expected in the first half of calendar 2025. In the United States, ONS-5010/LYTENAVA is investigational, is being evaluated in an ongoing non-inferiority study for the treatment of wet AMD, and if successful, the data may be sufficient for Outlook to resubmit a BLA to the FDA in the United States. If approved in the United States, ONS 5010/LYTENAVA, would be the first approved ophthalmic formulation of bevacizumab for use in retinal indications, including wet AMD. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based KPMG LLP, the Company's auditor since 2015, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated Dec. 27, 2024, citing that the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows from operations and has an accumulated deficit, that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. As of Sept. 30, 2024, Outlook Therapeutics had $28.82 million in total assets, $101.90 million in total liabilities, and a total stockholders' deficit of $73.08 million. PRODRIVERS WEST: Cortes Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN CORTES, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRODRIVERS WEST, INC., a Georgia corporation doing business as PRODRIVERS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-02451-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 180-day extension of his motion for class certification deadline or an extension that the Court otherwise finds reasonable under the circumstances. The Plaintiff's efforts to meet the Court's deadlines, even in the face of the Defendant's relentless campaign of delay, distraction, and downright bad faith, have been stymied not by the Plaintiff's lack of diligence, but by the Defendant's efforts to stonewall discovery. As a direct consequence of Defendant's repeated refusals to provide discovery and the uncompromising stance of its counsel, the Plaintiff seeks emergency relief from the Court in the form of a one hundred and eighty (180) day extension of the Motion for class certification deadline. ProDrivers is a truck driver services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdgsUh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Calyn V. Hadlock, Esq. Laurel N. Holmes, Esq. Sareen K. Khakh, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com calyn@tomorrowlaw.com laurel@tomorrowlaw.com sareen@tomorrowlaw.com PROFESSIONAL SECURITY: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Security Consultants. The case is styled as Jose Diaz Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Security Consultants, Case No. 25STCV25522 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Professional Security Consultants -- https://www.pscsite.com/ -- is a Service-Oriented Organization, whose primary duty is to protect and serve the general community.[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 PUBLIX SUPER: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23916-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 supermarkets, including the supermarket Plaintiff patronized and intended to patronize in Cutler Bay, 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 numbers. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff visited and sought to patronize and purchase Defendant's goods from its supermarket located in Cutler Bay. 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 QUANTUM COMPUTING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Quantum Computing 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 securities class suit in the New Jersey District Court. On February 25, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and past officers in the New Jersey District Court, by a plaintiff seeking to represent a class of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between March 30, 2020 and January 15, 2025, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information about the Company's customers, contracts and business operations. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages plus attorney's fees and costs. In June 2025, the New Jersey District Court designated a lead plaintiff who is required to file an amended complaint by August 26, 2025. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted including bringing a motion to dismiss the operative complaint, and does not believe it is necessary to accrue a litigation reserve at this time. Quantum Computing Inc. designs and develops application software. The Company offers hardware designing, application development, security support, and consultancy services. [BN] RB GLOBAL: McGinnis Construction Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as McGinnis Construction Co., Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB Global, Inc., Rouse Services LLC, United Rentals Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Herc Rentals Inc., H&E Equipment Services Inc., Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00873 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10496 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RB Global -- https://rbglobal.com/ -- is your trusted global partner for insights, services, and transaction solutions for commercial assets and vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (651) 287-2100 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com - and - Steven L. Seligman, Esq. KATZ & SELIGMAN 130 Washington St. Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: (860) 547-1857 Email: SSeligman@KatzandSeligman.com RCOFIII SPEC-FIN: Faces Goetting Suit Over Illegal Usury Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GOETTING, KIMBERLY WEBB, TERRI EDGELL, and KIMBERLY CHILDS, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, v. SAMUEL ADRIAN SPRATT, RCOFIII SPEC-FIN CREDIT 1, LLC, R&R SPE LLC, JAMIE AZURE, CRAIG LUNDAY, KENNY MALATERRE, JON JON KEPLIN, RON TROTTIER SR., ELMER DAVIS JR., LYNN GOURNEAU, CHAD COUNTS, BLAINE DAVIS, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1-15, Case No. 1:25-cv-00794 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendants have continued to originate new loans, which impose triple digit interest rates in blatant violation of usury laws despite the settlement in Turner Case. According to the complaint, five years ago, a federal court granted final approval a nationwide class settlement that created a common fund of $18.5 million and canceled $170 million dollars of illegal loans originated in the name of BlueChip Financial d/b/a Spotloan (Spotloan). Turner v. ZestFinance, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-293, Final Approval Order at Dkt. 114 (E.D. Va. July 9, 2020). The complaint asserts that non-tribal payday lenders and third-party funders wishing to use this model to circumvent state legal prohibitions on usurious lending go searching for a small, easily dominated tribe that will be willing to serve as the consumer-facing façade for the usury scheme, in return for receiving a small portion of the revenue generated and, often, some call-center jobs. The tribal entity playing this role serves as the nominal lender for the purpose of enabling the non-tribal actors running the operation to make the dubious and legally incorrect claims that (a) the loans are subject only to tribal law, not the protections created by state usury and licensing laws, and (b) that they themselves are somehow vicariously protected by the tribe's sovereign immunity. Samuel Adrian is a natural person and resident of California. He is the CEO of Mikinok Enterprises, which also goes by the name BlueChip Financial -- the entity that owns and operates Spotloan. RCOFIII Spec-Fin Credit 1, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company based in South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. Blossom Law, PLLC 126 N. McDowell St., 2nd Floor Charlotte, NC 28204 E-mail¨rblossom@blossomlaw.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com READING INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Berryman VPPA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading International 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 the from Berryman class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company is a defendant in two actions asserting putative class action claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"): Berryman v. Reading International, Inc. (1:24-cv-00750-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)) ("The Berryman Case"). The plaintiffs allege that the Company is a video tape service provider and knowingly disclosed plaintiff's movie purchase and video-viewing habits to third parties in violation of the VPPA. Berryman also asserts claims under the NY Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4) (the "NY Statute") which regulates the disclosure requirements applicable to ticketing service charges and provides a right to recover "actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater." Only limited case law exists as to claims regarding the VPPA, a federal statute enacted in 1988. Insofar as it has been able to determine, no case in the U.S. has resulted in an adverse VPPA judgment against a motion picture exhibition company on facts substantially similar to its own. Further, except as discussed below, the precedent that does exist suggests that theaters with websites selling tickets to showings at physical locations are not video tape service providers under the statute, even if they operate websites to sell tickets. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the Berryman claims under Federal rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be provided. The District Court in Berryman denied the Company's motion, but only on the basis that all of the allegations in the Berryman complaint were assumed to be true including allegations as to knowledge. The determination by the Berryman Court at the pleadings stage that a motion picture exhibitor can be a video tape service provider is inconsistent with decisions by U.S. District Courts for the Central District and Northern District of California, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Carolina. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these VPPA claims, and that there are also material issues to class certification. Reading International owns and operates cinemas and develops, owns, and operates real estate assets. READING INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend VPPA Valentini Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Reading International 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 Valentini class suit In the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The Company is a defendant in two actions asserting putative class action claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"): Daniel Valentini and Dallace Butler v. Reading International, Inc (2:24-cv-00255-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.)) ("The Valentini Case"). The plaintiffs allege that the Company is a video tape service provider and knowingly disclosed plaintiff's movie purchase and video-viewing habits to third parties in violation of the VPPA. Valentini and Butler also allege violation of a parallel state statute (California Code section 1799.3 (the "California Statute")). Only limited case law exists as to claims regarding the VPPA, a federal statute enacted in 1988. Insofar as it has been able to determine, no case in the U.S. has resulted in an adverse VPPA judgment against a motion picture exhibition company on facts substantially similar to its own. Further, except as discussed below, the precedent that does exist suggests that theaters with websites selling tickets to showings at physical locations are not video tape service providers under the statute, even if they operate websites to sell tickets. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the Valentini claim under Federal rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be provided. The Valentini motion is on hold, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of a trial court decision which the Company believes, if affirmed, will likely result in the dismissal of the Valentini case. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these VPPA claims, and that there are also material issues to class certification. Reading International owns and operates cinemas and develops, owns, and operates real estate assets. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Junks Bid to Stay Venet Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIK VENET, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03772-MWC-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order denying stay of case pending resolution of the pleadings and continuance of deadline to file motion for class certification and dates for trial. Recreational is an American retail and outdoor recreation services corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sRXhqo at no extra charge.[CC] RICHLINE GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hampton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Richline Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10322 (N.D. Ill., August 28, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the its website, https://www.silpada.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiff made an attempt to complete a silver hoop earrings purchase in the Defendant's website. However, she faced accessibility problems that made the process difficult upon completing the purchase. She asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Richline Group's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Richline Group, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of sterling silver and plated jewelry, such as rings, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and pendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ROUSE SERVICES: Conspires to Fix Equipment Prices, Signs Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SIGNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUSE SERVICES LLC; RB GLOBAL, INC.; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10278 (S.D. Iowa, April 29, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who rented construction equipment directly from a Defendant or co-conspirator from March 31, 2021 through the present, in the nationwide construction equipment rental market, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the artificially high rental price for construction equipment is a direct result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Specifically, the Equipment Rental Company Defendants2 have been using Rouse Service to coordinate their equipment rental pricing and inflate or maintain their equipment rental rates at artificially high level to maximize their profits. The Defendants' conspiracy has benefited themselves, who are reporting record profits in recent years, to the detriment of Plaintiff and other renters of construction equipment. The Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the Equipment Rental Company Defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to a common entity – Rouse Service. By acting collectively through Rouse Service, the Equipment Rental Company Defendants and their co-conspirators eliminate competition among themselves, the suit asserts. RB Global, Inc., a public company, traded on the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges, provides transaction solutions for buyers and sellers of commercial assets and vehicles worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Jon A. Tostrud , Esq. Anthony M. Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com RUGSUSA LLC: Filing for Class Certification in Carrell Due Dec. 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carrell v. RugsUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00454 (D. Or., Filed March 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amy M. Baggio entered an order setting the following case schedule: -- Deadline to substantially complete Oct. 31, 2025 discovery related to class certification is: -- Close of fact discovery on issues Dec. 8, 2025 related to class certification is: -- Motion for class certification and Dec. 8, 2025 deadline to disclose class certification expert reports is: -- Opposition to motion for class Jan. 20, 2026 certification and deadline to disclose responsive class certification expert reports is: -- Reply to motion for class Feb. 27, 2026 certification is: The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. RugsUSA provides flooring products.[CC] SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY CORREA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA'), v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAFELITE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-02558-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Bristow entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to modify initial scheduling order: Event Date Deadline to file motion for class April 3, 2026 certification: Deadline to file opposition to motion May 15, 2026 for class certification: Deadline to file reply in support of June 19, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: July 9, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Oct., 30, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 29, 2026 Dispositive motion hearing cut-off: Feb. 12, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference: Mar. 24, 2027 Jury Trial: Apr. 26, 2027 Safelite is engaged in the retail sale of paint, glass, and wallpaper. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3oDo5q at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT RESTAURANTS: Roque Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Restaurants, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mei Roque, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Select Restaurants Inc. d/b/a Parker's Lighthouse and Queensview Steakhouse, a California corporation, Case No. 25STCV25432 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Select Restaurants, Inc. -- https://selectrestaurants.com/ -- owns and operates some of the country's finest restaurants, ranging from fine waterfront dining to family-friendly restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: Jason@tomorrowlaw.com SELF REGIONAL HEALTHCARE: Knight Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michelle Knight, Joshua Wesley, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Self Regional Healthcare, Case No. 2025-CP-24-00748 was removed from the Greenwood County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-11936-TMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Self Regional Healthcare -- https://www.selfregional.org/home/ -- is a comprehensive healthcare system based in the Lakelands area of South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com The Defendant is represented by: Ernessa Brawley McKie, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP (ATL) 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 256-8421 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com SHOEBACCA LTD: Faces Hampton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shoebacca, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10323 (N.D. Ill., August 28, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the its website, https://www.shoebacca.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiff made an attempt to complete an atheletic shoe purchase on Shoebacca.com. As she tried to navigate the website and complete her purchase, she encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed. She had difficulties to navigate through the Filter-menu, due to the fact that elements from collapsed submenus received focus, making her navigation overwhelming. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Shoebacca's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Shoebacca, Ltd. operate the website that offers footwear, apparel, and accessories including boots, clogs, sandals, slippers, T-shirts, jackets, pants, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SIMMONS UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unauthorized Access to Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW WEISS; the TRUSTEES OF SIMMONS UNIVERSITY; SIMMONS UNIVERSITY; and KEFFER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12599-MAG (D. Mass., August 28, 2025) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others who have been subjected to an unlawful breach of privacy, stemming from former University of Michigan and Baltimore Ravens coach Matthew Weiss' unauthorized access of athletic trainer databases maintained by a third-party vendor, Keffer Development. Between 2015 and January 2023, Defendant Weiss gained unauthorized access to databases used by athletic trainers at more than 100 colleges and universities, some of which were maintained by Defendant Keffer, a third-party vendor contracted by these colleges and universities. Defendant Weiss primarily targeted female college athletes. He researched and targeted these women based on their school affiliation, athletic history, physical characteristics, and sexual preferences, says the suit. According to the complaint, students and alumni connected to Simmons University from 2015 to 2023 -- many of them student-athletes -- seek justice for the unauthorized access and misuse of personal information, which is an abuse so severe that students and student-athletes across the nation are now receiving formal notification from the U.S. Department of Justice that their private information, including intimate photos and videos, have been exposed, including Plaintiff Jane Doe. This action is brought to hold the Defendants accountable for failing to protect their students from alleged foreseeable harm. Simmons University is a school incorporated in Massachusetts with its principal place of business in Boston. Simmons University was Simmons College and renamed Simmons University in or around 2017. Trustees of Simmons University are sued in their official capacity as Trustees of Simmons University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paula S. Bliss, Esq. Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC 210 Washington Street North Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 Facsimile: (285) 278-0287 E-mail: paula@justicelc.com kim@justicelc.com - and - Megan Bonanni, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. Beth M. Rivers, Esq. Danielle Y. Canepa, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER BONANNI & RIVERS 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonnani@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com dcanepa@pittlawpc.com - and - Lisa M. Esser, Esq. Richard L. Groffsky, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Matthew G. Curtis, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: lesser@sommerspc.com rgroffsky@sommerspc.com jthompson@sommerspc.com mcurtis@sommerspc.com - and - Ryan Clarkson, Esq. Bryan Thompson, Esq. Timothy Giordano, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 471-2599 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com tgiordano@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com SLT LENDING: Court Awards $183K Atty's Fees to Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN BAKER, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SLT LENDING SPV, INC. d/b/a SUR LA TABLE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00190-GSL-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Gretchen S. Lund entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlement, attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards; and -- entering final judgment and dismissal. 1. The Court grants final approval of the appointment of M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, APC; Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; Kathleen A. Delaney of Delaney and Delaney LLC; and Mason Barney and Tyler Bean of Siri and Glimstad LLP. as Class Counsel; 2. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. The Court awards Class Counsel $183,333.33 in attorneys' fees and $2,797.49 for the reimbursement of litigation expenses, to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement of expenses is fair and reasonable. The Court also approves service awards of $2,000.00 each for the three (3) Class Representatives. 3. The Court grants final approval of the appointment of Brian Baker, Luann Petrulakis, and Jamelah Elder as class representatives. 4. The Court certifies the following Class and Subclass for settlement purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), subject to the Settlement Class exclusions set forth in the Settlement Agreement: Class: "All individuals to whom the Defendant sent notice of the Data Incident on or around May 24, 2023." California subclass: "All California residents to whom the Defendant sent notice of the Data Incident on or around May 24, 2023." The Settlement Class specifically excludes (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this Settlement; and (iii) any other person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. The Defendant is a privately-held retail company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2YU1B0 at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN COMPANY: Tobias FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Geoffrey Tobias, individually and for others similarly situated v. The Southern Company, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-02244 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00202-JRH-BKE to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Southern Nuclear -- https://www.southernnuclear.com/ -- is an award-winning leader among the nation's nuclear energy operators, running eight units for Alabama Power and Georgia Power.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson Richard J. Burch Travis Grefenstette JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com rburch@brucknerburch.com tgrefenstette@mybackwages.com - and - Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street NE, Ste. 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW APC 6309 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 111 Van Nuys, CA 91411 Phone: (323) 285-3161 Email: whogg@mybackwages.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Michael McKinley, Esq. Kevin Michael Young, Esq. Lennon Haas, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 704-9665 Email: amckinley@seyfarth.com kyoung@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com - and - Kyle Donald Winnick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, Floor 31 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 218-5510 Email: kwinnick@seyfarth.com SPECTRUM CENTER: Zamora Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Audriana Zamora, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SPECTRUM CENTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2503847 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02286. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class for alleged violations of California law, including: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and violations of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Kevin J. Bohm, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com kevin.bohm@morganlewis.com SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Partly Wins Bid for Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MORRISON and DALLAS MORRISON, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SPINNAKER INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00324-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as to Count I (breach of contract—class action/non-material depreciation). 2. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to Count II (breach of contract—individual claim independent and separate from Count I and unrelated to non-material depreciation). 3. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to Count III (declaratory judgment and relief—class action/non- material depreciation). This is an insurance case involving the alleged underpayment of storm damage claims. The Plaintiffs owned a residence and related structures in Howe, Texas, insured under a homeowners policy issued by the Defendant for the period of Oct. 25, 2020, through Oct. 25, 2021. On May 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs submitted a claim for hail, lightning, and other weather-related damages resulting from an April 28, 2021, storm. The Defendant initially paid $35,902.32 on the claim, but the Plaintiffs asserted entitlement to $280,311.12 in benefits, creating a purported shortfall of $244,408.80. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly depreciated labor and other non-material costs when adjusting their claim, thereby underpaying benefits. Spinnaker is a national property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7eh8a4 at no extra charge.[CC] SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Appeals Court Compels Arbitration in BIPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Heryka Knoespel and Mary C. Zinsner of Consumer Financial Services report that in a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court reversed a district court's ruling and compelled arbitration in the case of Massel v. Successfulmatch.com dba Millionaire Match. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff consumer received reasonably conspicuous notice of the Service Agreement (containing the arbitration clause), to which the plaintiff assented by checking the box required for account creation and continued use of the website. Background The plaintiff initiated a putative class action lawsuit against the dating service, alleging that it unlawfully collected and disclosed biometric information, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The dating service sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in its Service Agreement, which the consumer had agreed to when creating his account. The district court initially denied this motion, leading to an appeal. Appellate Decision The Ninth Circuit's decision centered on whether the dating service provided "reasonably conspicuous notice" of its arbitration agreement, a key factor in determining the enforceability of online contracts. The court applied an "inquiry theory of notice," which requires two elements for contract formation: Reasonably Conspicuous Notice: The website must clearly inform users of the terms they are agreeing to. Manifestation of Assent: Users must take an action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that clearly indicates their agreement to the terms. The test takes into account both the visual design of the webpages and the context of the transaction, which should be considered together. The dating service's website looked like this: The court found that the dating service's website design and user flow provided adequate notice of the Service Agreement, including its arbitration provision. The court further explained that despite the hyperlinks not being in a contrasting color or capitalized, the website clearly required users to review and agree to the terms before accessing the service. "'That the links [to the Service Agreement and Privacy Policy were] not blue . . . or capitalized does not undercut' a conclusion that Millionaire Match provided 'reasonably conspicuous notice' by using uncluttered visuals, with only a single, unrelated phrase in bold, to tether account creation and use of the website to the user's review of, and consent to, the Service Agreement. The account creation screen was not 'crowded' with extraneous visuals, and the requirements to review and agree to the Service Agreement were in 'the natural flow of [the user's] actions.'" Our Take The ruling underscores the importance of clear and conspicuous presentation of terms in online agreements, particularly arbitration clauses. The court highlights that while visual design is important, the overall context, content, and user experience are crucial in determining whether users are adequately informed. The decision also reinforces the principle that courts should avoid rigid, one-size-fits-all rules when evaluating online contract formation. Instead, they should consider the specific circumstances of each case. [GN] SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Faces Class Suit Over Online Gambling Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Stake.us operates an online gambling scheme in violation of Minnesota law. According to the 26-page lawsuit, the online games of chance run by Sweepsteaks Limited, which does business as Stake.us, do not fall within Minnesota's strict legal gambling allowances, which essentially include only "charitable gaming." Per the case, lawful gambling in the state is limited to the operation of bingo, paddlewheels, tipboards, raffles and pull-tabs run by licensed non-profit organizations in physical locations owned or leased by the organization and with supervision from on-site gambling managers. The lawsuit alleges that Stake is not licensed to operate charitable gaming in Minnesota and has failed to adhere to "hundreds of other regulations," including the requirement that the profits from gambling games be used for charitable donations, venue repairs or a limited number of other lawful purposes. In order to participate in Stake.us games, per the lawsuit, players must purchase and wager with one of the website's two proprietary virtual currencies -- Stake Cash or Gold Coins. While Gold Coins are exclusively an in-game credit, Stake Cash can be exchanged for cryptocurrency, which has been defined as money by federal courts because it can be easily exchanged for U.S. currency, the complaint writes. Nevertheless, Stake.us deceptively advertises itself as a social casino, where casino-style games are played purely for fun and not for monetary gain. Although it is possible to obtain Stake Cash without making a purchase, the complaint claims that players' main method of acquiring the virtual currency is through purchases of Gold Coins bundled with Stake Cash, where the dollar cost of the Gold Coins is "practically equal" to the amount of Stake Cash bundled in the purchase. The lawsuit argues that this effectively constitutes a purchase of Stake Cash, and that a purchase of either Stake Cash, Gold Coins or both is the only way for players to continue to play Stake.us' games. Players' ability to purchase Stake Cash with real currency and then exchange their Stake Cash winnings for real currency renders Stake.us' "social casino" and "free to play" advertisements false and misleading and renders its platform an illegal gambling scheme in violation of a host of Minnesota statutes and regulations, the filing contends. "It is obvious that Players buy Stake Cash to gamble with as a proxy for real currency, which makes it indistinguishable from gambling with poker chips at a casino, where a person exchanges U.S. Dollars for casino chips at a 1-to-1 ratio and can later exchange those chips for U.S. Dollars," the complaint states. According to the suit, Stake.us does not disclose anywhere, even in its list of "excluded territories," that its platform is illegal in Minnesota, further deceiving unwitting Minnesota-based players. The plaintiff says he spent over $80,000 on Stake Cash between April 2023 and February 2025 and is currently in recovery for gambling addiction. Per the suit, although the plaintiff had previously gambled before using Stake, his addiction "never got as out of control" due to Minnesota's anti-gambling regulations. The Stake class action lawsuit seeks to represent all Minnesota residents who, within the applicable statute of limitations, have paid and lost money, cryptocurrency or other items of value on Stake.us. [GN] SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Operates Illegal Online Gambling, Thomas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY THOMAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED, d/b/a Stake.us, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00136-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss., August 28, 2025) is brought by Plaintiff seeking damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief individually on behalf the other Class members, each of whom are Mississippi residents who have paid and lost money or other things of value on Stake.us. Stake owns and operates a popular, casino-oriented Internet gaming website called www.stake.us. Stake is not registered or licensed to operate in Mississippi. It does not operate to promote or market another product or service; stake.us is the product or service. According to the complaint, Stake lets people play online casino games and wager real money while defying the state's constitutional prohibition against gambling, offering inadequate player protections, exploiting adolescents, and siphoning revenue from this state. In Mississippi, a game is chance-based, not skill-based, when more chance is involved in the outcome than skill. Stake operates an illegal gambling website (Stake.us) wherein participants pay consideration for the chance to win a prize, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek an order declaring that (1) Stakes.us is illegal gambling in Mississippi and (2) any authority under which it purports to operate is illegal, as well as a permanent injunction enjoining Stakes from operating Stakes.us in Mississippi, with disgorgement of profits. Sweepsteaks Limited, d/b/a Stake.us, is a sweepstakes casino company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronnie Musgrove, Esq. David S. Humphreys, Esq. MUSGROVE, WHITWELL & HUMPHREYS, PLLC 265 N. Lamar Blvd., Suite C Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 273-8424 E-mail: musgrove@mwhlawoffice.com david@mwhlawoffice.com TOPPOINT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Labor Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Toppoint 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 the Rodriguez and Rodriguez labor class suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County. On January 12, 2024, two drivers, Rainey Mejia Rodriguez and Frank Santana Rodriguez (the "plaintiffs"), filed a class action lawsuit against Toppoint Inc, and certain other parties, including Hok C. Chan, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, alleging misclassification of truck drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals who provided services in New Jersey from January 2018 through the date of the complaint. The complaint asserted violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, including claims of unlawful wage deductions and failure to pay overtime. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, treble and/or liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief, without specifying a dollar amount of damages. On July 27, 2024, August 26, 2024, and November 22, 2024, the Court issued multiple orders dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. Upon a motion to reinstate the case filed on January 15, 2025 by the plaintiffs, the Court reinstated the case on January 31, 2025. On May 1, 2025, Toppoint Inc filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and a motion hearing was held on July 3, 2025. On June 6, 2025, the court dismissed the case without prejudice against Mr. Hok C. Chan for lack of prosecution. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company does not believe there is a probable and estimable loss as of June 30, 2025. Toppoint Holdings Inc. is a truckload services and solutions provider focused on the recycling export supply chain. TPUSA INC: Katsnelson FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Robert Katsnelson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situation v. TPUSA, Inc. doing business as: Teleperformance, Case No. 9:25-cv-80277 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07272-MMG to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. TPUSA, Inc. doing business as Teleperformance -- https://www.tp.com/en-us/ -- serves as a strategic partner to the world's largest companies in a wide variety of industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 - and - David Labkowski, Esq. LABKOWSKI LAW, P.A. 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (786) 461-1340 Email: david@labkowskilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ena Teresa Diaz, Esq. Loren Myles Korkin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1 SE 3rd Ave., Ste. 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 577-7600 - and - Veronica T. Hunter, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 93 Red River Street, Suite 1150 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 362-7100 TRANS UNION: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------- Terry Brown, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10435 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 31, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated customers’ (“Class Members,” as defined infra) sensitive personally identifiable information, including their names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth (“PII”). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On July 30, 2025, Defendant discovered a data breach that had occurred in an application connected to its vendor Salesforce on July 28, 2025, exposing the PII of 4.5 million of Defendants’ U.S. customers (“Data Breach”). The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members’ PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant’s negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers’ sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their PII in connection with receiving services from Defendant. The Defendant is one of the nation’s “big three” consumer credit reporting agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Goldberger Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is styled as Yechiel Goldberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02453 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. -- https://tsico.com/ -- is a leading technology enabled BPO partner providing receivables management, customer care, back office support and consumer loan servicing.[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 ULTA SALON: Minson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Minson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as ULTA BEAUTY; ULTA BEAUTY CREDIT SERVICES CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation doing business as ULTA BEAUTY; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21904-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01675. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of the following putative class (the "Class"): All current and former employees of Ulta who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from July 28, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class. On behalf of herself and the Class, Minson seeks $5,000 in statutory damages per putative class member, based on allegedly being restricted from having additional jobs, supplementing income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed, all in alleged violation of RCW 49.62.070.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. Per D. Jansen, Esq. Lauren S. Titchbourne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com per.jansen@ogletree.com lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com UNILEVER UNITED: Argueta Sues Over Drink Mix Oversized Packaging ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA ARGUETA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a LIQUID I.V., Case No. 2:25-cv-08260 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2025) alleges that to increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, the Defendant deceptively sells its products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are over half empty in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to its 0.56-ounce "Lemon Lime Electrolyte Drink Mix" product sold in individual sticks inside opaque containers (the Product). The Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and consumers have, accordingly, suffered injury in fact caused by the false, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading practices set, and seek injunctive relief, as well as, inter alia, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The Defendant manufactures and sells the popular line of hydration electrolyte products throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com UNITED AUTO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ferrara Due Dec. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferrara, et al., v. United Auto Supply of Syracuse, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00337 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order extending schedules and deadlines as follows: (1) The parties shall file a joint detailed status report by Oct. 17, 2025, regarding status and progress of discovery. (2) The Plaintiffs shall file any class certification motion by Dec. 16, 2025. (3) The Plaintiffs expert disclosure deadline is Nov. 17, 2025. (4) The Defendants expert disclosure deadline is Dec. 29, 2025. (5) Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is Jan. 13, 2026. (6) Deadline for completion of all discovery, including merits, class, all depositions, is Feb. 17, 2026. (7) Dispositive motions shall be filed by April 16, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). United distributes automotive parts and accessories. [CC] US VENTURE INC: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yair Castaneda Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US VENTURE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG03106 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00752. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay all wages; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to permit rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide recovery periods; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; waiting time penalties; violations of the Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James D. Miller, Esq. Joice B. Bass, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7060 N. Marks Avenue, Suite 108 Fresno, CA 93711 Phone: (559) 825-8510 Fax: (559) 570-0323 Email: james.miller@ogletreedeakins.com joice.bass@ogletreedeakins.com VITAL IMAGING: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Garcia Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VITAL IMAGING DIAGNOSTIC CENTERS, LLC D/B/A VITAL IMAGING MEDICAL DIAGNOSITC CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 230619154 (Fla Cir., Miami Dade Cty., Sept. 2, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information of current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach, says the suit. On Feb. 13, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed and acquired certain files and data stored within Defendant's network. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the Data Breach was discovered, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com WALL TO WALL: Flores Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yovanik Flores, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALL TO WALL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as VEEV; LENNAR CORPORATION, a Delaware stock corporation; JUAN AGUAYO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV131440 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07390. The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief under the California Labor Code on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class comprised of "all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing 4 years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's complaint" for the following alleged violations of California law: 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 reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. David Rashe, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com WATA INC: Filing for Third Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, and JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA, INC. and COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Timothy P. O'Hara entered an order modifying the following deadlines in the Scheduling Order: The Plaintiffs' third motion for class Sept. 29, 2025 Certification: The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' Oct. 29, 2025 third motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendants' Nov. 13, 2025 opposition: Wata operates as a video games company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dhlr6d at no extra charge.[CC] WATA INC: Knight Seeks More Time to File 3rd Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA INC., COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of 30 days for them to file their third motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to extend these deadlines for the filing of the motion for 30 days. This would change the dates relating to the Third Motion for Class Certification as follows: Sept. 29, 2025 The Plaintiffs' third motion for class certification due Oct. 29, 2025 The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' third motion for class certification due Nov. 13, 2025 The Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendant's opposition due The Plaintiffs request an extension of time because the parties are pursuing settlement discussions and an extension would allow the parties more time to try to resolve the matter rather than increasing additional fees and creating work on motion practice that may be unnecessary. The Plaintiffs are filing this request four (4) days before their third motion for class certification falls due. The Plaintiffs have not requested a prior extension for the filing of this motion. On Aug. 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel, Janeen Carlberg, conferred with the Defendants' counsel, Jason Rottner, and the Defendants do not oppose this motion for the relief requested. Wata operates as a video games company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FuO2nW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janeen Carlberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JANEEN CARLBERG 1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Telephone: (714) 665-1900 E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com WATERWAYS SHOPPES: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Owen Harty, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WATERWAYS SHOPPES II, LLLP; MANGIA E BEVI PIZZERIA NAPOLETANA WESTON INC. and BAKERY INVESTORS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-61748-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. WATERWAYS SHOPPES II, LLLP, owned and operated a commercial property.[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 WEAR PACT: Class Certification Bid in Johnston Due June 30, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BIANCA JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEAR PACT LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01906-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Oct. 15, 2025 Amendment of Pleadings: -- Discovery Cut-off: May 29, 2026 -- Motion for Class Certification: June 30, 2026 -- Dispositive Motion Deadline: Oct. 30, 2026 The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the TCPA by sending him text message solicitations during solicitation hours prohibited under the statute and its implementing regulations. The Plaintiff seeks $500 for each text message sent by the Defendant during "quiet hours" prohibited by the statute. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. Wear manufactures ethnical and organic apparel brand. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WCuhw1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. Florida Bar No. 030380 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8200 E-mail: wackerman@rc.com WINNING SOLUTION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINNING SOLUTION INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07135 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://waacshop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on August 12, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Essential Pique Polo Men from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Winning Solution Inc. operates the website that offers golf fashion & apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ZALE DELAWARE: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $7.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- TCPAWorld reports that well the #biglaw surrender monkeys have struck again. This time it is Zales -– the diamond store– that has face -- planted in a TCPA class action as a result of big law representation. Not sure when folks are going to figure this out and stop using #biglaw to LOSE TCPA suits. But its good for my readership at least. And once again the #biglaw client is getting a TERRIBLE deal here -— sort of. This is a really weird settlement and a terrible settlement for everyone. So the class is defined as: "all persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide their telephone number to Zale Delaware, Inc., (2) to whom Zale Delaware, Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12-month period, promoting Zale Delaware, Inc. goods or services, (3) where the person's residential or cellular telephone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days before Zale Delaware, Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two text messages within the 12-month period. For purposes of settlement the parties estimate the class consists of approximately 75,483 telephone numbers. So let's pause here. In the first place it is not even clear that SMS messages are covered by the TCPA's DNC rules anymore, so what the hell is Zales doing writing a $7.5MM check here (well actually it is more like $3MM [we'll get to that] but still)? The case settled in July (we'll get to that too) which is after McKesson came out so they should have known the FCC's SMS rules were subject to challenge– but they settled anyway. NUTS. Next, the class only has 75,483 people in it. That's fairly small. But it is unclear to me how Zales figured out who in the class received a wrong number text. We can let that go for now. But so check this out. Under the terms of the settlement every class member WHO MAKES A CLAIM gets $100.00. That's how we get to the sum of $7,548,300 as the settlement figure. $100.00 per class member is WAY WAY WAY above market for an SMS TCPA class action settlement and a reflection of the fact: i) #biglaw is dumb; and ii) the class was defined too narrowly. But what #biglaw was probably focused on is that if a class member doesn't make a claim then Zales gets to keep the money. Hmmmm. Now the class counsel (the Wolf and Avi Kaufman) are set to make a third of the settlement figure– $2.5MM, and that's money Zales will have to spend. So assuming a 6% claims rate the class will only get about $300k. Avi and Paronich will get $2.5MM (so it goes.) And Zales will pay a total of about $3MM with costs figured in. While $3MM sounds a lot better than $7.5mm (and it is) that's still about $40.00 a class member–which is top of market for these settlements. And the market for a DNC SMS settlement should be about ZERO until the courts figure out whether SMS is even covered by the TCPA's DNC. I suppose I could understand a deal like this if Zales had been beaten up in litigation or there was some "law of the case” binding them but the case was just filed in March, 2025 and the case settled in July, 2025. Rather obviously these #biglaw lawyers were ready to settle pretty much as soon as the case was filed. They had ON CONCEPT of what McKesson meant for the TCPA and they did not properly advise their client. Calling a spade a spade here. Just terrible. But from a certain perspective I love to see the Wolf and Avi jamming an SMS TCPA class action settlement under the wire at the last minute. These guys are pro. Anyhoo per the administration website: If you received text messages from Zales while you were on the National Do Not Call Registry, you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement. Deadline to make a claim is September 27, 2025. Deadline for opt out/objection is October 27, 2025. November 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. ET final approval hearing. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Corp. Advances CCAA Restructuring ----------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos Corporation Limited announced on Aug. 29, 2025, that it continues to advance its restructuring efforts under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, following the issuance of an initial order on May 6, 2025 and of an Amended and Restated Initial Order ("ARIO") by the Superior Court of Quebec (Commercial Division) (on May 15, 2025. The ARIO provided for: -- A stay of proceedings against ACL and its insurers until September 5, 2025, allowing the Company additional time to implement restructuring measures; -- Approval of interim financing of US$20 million by certain of ACL's insurers, of which approximately US$9.5 million (CAD$12.9 million) has been drawn as of June 30, 2025, primarily to cover professional fees and advisory costs related to the restructuring; -- Appointment of Raymond Chabot Inc. as court-appointed Monitor. Since the issuance of the ARIO, ACL has made progress in its restructuring efforts, including: -- Appointment of a Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO): Mr. Leslie Lederer was appointed on June 18, 2025, to support the development and implementation of the claims process and restructuring strategy. -- Resolution of procedural challenges: ACL and its insurers, with the support of the Monitor, successfully defended a contestation filed by a group of U.S. litigants to certain provisions of the ARIO. An application for leave to appeal the dismissal of the contestation is scheduled to be heard on September 25, 2025. -- Advancement of U.S. recognition proceedings: On May 6, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, at the request of the Monitor as foreign representative of ACL, issued a temporary restraining order staying the claims against ACL and its insurers. The Chapter 15 recognition hearing, which deals with cross-border elements of restructurings, is scheduled for September 16, 2025. Despite the pending Application for Leave to Appeal, the hearing is expected to proceed as planned. -- Development of a comprehensive claims process: The parties are actively working to design a comprehensive and efficient claims process. The Company and its insurers, expect to seek approval of a claims bar date order in due time after the recognition order in the Chapter 15 proceedings. ACL remains committed to conducting the restructuring process in a transparent and equitable manner. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Reports $2.0BB Reserve at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company reserved US$2,018,000,000 related to environmental remediation, nuclear decommissioning, and worker exposure claims at June 30, 2025, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2025. The Company stated: "Our operations involve or have involved the use, disposal and cleanup of substances regulated under environmental protection laws, including activities for a variety of matters related to GE businesses that have been discontinued or exited. We record reserves for obligations for ongoing and future environmental remediation activities, such as the Housatonic River cleanup, and for additional liabilities we expect to incur in connection with previously remediated sites, such as natural resource damages for the Hudson River where GE completed dredging in 2019. Additionally, like many other industrial companies, we and our subsidiaries are defendants in various lawsuits related to alleged exposure by workers and others to asbestos or other hazardous materials. Liabilities for environmental remediation and worker exposure claims exclude possible insurance recoveries. It is reasonably possible that our exposure will exceed amounts accrued. However, due to uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and information related to individual sites and lawsuits, such amounts are not reasonably estimable. Total reserves related to environmental remediation and worker exposure claims were US$2,018,000,000 and US$2,003,000,000 at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 respectively." ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- GMS INC., certain of its subsidiaries, have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of these suits that have been filed against us have been dismissed; however, we continue to have a number of active asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits against which we continue to vigorously defend ourselves. "As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or to have violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=izO6jN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $30.5MM Accrued Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., in its press release dated August 5, 2025, has reported accrued asbestos liabilities of $30.5 million and $84.5 million, as of June 2025 and December 2024, respectively, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f8ovh9 ********* 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 ***