250917.mbx

250917.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 186 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Tobias Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals AMERICAN FAMILY: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Structural Loss Claims AMGEN INC: Continues to Defend Sandoz Antitrust Lawsuit ANDREW STEVENS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ATLANTA TACTICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Robinson Says BEECH ACRES: Faces Harmon Suit Over Private Data Breach BLOCK INC: Deadline to File Claim in $12.5MM Suit Deal Set Oct. 27 CARTERET COUNTY, NC: Court to Decide Over Solid Waste Fees Suit CENTENE CORP: Faces Doe Suit Over Private Information Disclosure CERTEGY PAYMENT: Fails to Provide Consumer Report, Lane Suit Says CHRISTIAN DIOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach CROWN CREST: Reached $17MM Settlement in Security Interests' Suit DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces New Class Suit Over Children's Data Privacy DIVA FAM: Licea Sues Over Breaches of Automatic Renewal Law E.S.I. INC: Faces Young Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EMEREN GROUP: M&A Investigates Sale to Shurya Vitra EMPIRE TODAY: Spencer Class Action Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. EVENT SERVICES: Fails to File Timely Annual Reports, Azad Says FASTENERS INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FLY-E GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Material Info FNZ GROUP: Employee Shareholders File a $4.6-Bil. Class Action Suit FORD MOTOR: F-150 Owners Sue Over Trucks Oil Consumption Defect FRANCESCA'S ACQUISITION: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Cruz Alleges HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glazier Says HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Petrillo Sues Over Data Security Failures HELPING HEARTS: Faces West Suit Over Caregivers' Unpaid Wages HOME DEPOT: Berry Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data INFINITE PARKING: Faces Davises Suit Over Misappropriated Tips JELLY BELLY: Lewis Class Suit Faces Over Unwanted Text Messages KAISER FOUNDATION: Gutierrez Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties KAO USA: Faces Esparza Class Suit Over Automatic Renewal Service KASEYA HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 15 KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Fammons Suit Removed to E.D. California LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Seeks to Certify Class LOGITECH INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users MAC COSMETICS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection MANPOWER INC: Sackey-Mensah Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAYU WATER: Faces Esparza Suit Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal MDL 3071: Antitrust Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 MID-AMERICA: Wolf Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 MOMENTUS TECHNOLOGIES: Heiting Sues Over Illegal Tracker Systems MONARCH CASINO: Kenny Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE: Bone Balks at Unsecured Personal, Health Info ORW USA: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawful Reference Pricing Scheme PETROHIO LLC: Wagner Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities PIERCE COUNTY, WA : Faces Class Suits Over Massive Data Breach RAISING CANE'S: Faces Crosby Suit Over Illegal Background Check REALPAGE INC: Watters Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 REALPAGE INC: White Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ROCKET LAB: Seeks to Dismiss Class Suit Over Neutron Rocket Program SALESFORCE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Massive Data Breach SALESFORCE INC: Holland Sues Over Unprotected Private Information SAVARA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 7 SEATGEEK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Privacy Claims SKY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blocker Suit Alleges SOUTHEASTERN PIZZA: Fugatt Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages SUNSHINE DADE: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Monteagudo Says TENET HEALTHCARE: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Commick Alleges TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Almeida Says TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Calloway Says TRONOX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 3 UPP GLOBAL: Agrees to $650,000 Citation Class Suit Settlement WASTE CONNECTIONS: Valdes FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. [] Illinois Appeals Court Rejects FDCPA Class Action Arbitration [] Wetherington Law Probes Illegal Vehicle Booting in Texas ********* 3M COMPANY: Tobias Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Michaela Lynn Tobias, 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-08568-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 AMERICAN FAMILY: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Structural Loss Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that American Family Mutual Insurance Co. has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it improperly deducted nonmaterial depreciation from certain structural loss claims. The American Family Mutual Insurance settlement benefits individuals who were issued property insurance policies in Wisconsin by American Family, made a structural loss claim under Coverage A or B of the policy, had an Xactimate estimate used to determine their actual cash value payment and had an actual cash value payment from which nonmaterial depreciation was withheld between Nov. 2, 2019, and May 15, 2025. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. is an insurance company that offers a variety of insurance products, including auto, home, life, health and business insurance. According to a class action lawsuit, American Family improperly deducted nonmaterial depreciation when adjusting structural loss claims. The plaintiff argues this practice violates the terms of American Family's insurance policies. American Family has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the American Family Mutual Insurance settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount of nonmaterial depreciation that was withheld from their actual cash value payments. Class members who had nonmaterial depreciation withheld from their actual cash value payments but later had this depreciation paid can receive a payment of $10 to $200, depending on the amount of nonmaterial depreciation that was withheld. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 17, 2025. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 17, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 1, 2025. A similar settlement was recently finalized for Arizona properties. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits Wisconsin policyholders of American Family Insurance who made a structural loss claim under Coverage A or Coverage B of their policy, had an Xactimate estimate used in determining their actual cash value payment and had nonmaterial depreciation withheld from their payment between Nov. 2, 2019, and May 15, 2025. Potential Award $10 to $200 Proof of Purchase Policy number and/or claim number Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/01/2025 Case Name Martin, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. SI, et al., Case No. 2025-LA-0000021, in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court in Peoria County, Illinois Final Hearing 10/17/2025 Settlement Website HallDepreciationSettlement.com Claims Administrator Hall v. American Family Administrator PO Box 2895 Portland, OR 97208-2895 (888) 857-6848 Class Counsel Erik Peterson PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC Brandon McWherter MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC T. Joseph Snodgrass SNODGRASS LAW LLC Robert Hanauer HANAUER LAW OFFICE LLC Defense Counsel James B. Ziemer ZIEGLER & ZIEMER LLP James M. Campbell CAMPBELL DODGSON S.C. Katherine M. Zubrensky QUARLES & BRADY LLP [GN] AMGEN INC: Continues to Defend Sandoz Antitrust Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc.'s motion to dismiss the antitrust complaint filed by Sandoz Inc. is pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2025. On June 20, Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Sandoz filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 21 and Amgen's reply was due August 21, 2025. Amgen Inc., a biotechnology company, discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human therapeutics worldwide. The company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California. ANDREW STEVENS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andrew Stevens Collection Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03450 (D. Minn., September 2, 2025) accuses the Defendant of failing to comply the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The case arises from Defendant's failure to provide its website's content and services in a manner that is compatible with auxiliary aids and screen reader programs. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Headquartered in North Miami Beach, Florida, Andrew Stevens Collection Inc. owns and operates the website, www.andrewandrewstevens.com, which offers footwear and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ATLANTA TACTICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Robinson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TOI ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff  v.  ATLANTA TACTICAL SAFETY, LLC d/b/a ATLANTA TACTICAL SERVICES, and DEVIN CURTIS JACKSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04907-AT (N.D. Ga., August 29, 2025) is a class lawsuit seeking recovery against the Defendant for its violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Georgia Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by federal law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of Georgia during the period of about September 2023 through March 2024 as a Security Guard with job duties entailing security work. Atlanta Tactical Safety, LLC is a domestic limited liability corporation formed under the laws of Georgia with a primary office in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Moshe Boroosan, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367-1305 Telephone: (718) 887-2926 Facsimile: (718) 247-8020 E-mail: mboroosan@consumerattorneys.com - and - Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367-1305 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 E-mail: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com BEECH ACRES: Faces Harmon Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- MINDY HARMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00638-JPH (S.D. Ohio, September 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices. Starting on or about August 22, 2025, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other victims of the Data Breach a Notice of Data Security Incident letter, informing them that an unusual activity was discovered in its digital environment on November 23, 2024. However, the Defendant waited nearly nine months to inform Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach. In addition, Defendant failed to provide them timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Based in Cincinnati, OH, Beech Acres Parenting Center provides resources and education to parents and families in the Greater Cincinnati area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BLOCK INC: Deadline to File Claim in $12.5MM Suit Deal Set Oct. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------ William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who received a Cash App referral text message while living in Washington between Nov. 14, 2019, and Aug. 7, 2025, may qualify to claim an estimated $88 to $147 from a class action settlement. Block Inc., the company behind Cash App, agreed to pay $12.5 million to resolve a lawsuit alleging it helped users send unsolicited commercial text messages to Washington residents through its Invite friends referral program. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They received a Cash App referral program text message between Nov. 14, 2019, and Aug. 7, 2025. -- They were a Washington resident at the time they received the text message. -- They did not clearly and affirmatively consent in advance to receive the Cash App referral program text message. An example of a qualifying text message is: "Hey! I've been using Cash App to send money and spend using the Cash Card. Try it using my code and you'll get $5. FVRJ1PH https://cash.app/app/FVRJ1PH." These referral texts do not indicate that someone has sent or requested money from the recipient. If an individual received a notice about this settlement by email or mail, records indicate they may have received a qualifying referral text message. However, individuals who did not receive a notice may still be eligible if they meet the requirements above. How much can class members receive? Class members who submit a valid claim form by the deadline can expect to receive an estimated payment between $88 and $147. The exact amount depends on the number of valid claims submitted and the final deductions for administrative costs, attorneys' fees and service awards. The settlement administrator will distribute payments equally among all class members who submit valid claims. If there are uncashed or undeliverable payments, the settlement administrator may redistribute them to claimants who cashed their initial payments or donate them to the Legal Foundation of Washington. How to claim a class action rebate Class members must submit the online claim form or download, print, fill out and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 27, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Bottoms v Block Settlement Administrator, PO Box 2631 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Each class member can submit only one claim form regardless of the number of referral text messages received. Information required Class members must provide: -- Their claims code (if they received one by email or mail) -- The phone number(s) where they received Cash App referral text message(s) Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check $12.5 million settlement fund breakdown The $12,500,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: $619,500 (estimated) -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $3,125,000) -- Attorneys' expenses: $41,133.36 (estimated) -- Service award to class representative: Up to $10,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 27, 2025 -- Deadline to request exclusion: Oct. 27, 2025 -- Fairness hearing: Dec. 2, 2025 When is the Bottoms v. Block Inc. payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court grants final approval of the settlement and resolves any appeals. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Block Inc. helped users send unsolicited commercial text messages to Washington residents through Cash App's referral program without obtaining clear and affirmative consent from recipients. The plaintiff claimed this violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act. Block Inc. denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the burden and uncertainty of continued litigation. [GN] CARTERET COUNTY, NC: Court to Decide Over Solid Waste Fees Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Carolina Journal reports that the North Carolina Supreme Court will decide whether a challenge to Carteret County's solid waste fees will move forward as a class-action lawsuit. -- The county has asked the high court to reverse a trial judge's 2024 decision certifying three classes of plaintiffs in the case Armistead v. Carteret County. -- Oral arguments Wednesday, September 10, focused on whether a class action is proper for the ongoing dispute. North Carolina's highest court will decide whether a legal challenge to Carteret County's solid waste fees will move forward as a class-action suit. The court heard an hour of oral argumentsin the dispute. Superior Court Judge Kent Harrell issued an August 2024 order certifying three classes of potential plaintiffs in the case Armistead v. Carteret County. The county is asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to reverse that decision. "What is clear from the case law from this court and from the 4th Circuit is that the class should be identifiable," argued Sonny Haynes, the county's lawyer. In this dispute, Carteret argues that it would be too difficult to determine from the record who should be counted as members of the class. Two potential classes involve residents who paid for private solid waste collection. They seek refunds of county fees for waste disposal sites and landfill availability. "The issue with having so many open questions is that we're talking about a period of time that goes back to 2017," Haynes said. "We would have a right to probe as part of the county's defense on whether there's use for each of those years where a refund is claimed, but also whether those same services were being offered in each year that the property owner claims that they did not benefit from the use of a landfill." "We believe and it would certainly be our contention that these classes are clearly defined," responded Matthew Quinn, the lawyer for four named plaintiffs. "You can determine who's in the class [and] who's not in the class with reference to objective criteria." "Every person with the county we talked to under oath admitted . . . specifically, you don't owe a fee if you have private waste collection at your home," Quinn said. The third class involves a claim that Carteret County profited illegally from running its solid waste operation. Haynes and Quinn disagreed about whether one successful plaintiff would be able to guarantee a refund for every county resident who paid the disputed fee. Quinn argued that only a certified class would ensure that every affected resident would secure a refund if plaintiffs win. "Most of the class-action opinions from this court talk about certain benefits of a class action being judicial economy and also avoiding inconsistent results," he said. "In enacting N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 153A-292(b), the Legislature reasonably concluded that counties should be able to charge fees to cover their costs in providing solid waste management services. However, the Legislature did not intend for counties to use their solid waste management services as a profit center. But that's exactly what Carteret County has done for years and years," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in a July brief. "The County does not collect waste, and it does not have a landfill," the court filing continued. "It just provides 12 sites where residents can drop off their waste. Consequently, residents who don't live in municipalities (which do collect waste) have to pay private companies to collect their waste and transport it to a transfer station owned and operated by a non-county entity for further transport to a landfill in Craven County. Carteret County plays no role at all in this solid waste collection and transport. Likewise, Carteret County plays no role in connection with the municipality-collected waste." "And yet, Carteret County -- in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 153A-292(b) and in one respect its own Ordinance -- charges two separate fees for solid waste services to its property owners who are not using the County's solid waste services but rather are paying either a private contractor or a municipality for those services," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote. "Further, also in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 153A-292(b), the County charges and collects more in these solid waste fees than it costs the County to operate the 12 solid waste disposal sites." "Until after this lawsuit was filed, these charges appeared on residents' property tax bills with threats that failure to pay the bill could result in foreclosure," the court filing continued. "No information was included about property owners not necessarily owing the fees or about how a property owner could challenge whether the fees were in fact owed. In the course of this litigation, no other county has been identified as having similar solid waste fee practices, nor do the County's practices fit those described by the UNC School of Government as lawful practices employed by other counties." "Even since the lawsuit, the limited information Carteret County has provided its residents and the restrictive methods available for challenging the bill mean property owners are still paying for charges even when they don't owe them. It should hardly be surprising that Carteret County has been making a profit off of these fees for years," the plaintiffs alleged in their brief. Issues in the case are "common to all potential class members," the plaintiffs' lawyers argued. "Further, resolution of those issues in a class action is the best way to ensure that the property owners are properly represented as a class and given an efficient means to recover the wrongfully assessed fees." The plaintiffs challenge two annual fees: a $15 landfill fee and a fee of $157-$165 to operate 12 "green box" sites where residents can dispose of waste, according to court filings. Carteret County explained in an April brief why the county challenges Harrell's decision. "Several private waste collections services operate within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, several municipalities within the County offer waste collection services, and the County is aware of these services," according to Carteret's brief. "The Ordinance provides for an exemption from the Green Box Fee for taxpayers who have municipal or private solid waste collection services." "Plaintiffs contend that the County incorrectly charged the Green Box Fee to every owner of developed residential real property in unincorporated areas of the County and 'many' developed residential properties within incorporated areas of the County, and that the County did not provide taxpayers with notice or explanation of the Fees. However, as evidenced by Section 14-57 of the Ordinance, the exemption from the Fees requires the taxpayer to 'produce an official statement from a permitted county solid waste collector, certifying that solid waste collection service was provided and paid for during the period billed,' in which cases 'the county tax administrator shall issue a release, or exemption from the annual disposal fee,'" the county's court filing continued. "Plaintiffs were never denied a release or exemption, rather they never asked for release or exemption by following a simple administrative remedy," Carteret's lawyer explained. The county is asking the state Supreme Court to determine that Harrell's class-action decision amounted to abuse of his discretion. [GN] CENTENE CORP: Faces Doe Suit Over Private Information Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION d/b/a AMBETTER HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01959 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendant embedded on its website tracking tools to share visitor information with third parties, including TikTok, Meta/Facebook, Google, The Trade Desk, Undertone, Adobe, Xandr (Microsoft's digital advertising platform), HubSpot, Pontiac Intelligence, CrazyEgg, Qualtics, Invoca, StackAdapt, and Adnxs/AppNexus without visitor consent, knowledge, or authorization. According to the complaint, the said tracking tools intercepted visitor's communications and interactions in real-time, and shared those communications with the third parties. As a result, the third parties harvested sensitive, private information including visitor’s browsing activities, the pages they viewed and the buttons they clicked, their status as medical patients and/or as insured individuals, their medical histories, the drugs they take, their anticipated consumption of medical services, their locations, additional information from their health insurance applications, and identifying information including IP addresses and identifying cookies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express and implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, declaratory judgment, and for violations of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Consumer Protection Law, the Consumer Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Centene Corporation is a health insurance provider headquartered in St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vess A. Miller, Esq. Natalie Lyons, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: vmiller@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 2261 Market Street, Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA, 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croma@straussborrelli.com CERTEGY PAYMENT: Fails to Provide Consumer Report, Lane Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA LANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTEGY PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01553-SB (D. Or., September 2, 2025) seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages for failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On or about September 2, 2023, at or around the time that her checks were being declined by various merchants, the Plaintiff contacted Defendant and requested that Defendant mail to her a copy of her consumer report. However, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the information it maintains about her and which has been reported to third parties or which may be reported to third parties, in response to her request. Moreover, Defendant negligently adopted a policy and practice that disregards its duty to clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer all information in the consumer's file upon request, as required by the FCRA, says the suit. Certegy Payment Solutions, LLC provides check screening services to various third parties including Wal-Mart and Fred Meyer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Fuller, Esq. UNDERDOG LAW OFFICE US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 222-2000 E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com - and - Robert Sola, Esq. ROBERT S SOLA PC 1500 SW 1st Ave Ste 800 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 295-6880 E-mail: rssola@msn.com - and - Kelly Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KELLY D. JONES 819 SE Morrison Street Suite 255 Portland, OR 97214 Telephone: (503) 847-4329 E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com - and - Nate Haberman, Esq. UNDERDOG LAW OFFICE US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 222-2000 E-mail: nate@underdoglawyer.com CHRISTIAN DIOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ The Fashion Law reports that a sizable class action case appears to be on the horizon for Christian Dior, which was hit with a handful of individual lawsuits this summer over its handling of a cyberattack that exposed the personal data of customers in the U.S. At least four separate proposed class action cases filed in the Southern District of New York this summer allege that Dior failed to implement basic safeguards to protect sensitive customer information, leaving consumers vulnerable to identity theft, fraud, and long-term misuse of their data. The string of lawsuits filed by Dior customers in Illinois, Pennsylvania, California, and Florida paints a picture of Dior's alleged mishandling of the cyberattack that breached its systems in January and exposed personal identifying information. In complaints, the plaintiffs assert that as a result of Dior's failure to implement appropriate cybersecurity measures, its systems were infiltrated on January 26, 2025, exposing highly sensitive personal information, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, and government ID numbers. Delay, Lax Security & Lasting Harm Central to the claims is the charge that Dior stored customer information "unencrypted and unredacted," which, according to one complaint, meant that once cybercriminals gained entry, they could seize "entire files of raw personal information." The plaintiffs further allege that Dior did not detect the intrusion until May 7 and failed to notify affected customers until mid-July -- a nearly six-month delay that deprived them of the ability to take immediate protective measures. They also fault Dior for withholding critical details about how the breach occurred, whether it has been contained, and what remedial actions have been taken, disclosures they argue would have helped mitigate the fallout. Framing the incident as a preventable failure rather than an unforeseeable attack, the plaintiffs stress that Dior reaped economic benefits from collecting and storing data without bearing the costs of properly securing it. As one complaint puts it, the company's practices "left consumers to shoulder the costs of monitoring and self-protection, even though the company derived a substantial economic benefit from collecting and retaining their data." Some of the plaintiffs claim they have already suffered tangible harm, including attempted financial fraud and the filing of fraudulent tax returns in their names. Others emphasize the long-term risk, warning that their data is likely circulating on the dark web and could be exploited for years. Taken together, the lawsuits accuse Dior of negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and demand injunctive relief requiring the brand to overhaul its cybersecurity operations. Cybersecurity as a Luxury Risk The Dior litigation highlights a growing trend: luxury brands are increasingly becoming prime targets for cyberattacks. While breaches in healthcare and finance have long made headlines, recent attacks on high-profile consumer brands show that the luxury brands have become increasingly attractive targets for hackers. Companies routinely collect vast amounts of sensitive customer data -- including high-net-worth individuals' addresses, birthdates, and government IDs -- making it especially valuable to identity thieves. Similar complaints against other high-profile companies have centered on the same themes: inadequate encryption, delayed disclosure, and failures to follow federal cybersecurity guidance. For Dior, the lawsuits present not only the possibility of significant damages and injunctive relief -- including potential mandated upgrades to its cybersecurity infrastructure -- but also reputational fallout. Luxury hinges on trust, and the expectation from consumers is not only that a company will deliver exclusivity in its products but also discretion in its dealings with clients. A breach of data security, and a sluggish response, cuts against that promise. The cases are likely to resonate across the industry. Competitors will be watching closely to see how Dior defends itself and whether the company is compelled to adopt more stringent cybersecurity measures. More broadly, the litigation is part of a larger reckoning in luxury; the matter signals that just as luxury brands are no longer shielded from labor and manufacturing scrutiny, in the digital age, prestige, alone, offers no immunity. For Dior, the lawsuits may prove to be not only a legal test but a referendum on how trust is defined -- and safeguarded -- in the modern luxury market. As for next steps: While Dior has not yet responded to the individual complaints, the cases have seen some movement. In each of the individual matters, the plaintiffs are looking to band together, filing motions to consolidate their cases into a single suit. A representative for Dior was not immediately available for comment. The cases are Ansryan v. Christian Dior Inc., 1:25-cv-06705 (S.D.N.Y.), Toikach v. Christian Dior, Inc., 1:25-cv-6058 (S.D.N.Y.); Holland v. Christian Dior, Inc., 1:25-cv-6200 (S.D.N.Y.), and Bhatt et al., v. Christian Dior, Inc. at al., 1:25-cv-2605 (S.D.N.Y.). [GN] CROWN CREST: Reached $17MM Settlement in Security Interests' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abby O'Brien, writing for CTV News, reports that customers who leased HVAC equipment from five Ontario-based companies are running out of time to apply for compensation as part of a $17-million settlement. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement as part of a class action lawsuit against Crown Crest, Simply Green, Utilebill, Sandpiper, and HCSI in February and lawyers began processing claims from customers in June. As part of the settlement, the companies made no admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault. The deadline to submit a claim is Oct. 2. Here is everything you need to know about the settlement: Who is eligible for compensation? Compensation is meant for customers anywhere in Canada, except for Quebec, who have leased HVAC equipment from one of the five companies between July 17, 2013, and Jan. 15, 2025. Officials estimate that as many as 40,000 customers could be eligible. Equipment includes furnaces, air or water filters, air conditioners, or water heaters. What does the settlement involve? The settlement agreement, approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, includes a $17-million compensation component and a commitment to cancel some ongoing leases. Officials say that the settlement "provides relief for class members in different ways, and not all class members will receive the same relief." According to court documents, some class members "will receive cancellation and arrears forgiveness of $13.5 million worth of ongoing leases and the gifting of the leased equipment to the class member without further payment or obligation." A permanent cap of 3.5 per cent will also be applied to the annual escalation of lease payments held as of Nov. 1, 2024, while contractual buyout or termination fees will be reduced by 25 per cent. Customers who have already paid to withdraw from their lease are eligible to receive some or all their money back under the settlement. The plaintiffs, Sotos LLP, add that anyone who faced challenges over their lease can request a cancellation. Mohsen Seddigh with Sotos Class Action, tells CTV News the use of liens or registered Notices of Security Interest (NOSI), on homes, and the failure to disclose that information to consumers, rendered the leases unlawful and unenforceable. "People would face the prospect of paying sums that they did not get full disclosure of at the outset, when they needed to sell their home, refinance their home, and at other times, whenever they needed to deal with the title," he said. Part of the settlement means that any lease across the country impacted by the lawsuit will be NOSI or lien-free, Seddigh explained. Another benefit from the settlement includes cash compensation for people who had to pay to remove NOSIs, by paying what is known as a buyout sum. The settlement also addresses the cancellation of a lease up to a certain budget. The documents state that the companies have agreed to select those leases "based on the length of default by the class member as reflected in their internal records." "As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to cancel a series of leases, up to $11.5 million in total," he said. "We have a $2-million budget to also cancel some cases." Seddigh said that's intended to help people who may have been targeted because they were elderly or part of a vulnerable population. When is the claim deadline? The deadline to submit a claim is Oct. 2, 2025, through the official claims portal. More information about the class action and settlement is available through the law firm's website. Those affected can also call the claims administrator at 1-833-419-4822. Why was the lawsuit filed? The lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of Toronto residents Goren Donev and Alga Bonnick. It alleged that Crown Crest Capital Management Corp., along with at least 11 other companies run by CEO Lawrence Krimker, all breached Ontario's Consumer Protection Act by not telling their rental customers that security interests worth thousands of dollars had been taken out against their home titles. The suit also claimed that the companies' sales representatives sold the contracts on a door-to-door basis, a practice banned in Ontario in 2018. Predatory practices are prevalent in the home equipment industry, Seddigh said, where lenders can stand to benefit from placing costly security interests on titles. Homeowners are often left with little choice but to cover the sums. In June 2023, a representative from Crown Crest told CTV News Toronto in a written statement that it was aware of the claims against its corporation and "a senior executive". "We expect it will be dismissed," the statement read at the time. "We practice transparency and compliance with consumer protection laws and have processes in place to ensure our customers are satisfied and well served." CTV News has reached out to CrownCrest, Simply Green, Utilebill, Sandpiper, and HCSI for comment but has not received a response as of publication. DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces New Class Suit Over Children's Data Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kateryna Hliznitsova, writing for JDSupra, reports that in a reminder that the FTC's new enforcement priorities will likely drive additional litigation risks, days after the settlement was announced, Disney Worldwide Services and Disney Entertainment Operations, LLC (together, "Disney") were named as defendants in two class action complaints brought on behalf putative classes of minors. The first case, S.K. et al. v. Disney Worldwide Servs., Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08410, was filed on September 5, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The second case, captioned Does 1-3 ex rel. Sobalvarro v. Disney Worldwide Servs., was filed on September 9, 2025, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaints allege that Disney failed to appropriately mark certain videos it uploaded to the YouTube platform as "Made for Kids" between 2020 and September 2025 -- a designation necessary to ensure that automatic data collection practices are disabled on the platform -- thus leading to the unlawful collection of the minors' data. Plaintiffs in both cases brought causes of action for common law intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, trespass to chattels, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The California state court plaintiffs brought additional claims for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and for invasion of privacy in contravention of the California Constitution. Both complaints seek actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive, and consequential damages in excess of $5 million. Both complaints were filed less than a week after Disney and the DOJ filed a proposed order authorizing a settlement for alleged violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) arising out of the same conduct alleged in the complaints. The proposed order was filed contemporaneously with the DOJ's complaint, which the DOJ brought upon notification from the FTC, and requires Disney to pay a $10 million civil penalty, create a "Mandated Audience Designation Program" to ensure that all Disney videos are appropriately marked when uploaded, and submit to ten years of compliance reporting. Both the federal court and the state court complaints allege that the proposed settlement would not adequately remedy the putative classes' injuries. While FTC settlements always carry the risk of copycat litigation, these new developments further emphasize how serious this risk can be in the privacy field -- and especially children's privacy -- and that plaintiffs' firms that are active in other privacy fields are looking for new areas in which to expand. Given the FTC's stated change in enforcement priorities, companies need to reassess their positions not just for "traditional" compliance, but also for enforcement and litigation mitigation. [GN] DIVA FAM: Licea Sues Over Breaches of Automatic Renewal Law ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIVA FAM, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a WWW.TRUESEAMOSS.COM, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02276 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed provide clear and conspicuous disclosures mandated by California law and failed to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. Moreover, the foregoing violations of the ARL by Defendant likewise constitute violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law, says the suit. Diva Fam, Inc. markets and sells sea moss-made superfoods via its website at: https://www.trueseamoss.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 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 E.S.I. INC: Faces Young Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- RODNEY YOUNG JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E.S.I., INC., an Ohio corporation d/b/a ESI Electrical Contractors, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00631-JPH (S.D. Ohio, August 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's hourly shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As non-exempt employees, the Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately November 11, 2024 through June 26, 2025 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. E.S.I., Inc. provides electrical contracting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com EMEREN GROUP: M&A Investigates Sale to Shurya Vitra --------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Emeren Group Ltd. (NYSE: SOL) related to its sale to Shurya Vitra Ltd., for $0.20 in cash per ordinary share or $2.00 in cash per American Depository Share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/emeren-group-ltd/. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] EMPIRE TODAY: Spencer Class Action Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SHANNON SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CARPET WORKSHOP, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-21763-9 KNT, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on August 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01661 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $5,000 to him and each Class member, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to pursuant to RCW 49.58.070 and RCW 49.58.110. Empire Today, LLC is an American home improvement and home furnishing company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul J. Bruene, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 52727 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104-4076 Telephone: (206) 332-1380 E-mail: pbruene@bakerlaw.com EVENT SERVICES: Fails to File Timely Annual Reports, Azad Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Minhajul Azad, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the CSC Employee Stock Ownership Plan v. Event Services America, Inc., Aegis Trust Company, LLC, and Robert Lesser, Case No. 2:25-cv-08455 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendants caused the Plan to overpay for ESA stock and failed to protect the Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its participants from the consequences of that overpayment in the subsequent administration of the Plan in violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have negligently administered the Plan since the Plan formation transaction. ESA failed to file an annual report for the Plan until 2024. ESA then belatedly filed annual reports covering the first four years of the Plan at the same time in April 2024. ESA's failure to file timely annual reports, as required by 29 U.S.C. section 1024(a), concealed information related to the Plan formation transaction and the subsequent administration of the Plan, including the fact that the transaction was designed to allow ESA to use the preferred dividends to reduce its contribution obligation, says the suit. The Plan was established by ESA in 2019 for the ostensible purpose of providing retirement benefits to ESA employees via ownership of company stock. According to the Plan's most recently filed annual report (as of year-end 2023), that Plan has around 3,000 participants with account balances. The Plaintiff worked for ESA between 2019 and 2023. He has a vested account balance in the Plan. The number of shares in his individual account and the total value of his individual account would be higher if the Defendants had not violated ERISA, the Plaintiff asserts. ESA is a privately-owned corporation organized under the laws of the state of Florida. ESA is the sponsor of the Plan. Since its inception, ESA has been the named fiduciary of the Plan responsible for the administration of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Gokey, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: cgokey@engstromlee.com FASTENERS INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. FASTENERS, INC. SOUTHWESTERN SUPPLY, Case No. e 1:25-cv-07394 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://toolup.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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The 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. FASTENERS, INC. SOUTHWESTERN SUPPLY operates the commercial website that offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services it offered.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 FLY-E GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Material Info ------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Fly-E Group, Inc. ("Fly-E" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FLYE). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding Fly-E's lithium battery, supply chain changes and the regulatory environment and possible demand fluctuations for its E-Bikes and E-Scooters. If you purchased shares of Fly-E between July 15, 2025 and August 14, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/fly-e-group/ for more information. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] FNZ GROUP: Employee Shareholders File a $4.6-Bil. Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Got, writing for Investment Executive, reports that employee shareholders of global financial services firm FNZ have filed a US$4.6-billion class action against their employer and 17 of its current and former directors in the New Zealand High Court. The employee shareholders allege that directors transferred wealth away from employees to the institutional and private equity investors the directors represent by issuing preferred shares and warrants at non-commercial terms. Hundreds of Class B employee shareholders have joined the class action, which could expand to more employees if the court approves it. FNZ has said it considers the claim "entirely without merit." It and its co-defendants' counsel tried to halt the court proceedings, lodging seven separate memoranda and two affidavits -- all of which the judge rejected on Aug. 27, clearing the way for the case to be heard. "This is not a game of technicalities," employee shareholders said in a statement afterward, "it is a case about directors' duties, oppressive conduct and a deliberate transfer of value. A snowstorm of memoranda is not a defence; it is an attempt to stop the merits being heard." In a statement of claim filed July 2025, the employee shareholders alleged that FNZ allowed institutional investors to subscribe to FNZ shares at a discount of roughly 50% of fair market value across three capital raises via transactions with preferred shares in April 2024, September 2024 and April 2025. FNZ's institutional investors include Canada's Caisse de depot et placement du Québec (CDPQ) and CPP Investments. In addition, the terms of the transaction "prejudiced the plaintiffs by imposing an undue financial burden on FNZ, which diluted the value of [the plaintiff's] interests in FNZ," employee shareholders said in the statement. The transactions subordinated the plaintiffs' interests in FNZ relative to institutional shareholders, whose preferred shares entitle them to priority in payment. Class B shareholders won't receive any value for their shares until institutional shareholders have first received the full redemption amount for their shares, according to the statement of claim. Employee shareholders also alleged that warrants issued to institutional investors during the September 2024 and April 2025 transactions and exercised on May 2025 by CDPQ and two other institutional investors diluted Class B shares by 10.8%. Prior to April 2024, Class B shares made up 23%, or US$4.6 billion, of the US$20-billion company. "The . . . transactions were to the substantial benefit of the institutional shareholders, because they resulted in a transfer of wealth from Class A and Class B shareholders to those institutional shareholders," the employee shareholders claimed in the court filing. FNZ did not respond directly to emailed questions, but reiterated a statement made in July, rejecting the claim as meritless. "We are confident that our directors have at all times acted in the best interests of the company, its clients, employees and all stakeholders," it said. "The investments by FNZ's institutional shareholders reflect a strong commitment to the company's long-term growth and success, an outcome that can only be in the best interests of all its stakeholders." [GN] FORD MOTOR: F-150 Owners Sue Over Trucks Oil Consumption Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a group of Ford F-150 owners filed a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. Why: The plaintiffs claim Ford F-150 trucks have an oil consumption defect. Where: The Ford class action lawsuit was filed in Michigan federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Ford Motor Company failed to disclose an oil consumption defect in certain F-150 trucks that causes the vehicles to consume engine oil at an excessive rate. Plaintiffs Daniel Bryan and 11 others filed the class action complaint against Ford on Aug. 28 in Michigan federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, 2018-2020 Ford F-150 trucks have a defect that prevents the engine from maintaining proper oil levels, leading to premature wear, stalling and even failure. Plaintiffs claim owners must monitor the oil level more frequently than recommended in the owner's manual and add more oil to the engine than is typically required to keep the engine properly lubricated. Ford allegedly knew about the defect but failed to disclose it to consumers The class action lawsuit claims the company received numerous complaints about the issue and issued technical service bulletins to dealerships but failed to inform consumers or provide a suitable repair or replacement. The plaintiffs say Ford's marketing of the F-150 as a durable and dependable vehicle is misleading, alleging Ford's actions have caused them to suffer financial losses, including out-of-pocket expenses for additional engine oil and repairs, and diminished the value of their vehicles. As a result, the plaintiffs are suing for violations of state consumer protection laws and fraudulent concealment. They are seeking certification of the class action lawsuit, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In August, Ford recalled more than 103,000 F-150 pickup trucks due to a potential defect in the rear axle hub bolt that could result in vehicle rollaway or a loss of drive power. A Ford recall in May was issued for 312,000 vehicles, including the 2025 F-150, Ranger, Expedition, Bronco and Lincoln Navigator models, due to a defect in the electronic power brake assist. The plaintiffs are represented by E. Powell Miller, Dennis A. Lienhardt and Dana E. Fraser of The Miller Law Firm P.C.; Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of Sauder Schelkopf LLC; Douglas J. McNamara and Madelyn Petersen of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; William H. Anderson of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC; Jon Herskowitz of Baron & Herskowitz; and Steven G. Calamusa of Gordon & Partners P.A. The Ford F-150 class action lawsuit is Bryan, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-12714-JJCG-KGA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [GN] FRANCESCA'S ACQUISITION: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Francesca's has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over a January 2023 data breach that may have exposed the personal information of the retailer's customers and current and former employees. The court-authorized website for the Francesca's data breach settlement can be found at FrancescasDataSettlement.com. The deal with Francesca's Acquisition LLC covers all United States residents whose personal information was compromised in the data breach, about which the retailer sent notice on or after September 25, 2023. To receive cash benefits from the Francesca's class action settlement, eligible class members must submit a valid claim form online or by mail by November 10, 2025. Claim form submission requires a unique class member ID, which can be found on the personalized settlement notice you should have received about the deal. According to the official Francesca's settlement website, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive reimbursement of up to $1,500 per person for "ordinary" out-of-pocket losses that were incurred as a result of the data breach and are supported by documentation. Per the site, qualifying losses may include bank fees; phone or data charges; postage; gas; fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or other identity theft insurance products purchased between January 12, 2023 and November 10, 2025; and other miscellaneous expenses. In addition, consumers may file a claim for compensation of up to five hours of lost time spent responding to issues linked to the incident, at a rate of $25 per hour, the website says. This benefit is subject to the $1,500 per-person cap for ordinary losses, the site notes. Class members can also submit a claim for reimbursement of up to $5,000 per person for documented "extraordinary" costs, provided the losses are unreimbursed and were more than likely caused by the data breach, the website shares. Qualifying expenses must have occurred between January 12, 2023 and November 10, 2025, and must not be covered by the aforementioned reimbursement benefits, the site adds. Court documents relay that in lieu of receiving compensation for monetary losses or lost time, consumers who file a timely, valid claim form can opt for a $50 cash payment. Class members who were California residents at the time of the incident will receive $75, the Francesca's settlement website states. As part of the deal, Francesca's will also provide all class members with two years of credit monitoring services at no cost, the site says. Consumers do not need to submit a claim form to receive this benefit, but will need to enroll using the activation code listed in the settlement notice, according to the website. Moreover, the settlement agreement shares that Francesca's has agreed to implement additional cybersecurity procedures in response to the incident. The Francesca's class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 26, 2025. Next, the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing set for November 13, 2025. Francesca's settlement benefits will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval and after any appeals are resolved, the website notes. According to the lawsuit against Francesca's, an unauthorized third party gained access to the retailer's network between January 12 and January 31, 2023. The data breach lawsuit claimed that the cyberattack exposed individuals' full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, financial account details, credit or debit card numbers and other highly sensitive information. [GN] HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Cruz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- MARJORIE CRUZ and MELISSA GARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTH CARE FACILITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a COMMUNICARE FAMILY OF COMPANIES, Case No. 1:25-cv-00648-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 5, 2025) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana state law for the Defendants' failure to pay all wages owed. According to the complaint, CommuniCare does not pay the Plaintiffs and Class Members for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and did not pay proper OT premiums for the time worked. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are non-exempt hourly employees who provide care and related activities for CommuniCare's residents pursuant to CommuniCare's rules, regulations, guidelines, and policies. The Plaintiffs and Class Members perform no job duties or functions that qualify for any FLSA overtime exemption and are paid an hourly rate. The Plaintiff was employed by CommuniCare as a Registered Nurse from October 2022 to April 2025 at its Valley View Healthcare Center located in Elkhart, Indiana. CommuniCare is a family-owned company that operates as a large, multi-state provider of post-acute care and other healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Adam M. Lubow, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com alubow@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. Mariyam Hussian, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: crodriguez@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com mhussain@bermontague.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glazier Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNE GLAZIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05120 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard approximately 624,496 individuals' personally identifying information and personal health information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or government-issued ID numbers, financial information, medical information, and health insurance information. Accordingly, between approximately September 27 and October 3, 2024, an unauthorized third party gained access to HCSG's network systems and accessed and acquired files containing the PII/PHI of HCSG's employees and clients' patients, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, which occurred between September 27 and October 3, 2024. The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. The Plaintiff previously applied for employment with HCSG and is a patient of a healthcare facility that, upon information and belief, is a client of HCSG. HCSG provides dining, environmental, and nutritional services for healthcare communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Petrillo Sues Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------------------- STACY PETRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05015 (E.D. Pa., September 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information. On or around October 7, 2024, Defendant Healthcare Services Group Inc. detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Defendant's investigation determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals potentially accessed and acquired files containing the sensitive personal information of 624,496 individuals. The personal information accessed by cybercriminals included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account information, driver's license numbers, and state identification numbers. Despite the sensitivity of the personally identifiable information that was exposed, and the attendant consequences to affected individuals as a result of the exposure, the Defendant failed to disclose the data breach for several months from the time of the breach, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages and restitution, asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary. Headquartered in Bensalem, PA, Healthcare Services Group, Inc. provides dining, housekeeping, and nutritional services within the healthcare industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Sandercock, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 677-5121 E-mail: nsandercock@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com HELPING HEARTS: Faces West Suit Over Caregivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- SHARICE WEST, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. HELPING HEARTS USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00986 (M.D. Tenn., August 29, 2025) is brought against the Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated caregivers. The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked at the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay within bi-weekly pay periods during all times material to this action. This lawsuit is also brought against Defendant as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action, alleging breach of contract under Tennessee state law, to recover unpaid wages or, in the alternative, unjust enrichment/quantum meruit compensation, owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid caregivers who are members of a Rule 23 class, and who are currently or previously employed by Defendant. Plaintiff, Sharice West, has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid caregiver during all times material to this action. Helping Hearts USA, LLC is a provider of senior care services in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com HOME DEPOT: Berry Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA BERRY v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10671 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for the Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The suit arises out of the Defendant's collection, storage, and use of Plaintiff's and the Class's biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing consumers with data retention and destruction policies. Accordingly, while operating dozens of stores across Illinois, Home Depot has implemented "computer vision" systems -- including at self-checkout kiosks and through surveillance technologies --that capture scans of customers' facial geometry without providing the required disclosures or obtaining the written consent BIPA mandates. The lawsuit seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful practices and to recover statutory damages for the violation of Plaintiff's and the Class Members' privacy rights under BIPA. The Plaintiff is a resident of Waukegan, Illinois, who regularly shops at The Home Depot. Home Depot is a home improvement retailer with stores across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: kyle@csclassactions.com - and - Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Dylan D. Altland, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: bmm@chimicles.com dda@chimicles.com INFINITE PARKING: Faces Davises Suit Over Misappropriated Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- CARTER DAVIES, GRIFFIN DAVIES, AIDAN DOWELL, GRAHAM IHNDRIS, and KNOX WADE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. INFINITE PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. and JARED WHITAKER, Case No. 1:25-cv-05050-SEG (N.D. Ga., Sept. 5, 2025) alleges the Defendants' systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants, as a regular and routine policy and practice, willfully violated the FLSA by requiring Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to surrender their tips to Defendants. The Plaintiffs contend that all or a substantial percentage of those misappropriated tips were then retained by Defendants and/or converted to management. Pursuant to the FLSA, the Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, for unlawfully withheld tips, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States of America and are residents of the State of Georgia. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Carter Davies from on or about July 8, 2024, to on or about August 11, 2025. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following group of similarly situated persons pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All persons who were, or are, employed by Defendants as Valet Attendants, or performing materially similar work as Valet Attendants, at any time within three years prior to the filing of this Complaint (the "FLSA Collective")." Infinite is a company that offers valet parking services. Whitaker owns Defendant Infinite and manages and controls Infinite's day-to-day operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. Justin M. Scott, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 400-3600 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@radfordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com JELLY BELLY: Lewis Class Suit Faces Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY, Case No. CACE-25-013472 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Sept. 5, 2025) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, in direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, the Defendant makes Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and he resides in Florida. The Defendant transmitted 83017 to Plaintiff' s Cell Phone's caller identification service when it made the Jelly Belly Text Message Sales Calls. elly Belly Candy Company, formerly known as Herman Goelitz Candy Company and Goelitz Confectionery Company, is an American company that manufactures Jelly Belly jelly beans and other candy. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Gutierrez Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-07380 (N.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by selecting and/or maintaining KP Interest Income Fund in the company's ERISA Plans with a lower rate of return when compared to available similar or identical investments with higher rates of return. Moreover, the Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Plans to be invested in the said KP Fund despite the availability of similar, better performing investment options. Headquartered in Oakland, CA, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. offers prepaid health plans and insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dorian L. Jackson, Esq. THE DLJ LAW FIRM, P.C. 3655 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 Telephone: (310) 359-9203 Facsimile: (310) 359-9202 E-mail: djackson@dljlawfirm.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com KAO USA: Faces Esparza Class Suit Over Automatic Renewal Service ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAO USA INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.MYKAOSHOP.COM, Case No. 3:25-cv-02317-CAB-SBC (S.D. Cal., Sept. 5, 2025) arises from the Plaintiff's purchase of an automatically renewing paid subscription from Kao USA Inc. via its website at: https://www.mykaoshop.com/, which caused him to incur unlawful charges from the Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. According to the complaint, the Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law by failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The violations of the ARL by Defendant likewise constitute violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from the ongoing violations of California law, as well as seek damages, punitive damages, restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in 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 KASEYA HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Kaseya Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00752 (W.D. Tex., Filed July 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge David A. Ezra entered an order on Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines: -- The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification on or before Oct. 15, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification). Kaseya is a provider of AI-powered IT management and cybersecurity software.[CC] KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Fammons Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terry Fammons, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0007371 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02534-DAD-AC. On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complain ("FAC") which for the first time asserted a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code Sections 2698. In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action against Defendant: Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226; and Violations of Labor Code Cal. Labor Code Sections 2698 et seq. Plaintiff seeks damages, penalties, costs and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Todd B. Scherwin, Esq. Lirit King, Esq. Danielle S. Zobel, Esq. Carol A. Ibrahim, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: tscherwin@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com dzobel@fisherphillips.com cibrahim@fisherphillips.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE FASSINA, STEVEN EDELEN, KENNETH BLACK, CRAIG DOBBS, and NANCY DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-11466-DJC (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion such that the following deadlines will apply: a. the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their class certification motion due by Sept. 12, 2025, and b. the Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply in support of their summary judgment motion due by Sept. 12, 2025. The parties have good cause for the extensions because there are numerous and complex issues raised in the opposition briefs, and additional time is appropriate so that each party has sufficient time to respond to the opposing arguments. The requested extensions of time are not sought for purposes of delay and will not prejudice any party. Rather, the requested extensions will allow the parties sufficient time to develop their arguments in response to the opposition briefs. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion. The Defendants filed their opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion on Aug. 5, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Defendants filed their summary judgment motion. Liberty offers home, farm, mobile, seasonal property, renters, personal umbrella, business owners, commercial insurance, and more. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LsapjV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES 110 West Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - J. Brandon Mcwherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law The Defendants are represented by: Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. Nicholas J. Ramacher, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY, & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2880 E-mail: dpt@dcglaw.com njr@dcglaw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Michael J. Murtha, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mmurtha@jw.com mbrown@jw.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montana Strong and Debra Yick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LifeStance Health Group, Inc. d/b/a LifeStance, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00682-KML (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement: (1) certifying the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement; (2) appointing Plaintiffs Montana Strong and Debra Yick as Class Representatives; (3) appointing the undersigned counsel as Settlement Class Counsel; (4) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement; (5) approving the proposed form and manner of Notice to the Settlement Class; (6) appointing Angeion Group as Settlement Administrator; (7) directing that Notice to the Settlement Class be disseminated by the Settlement Administrator in the manner described in the Settlement Agreement; (8) establishing deadlines for Settlement Class Members to request exclusion from or file objections to the Settlement; and (9) setting the proposed schedule for completion of further settlement proceedings, including scheduling the Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement defines the "Settlement Class" as all natural persons who are members of Settlement Subclass 1, Settlement Subclass 2, and Settlement Subclass 3: (a) Settlement Subclass 1: "All members of LifeStance's total patient population who booked at least one session through LifeStance's online booking tool, accessed through LifeStance's public website lifestance.com, between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2023." (b) Settlement Subclass 2: "All other members of LifeStance's total patient population between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2023, not including those in Settlement Subclass 1." (c) Settlement Subclass 3: "All persons who visited the LifeStance website but did not book appointments online or otherwise become patients." The action was initially filed by the Plaintiffs on April 21, 2023. On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. By their operative complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the third-parties' interception of their communications through the use of embedded pixels violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act) and other privacy laws. Lifestance is an American outpatient behavioral health services provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BcJhue at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Britany A. Kabakov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com britany@almeidalawgroup.com LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON KLEIN, an Individual, ISAAC LEE, an Individual and JOHNSON WU, an Individual, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LJUBLJANA INTER AUTO D.O.O., a Slovenian Corporation, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 16, 2025, will move this Court for certification of the following Rule 23(b) (3) classes: The first class is: "All persons who purchased a Porsche Macan vehicle, other than a wholly electric Macan, regardless of trim level, between Jan. 1, 2014 and present, within California and primarily for personal, family or household purposes." ("The Macan Suspension Defect Class"). The class would be certified as to (i) a UCL unlawful prong claim predicated on a violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act's warranty merchantability provision, as well as (ii) an unjust enrichment claim. Both of these claims pertain to the suspension defect. The Plaintiffs also seek to certify a subclass to The Macan Suspension Defect Class consisting of "All persons who purchased a new Macan between Dec. 1, 2015 and present. A Macan is 'new' if, at the time of purchase, it has not been previously purchased by anyone other than Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, their affiliates, or an authorized Porsche dealership." ("The New Macan Suspension Defect Subclass"). The Macan Suspension Defect Class would be certified as to (i) a UCL fraudulent prong claim, and (ii) a CLRA claim: both predicated on the concealment of the existence of the suspension defect. The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a second class: "All persons who purchased a model year 2015-2018 Macan S, GTS, or Turbo Porsche Macan, between Jan. 1, 2014 and present, within California and primarily for personal, family or household purposes." ("The Macan Oil Leak Class") The Macan Oil Leak Class would be certified as to (i) a UCL unlawful prong claim predicated on a violation of the Song-Beverly Act’s warranty merchantability provision, as well as (ii) unjust enrichment, both claims pertaining to the oil leak defect. The Plaintiffs would also seek to certify a subclass to The Macan Oil Leak Class consisting of "All persons who purchased a new Macan. A Macan is "new" if, at the time of purchase, it has not been previously purchased by anyone other than Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, their affiliates, or an authorized Porsche dealership." ("The New Macan Oil Leak Subclass"). The New Macan Oil Leak Subclass would be certified as to (i) UCL fraudulent prong claim and a CLRA claim, both predicated on the concealment of the existence of the oil leak defect, and (ii) UCL fraudulent prong claim and a CLRA affirmative misrepresentation claim, both predicated on the misrepresentation as to the horsepower and torque of the Macan on Monroney Label window stickers. By restructuring the proposed class in this manner Plaintiffs address issues of (1) exposure to representations, and (2) logistical questions of how concealed information should have been conveyed to the Class. The two New Macan Subclasses contain only purchasers of Macans that necessarily would have had window stickers on them containing horsepower and torque and where concealed information could have been disclosed (either on the Monroney Label window sticker itself, or on an additional window sticker affixed to the car). The Plaintiffs further request that Allison Klein, Johnson Wu, and Isaac Lee be appointed as the class representatives of The Macan Suspension Defect Class and The Macan Oil Leak Class, while Klein and Lee (but not Wu) be appointed as the class representatives of the two respective New Macan Subclasses. The Plaintiffs further request that Filippo Marchino, Richard W. Davis, Carlos X. Colorado, and Thomas E. Gray of The X-Law Group, P.C., be appointed as Class Counsel. A renowned engineer, Professor Emeritus Dr. Werner Dahm, analyzed the Macan engines at issue and concluded that the 3.0 and 3.6L twin turbo engines found in the model year 2015-2018 Macan S, GTS, and Turbo all suffer from a design defect that leads to oil leaks. Klein purchased a 2017 Macan S from Porsche of Downtown LA in December of 2016. Wu purchased a used 2016 Turbo 3.6 Macan from a private seller in California in early 2020. Lee purchased a 2017 Macan S from Porsche South Bay in December of 2016. All three purchased their Macans for their own personal use. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nviITV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Filippo Marchino, Esq. Richard W. Davis, Esq. Thomas E. Gray, Esq. Carlos X. Colorado, Esq. THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C. 625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (213) 599-3380 Facsimile: (213) 599-3370 E-mail: FM@XLAWX.com RD@XLAWX.com TG@XLAWX.com CC@XLAWX.com LOGITECH INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Logitech Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03524-JMB-DLM (D. Minn., Sept. 5, 2025) contends that Defendant's Website www.logitech.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant offers electronics and computer accessories for sale including, but not limited to, speakers, webcams, conference cameras, keyboards, headsets, and microphones.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MAC COSMETICS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that MAC Cosmetics illegally uses its virtual makeup try-on technology to collect consumers' biometric information in Illinois. According to the 17-page MAC Cosmetics lawsuit, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) prohibits the collection of any state resident's biometric data—such as fingerprints, facial geometry or retinal scans—without informed, written consent. However, MAC's "virtual try-on" service, which scans a customer's facial geometry in order to digitally simulate what various MAC products would look like on them, obtains no such consent before conducting its scan, the complaint alleges. Per the suit, MAC hosts its virtual try-on service both on its website and in its brick-and-mortar retail locations, such as the one the plaintiff visited in Schaumberg, Illinois. The in-store try-on works, the complaint explains, by scanning the customer's facial geometry and producing a live video stream in which various MAC makeup products can be applied to a digital, mirror-like replica of the customer's face. The online try-on tool functions similarly, the complaint writes, except it allows the customer to choose to one of three face-scanning options: allowing MAC's website to access their device camera and produce the same live video function as the in-store try-on, using their device camera to take a photo of themselves via the website's interface, or uploading an existing photo of their face to the site. The lawsuit claims that nowhere in this process do MAC's program or its retail employees ask the customers for any sort of consent to collect their biometric data, including the written consent required in Illinois. The MAC Cosmetics class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who had the "virtual try-on" biometric scan used on them in any brick-and-mortar MAC store in Illinois or any Illinois resident who was subject to a biometric scan via MAC's website. [GN] MANPOWER INC: Sackey-Mensah Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manpower, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alfred Sackey-Mensah, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Manpower, Inc., Yanfeng International Automotive Technology US II LLC, Yanfeng International Automotive Technology US LLC, Case No. 25CV140569 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Manpower -- https://www.manpower.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com MAYU WATER: Faces Esparza Suit Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal -------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAYU WATER LLC, a Delaware company, d/b/a WWW.MAYUWATER.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08216 (C.D. Cal., September 1, 2025) arises from the alleged unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. Allegedly, the Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law by failing to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The ARL imposed a statutory duty upon Defendant to disclose such information to consumers who purchased subscriptions from Defendant or entered into continuous service agreements with Defendant. The foregoing violations of the ARL by Defendant likewise constitute violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law, alleges the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from the ongoing violations of California law, as well as seek damages, punitive damages, restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Headquartered in Delaware, Mayu Water LLC owns and operates the website, https://www.mayuwater.com, which markets and sells mineral and electrolyte water additives. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 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 MDL 3071: Antitrust Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: Realpage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yurPRX at no extra charge.[CC] MID-AMERICA: Wolf Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelsey Wolf, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:24-cv-01196 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 Mid-America Apartment is a publicly traded real estate investment trust based in Memphis, Tennessee that invests in apartments in the Southeastern United States and the Southwestern United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w6Bd0H at no extra charge.[CC] MOMENTUS TECHNOLOGIES: Heiting Sues Over Illegal Tracker Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOMENTUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08246 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) arises from Defendant Momentus Technologies' installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent from Plaintiff and other website users. According to the complaint, the Defendant deliberately engineered and programmed its website with tracking technology to capture data from California-based internet users while those users browsed from within California's territorial boundaries. The Defendant also configured its tracking systems on its website to identify, profile, and exploit these California users by initially collecting data about their computer, location, and browsing habits. Moreover, the Defendant did not obtain the express or implied consent of Plaintiff to be subjected to data sharing with LiveRamp for the purposes of de-anonymization, profiling, and targeting. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Momentus Technologies is a Delaware limited liability company that sells use of a platform, software and software coordination relating to event planning. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com MONARCH CASINO: Kenny Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ HAYDEN KENNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONARCH CASINO & RESORT, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02745 (D. Colo., September 2, 2025) alleges that Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights, and the rights of other, similarly-situated hourly employees under the Colorado Wage Act, and the applicable Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders, and under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, by automatically deducting 30 minutes from their pay for meal periods, despite the fact that the Class Members rarely received uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a bartender and server from July 2021 to December 2024. Allegedly, the Defendants violated the federal and state laws by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other Class Members overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 per week and/or 12 per shift and failing to provide compensated, duty-free, uninterrupted rest periods to Class Members or, in the alternative, to compensate the Class Members for the work they performed during 10-minute periods that should have been compensated rest periods. In addition, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's rights by retaliating against him after he raised concerns about the Defendant's wage practices, in violation of the CWA and Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act. Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. owns and operates Monarch Casino Resort Spa Black Hawk, located at 488 Main Street, Black Hawk, CO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Harrison, Esq. Cynthia J. Sanchez, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 518 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 255-0370 E-mail: aharrison@hkm.com csanchez@hkm.com NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- DiCello Levitt, Labaton Keller Sucharow, and Garwin Gerstein & Fisher have filed a class action lawsuit against The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) on behalf of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1500 Welfare Fund -- New York's largest grocery store union. The lawsuit alleges that NYP has engaged in anticompetitive practices that have inflated the cost of inpatient hospital services across New York City. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claims that NYP has used its market dominance to impose restrictive contract terms on insurers, including anti-steering provisions, "All Products Clauses," and gag clauses that suppress price transparency. These tactics allegedly prevent health plans from directing patients to lower-cost providers and force the inclusion of all NYP facilities in top-tier insurance networks -- regardless of cost or quality. UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, which provides healthcare benefits to thousands of union members, alleges that NYP's practices have led to excessive healthcare expenditures and reduced competition in the market for general acute care (GAC) inpatient hospital services. "NYP is unfairly leveraging its market power to limit price competition, leaving payors with no choice but to accept inflated rates," said Partner Greg Asciolla, Chair of DiCello Levitt's Antitrust Practice Group and Managing Partner of the firm's New York office. "We are committed to restoring fairness and transparency in New York's healthcare market." The class action seeks to represent all entities that paid NYP for GAC inpatient hospital services in New York City since July 25, 2021. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal and state antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act and New York's Donnelly Act, and seeks actual damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The case is UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, Case No. 2:25-cv-05023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, antitrust, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, and civil and human rights litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases--whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise--for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations--and our capital--on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. Media Contact Caitlin Whitehurst, Director of Communications, cwhitehurst@dicellolevitt.com, 440-953-8888 [GN] ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE: Bone Balks at Unsecured Personal, Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- TINA BONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF WESTERN KENTUCKY, PLLC, and BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00147-BJB (W.D. Ky., Sept. 5, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information, from a foreseeable, preventable data breach. Due to Defendants' data security failures, the notorious criminal ransomware group known as Safepay accessed Defendants' network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI stored therein, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, demographic information, medical treatment and diagnosis information, medical records and treatment histories, pharmacy information, physician and provider names and and other sensitive data (Private Information), causing widespread injuries to the Plaintiff and Class Members (the Data Breach). As of Sept. 2, 2025, the Private Information compromised and stolen in the Data Breach has been published on Safepay's dark web leak site, free for any nefarious actor to view, download, and use to commit identity theft and other crimes against Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of the Defendants who, in order to obtain healthcare, were and are required to entrust with their sensitive, non-public private information. Orthopedic Institute of western Kentucky is the largest orthopedic service provider in the Western Kentucky region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ORW USA: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawful Reference Pricing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORW USA, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a WWW.4WHEELPARTS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV25583 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's unlawful strike-through reference pricing scheme applied to the products offered on its website. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant advertised fictitious prices and corresponding fake discounts of its products. Moreover, the Defendant's pricing and advertising practices misled customers into believing that they are getting a bargain by buying products from Defendant on sale and at a substantial and deep discount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the California's False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. ORW USA, Inc. operates as an online retailer that sells purses, backpacks, duffels, and related items nationwide and in California. It owns and maintains the website, https://www.4wheelparts.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 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 PETROHIO LLC: Wagner Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WAGNER, Plaintiff v. PETROHIO, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, and ARP HOSPITALITY LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01002-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, September 2, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated, and are continuing to discriminate, against the Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing to, among other things, have accessible facilities. Moreover, the Plaintiff was unlawfully denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages of the property on the basis of disability due to Defendants’ failure to comply with Title III of the ADA and its accompanying regulations, says the suit. Petrohio, LLC owns real property which is a restaurant located at 16 N Sandusky St, Delaware, Ohio 43015 located in Delaware County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com PIERCE COUNTY, WA : Faces Class Suits Over Massive Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Sutich, writing for My Northwest, reports that two separate class action lawsuits have been filed following a massive data breach at the Pierce County Library System, which exposed more than 335,000 Washington residents' personal information, according to KIRO 7. Court filings detailed that the suspected hackers gained unauthorized access to the library's computer network between April 15 and April 21. The hackers copied and stole files from the servers, including the names and dates of birth of hundreds of thousands of library members. Lawsuits filed after Pierce County library data breach Current and former library employees' data may have been exposed as well, including Social Security numbers, government identification, and addresses. The two lawsuits alleged that the library failed to maintain sufficient security protocols and delayed notifying the victims of the breach. An internal review of the breach was conducted by the library in May. However, victims did not receive notices for more than two months after the data breach. The plaintiffs' attorneys argued the delay made library members and staff vulnerable to fraud and identity theft. One group of plaintiffs, including Gwendolyn Bachmann, Kristye Gervais, and Brett Higbee, claimed they began to receive scam calls, emails, and texts after the library's data breach. Gervais said she changed her phone number due to the heavy traffic of scam calls she received. Bachmann claimed recurring attempts to use her debit card were made before it was frozen. Additionally, Higbee monitored his accounts for hours and dealt with solicitations. Second complaint from plaintiffs Another complaint was filed by Georgette Mills and Heather Lee, a library employee. Mills noted fraudulent messages about toll fees were received, and Lee claimed she spent more than 20 hours attempting to secure her accounts amid a plethora of spam messages. The two lawsuits highlighted that the breach caused long-term consequences to the affected victims. Attorneys in the case noted that vital information such as dates of birth and Social Security numbers can be highly valuable on the dark web. A complaint mentioned that a cybercriminal group widely known as "Inc" listed approximately two terabytes of stolen information for sale on an online forum. In response to the library's data breach, it has offered victims one year of credit monitoring. However, the lawsuits note that the library's efforts are not enough. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and court-ordered reforms, which include bolstered security standards, encryption, and independent audits, according to KIRO 7. KIRO Newsradio has reached out to the Pierce County Library System for comment. [GN] RAISING CANE'S: Faces Crosby Suit Over Illegal Background Check --------------------------------------------------------------- CHICEN CROSBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANTS, L.L.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-10725 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, the Defendant obtained information concerning Plaintiff from a Consumer Reporting Agency named Checkr. The Defendant paid a fee for the information it obtained concerning Plaintiff. The information obtained concerning Plaintiff was a Consumer Report. The Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding Plaintiff, and on information and belief, Defendant relies on similar information from Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding other prospective or current employees, including, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action, such as a refusal to hire and/or termination. The Defendant took an adverse action based in whole or in part on the Consumer Report and failed to provide Plaintiff with the report prior to the adverse action. In taking the adverse action, without first providing a copy of the Consumer Report, the Defendant violated section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. The Plaintiff is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff applied in person for employment with the Defendant in or about March of 2025 at Defendant's Chicago restaurant. The Defendant operates a Restaurant in 564 W Taylor St., Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. Jayson Watkins, Esq. Ricard Parks, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 274-0350 E-mail: wsweetnam@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com rparks@sirillp.com REALPAGE INC: Watters Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watters v. RealPage, Inc. et al (IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-01082 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GYXqqU at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: White Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. RealPage, Inc. et al (IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00413 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jIExTT at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKET LAB: Seeks to Dismiss Class Suit Over Neutron Rocket Program ------------------------------------------------------------------- Badar Shaikh of Benzinga reports that Rocket Lab Corp. (RKLB) has requested to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by investors for alleged misrepresentations regarding the company's Neutron reusable rocket. Court documents released on Monday, September 8, by the California Central District Court showcase that lawyers representing the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The class action, filed by investors of the company, alleges that Rocket Lab assured investors of the Neutron rocket's launch timeline as well as finances tied to the launch, which had alleged discrepancies, between November last year and February this year. Investors allege that the company overstated the Neutron rocket program launch's readiness and downplayed delays as well as contract risks. Rocket Lab's New Launch Complex, Electron Rocket Mission The news comes as the company announced the opening of a new launch complex at the Virginia Space Port Authority's Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), which will play a key role in the development of its Neutron reusable rocket. Rocket Lab also announced it successfully conducted the 70th Electron Mission, which saw the launch of the Electron rocket from a launch facility in New Zealand. The rocket carried 5 low Earth orbit satellites for a "confidential" commercial customer, the company said. [GN] SALESFORCE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Massive Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Malcolm Scott filed a class action lawsuit against Salesforce Inc. Why: Scott claims Salesforce failed to properly safeguard consumer information in connection with a data breach. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Salesforce failed to properly safeguard consumer information in connection with a data breach earlier this year. Plaintiff Malcolm Scott claims Salesforce disclosed the personal information of consumers -- including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers and partial Social Security numbers -- to unauthorized third parties during a data breach in or around May 2025. Salesforce is a cloud-based software company that provides its services to various corporate clients throughout the country in sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence and application development, according to the Salesforce class action. Scott wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals who were impacted by the Salesforce data breach, including all persons who were sent notice by Farmers Insurance or any other client of Salesforce that their personal information was compromised as a result of the data breach. Salesforce data breach impacted 1.1M Farmers customers, class action claims The class action lawsuit argues Salesforce failed to adequately secure its servers and systems and jeopardized the security of consumers' personal information, which the plaintiff claims is now in the hands of criminals. "Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud," the Salesforce class action lawsuit says. Scott claims Salesforce is guilty of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment and also violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and statutory damages, punitive damages, monetary damages, interest, fees and costs. In 2020, Salesforce suffered a data breach that exposed the personal information of Hanna Andersson customers, and it took Salesforce more than two weeks to alert both Hanna Andersson and its customers. Have you been affected by this Salesforce data breach? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot and Bradley K. King of Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C., John J. Nelson and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and William "Billy" Peerce Howard of The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC. The Salesforce data breach class action lawsuit is Scott v. Salesforce Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-07232, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.[GN] SALESFORCE INC: Holland Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07383 (N.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and tens of thousands of other individuals' personally identifying information including names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, passports and/or government identification numbers. On May 7, 2025, Christian Dior, Inc. and Christian Dior Couture SAS learned about a data breach in which an unauthorized party was able to gain access to a Dior database that contained information about Dior clients on January 26, 2025. However, the Plaintiff only received notification of the data breach from Dior on or around July 24, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Salesforce, Inc. is a cloud-based software company based in San Francisco County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law SAVARA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Savara Inc. ("Savara" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SVRA). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information, including allegations that: (i) the MOLBREEVI biologics license application ("BLA") lacked sufficient information regarding MOLBREEVI's chemistry, manufacturing, and/or controls; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the MOLBREEVI BLA in its current form; (iii) the foregoing made it unlikely that Savara would complete its submission of the MOLBREEVI BLA within the timeframe it had represented to investors; and (iv) the delay in MOLBREEVI's regulatory approval increased the likelihood that the Company would need to raise additional capital. If you purchased shares of Savara between March 7, 2024 and May 23, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/savara/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is November 7, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] SEATGEEK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Privacy Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction. org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that ticket-seller SeatGeek has installed tracking technologies on its website to transmit visitors' personal information to TikTok and Meta without consent. According to the 14-page lawsuit, SeatGeek has embedded TikTok and Meta's tracking software, known as the TikTok Pixel and the Meta Pixel, respectively, into its website to collect site visitors' IP addresses, browsing information, device details and unique user and browser session identifiers before transmitting that information back to the two social media giants. Once the information has been transferred, the complaint says, TikTok and Meta use the data they have collected from their user bases and other information available online—including names, dates of birth and addresses—in combination with the information sourced from their pixels to personally identify each SeatGeek user. SeatGeek then uses the personal profiles that TikTok and Meta generate to customize and personally tailor the advertisements each user sees, increasing its own ad revenue, the filing writes. The lawsuit claims that SeatGeek site visitors are never informed that the website collaborates with Meta and TikTok to collect their personal information, which includes phone numbers, names and other identifying details. Furthermore, the complaint argues that the TikTok and Meta Pixels meet the definition of a "trap and trace device" as established under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). Per the suit, a trap and trace device is a process or device that collects incoming impulses that identify the source, but not the content, of wire or electronic communications. Per CIPA regulations, the filing notes, the use of trap-and-trace software without a court order is prohibited. As such, the lawsuit claims that SeatGeek's use of online tracking pixels is illegal in California. The SeatGeek class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, visited the SeatGeek website without registering with or purchasing tickets from SeatGeek and had their identifying information sent to TikTok and Meta as a result. [GN] SKY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blocker Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Blocker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sky Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10440 (N.D. Ill., September 1, 2025), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned overtime wages and commissions. The Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members are current and former sales representatives of Defendant. Allegedly, they were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the other class members all earned commissions, as required by the IWPCA, upon separation from the company. Based in Illinois, Sky Services, Inc. offers vehicle and home protection plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com SOUTHEASTERN PIZZA: Fugatt Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN FUGATT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEASTERN PIZZA GROUP, LLC d/b/a "Pizza Hut," Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01022 (M.D. Fla., September 2, 2025) seeks to redress Defendant's systematic policy and practice of paying its delivery drivers net hourly wages below the minimum wage in violation of Florida Constitution Article X Section 24 and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff and other delivery drivers to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers' homes and workplaces. Instead of reimbursing its delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendant has used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates. As a result, the Plaintiff's and other drivers' unreimbursed expenses caused their wages to fall below the minimum wage, asserts the suit. Southeastern Pizza Group, LLC operates approximately 17 Pizza Hut franchise restaurants in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph C. Wood, Esq. ARCADIER, BIGGIE & WOOD, PLLC 2815 West New Haven, Suite 304 Melbourne, FL 32904 Telephone: (321) 953-5998 E-mail: wood@melbournelegalteam.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com SUNSHINE DADE: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Monteagudo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDY S. AGUILAR MONTEAGUDO v. SUNSHINE DADE INVESTMENTS, LLC and MIAMI SHELL, LLC D/B/A FIESTA SHELL, Case No. 1:25-cv-24059 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 5, 2025) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial gas station and food mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial gas station and food mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. Sunshine owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. Miami Shell owns, operates and oversees the commercial gas station and food mart within the subject commercial property, which is open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, Florida 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com TENET HEALTHCARE: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Commick Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ TASHA COMMICK, individually and as a representative of a Class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Tenet Healthcare Corporation 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, AND TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No. 3:25-cv-02397-S (N.D. Tex., Sept. 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for: (1) failure to comply with the Plan document; (2) breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) fiduciary duties; and (3) violation of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules According to the complaint, instead of following the terms of the Plan, and loyally and prudently acting in the best interest of Plan Participants and avoiding prohibited transactions, the Defendants chose to use Plan assets almost exclusively to benefit Tenet, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by using over $28 million of Plan assets to offset Tenet's contractual obligations to make declared matching contributions to the Plan, while requiring Plan Participants to pay nearly $28 million in Plan expenses to the Plan's third-party service providers, both directly and indirectly, that should never have come out of their accounts. Even more egregious, during the class period the Defendants had leftover Plan assets available at the end of each year that could have covered all or most of Plan participants' expenses even after they enriched Tenant with $28 million in Plan assets, asserts the suit. Ms. Commick is a citizen of the State of California, was previously employed by Tenet, from 2019 through 2020, and was a participant in the Plan during the class period. Tenet is a multinational healthcare services company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Seth J. Bloom, Esq. BLOOM LEGAL LLC 825 Girod Street, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 599-9997 E-mail: sjb@bloomlegal.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Almeida Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JOE ALMEIDA and HANS WIRT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10690 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2025) is a class action suit against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information and for its failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain and/or are utilized to transfer PII. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have been, and continue to be, harmed as a result of TransUnion's failure to properly secure and safeguard its customers highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information including customers' names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers for their failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. According to its website, TransUnion is described as "a global information and insights company that makes trust possible in global commerce," collecting data from individuals that is "stewarded with care." TransUnion therefore knowingly collects and stores sensitive PII of millions of individuals, and has a resulting duty to secure such information from unauthorized access and exfiltration, the suit says. TransUnion is a credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Calloway Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JERRY CALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10712 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On or around July 30, 2025, TransUnion became aware of suspicious activity on one of its third-party applications, says the suit. Accordingly, TransUnion determined that cybercriminals infiltrated this inadequately secured application and gained access to TransUnion files. The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals potentially accessed and/or acquired files containing the sensitive personal information of 4,461,511 individuals. The personally identifiable information accessed by cybercriminals included names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. The Plaintiff received a notice letter from Defendant, informing him that his Personal Information was specifically identified as having been exposed to cybercriminals in the Data Breach. TransUnion is one of three nationwide consumer credit reporting agencies in the United States and provides credit reporting, credit scoring, fraud prevention, identity protection, and related data analytics services to millions of consumers and businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com TRONOX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Tronox Holdings plc ("Tronox" or the "Company") (NYSE: TROX) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Tronox investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 12, 2025 and July 30, 2025. Visit the link below to get more information of the case: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/tronox-holdings-plc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=165921&wire=4 CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Tronox's ability to forecast the demand for its pigment and zircon products or otherwise the true state of its commercial division, despite making lofty long-term projections, Tronox's forecasting processes fell short as sales continued to decline and costs increased, ultimately, derailing the Company's revenue projections. On July 30, 2025, Tronox announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2025, revealing a significant reduction in TiO2 sales for the quarter. The Company attributed the decline to "softer than anticipated coatings season and heightened competitive dynamics." As a result of the setback in sales, defendants revised the Company's 2025 financial outlook lowering its full-year revenue guidance and reducing its dividend by 60%. Following this news, Tronox's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $5.14 per share on July 30, 2025, Tronox's stock price fell to $3.19 per share on July 31, 2025, a decline of about 38% in the span of just a single day. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Tronox during the relevant time frame, you have until November 3, 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] UPP GLOBAL: Agrees to $650,000 Citation Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets, writing for Claim Depot, reports that consumers who paid a parking citation Florida Parking Co. issued between April 30, 2022, and April 30, 2024, may qualify to receive a payment of $15.75 or $44 from a class action settlement. UPP Global LLC, doing business as Florida Parking Co., agreed to pay $650,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it issued misleading parking citations in violation of Florida consumer debt collection law. Who is eligible for a class action payout? The settlement divides class members into two groups based on their parking payment history: -- Paid parking class members: Individuals who parked in a lot Florida Parking Co. operated, paid to park, received a parking citation and paid the citation between April 30, 2022, and April 30, 2024. -- Unpaid parking class members: Individuals who parked in a lot Florida Parking Co. operated, did not pay to park, received a parking citation and paid the citation between April 30, 2022, and April 30, 2024. According to the settlement agreement, there are approximately 8,850 paid parking class members and 14,573 unpaid parking class members. How much is the parking citation settlement payment? -- Paid parking class members: Individuals who paid to park in a lot will receive approximately 70% of their citation payment, which is estimated at $44. -- The average citation payment was $63 so $63 x 0.70 = $44. -- Unpaid parking class members: Individuals who paid to park in a lot but did not pay to park will receive approximately 25% of their citation payment, which is estimated at $15.75. -- The average citation payment was $63 so $63 x 0.25 = $15.75. No claim form required to receive a payment Eligible class members do not need to file a claim to receive their payment. The settlement administrator will automatically mail checks to the address on record. Class members can update their mailing address online using the notice ID and PIN from the official settlement notice. Is proof required? The settlement administrator already has the necessary information to identify eligible class members. Class members do not need to provide additional documentation to receive payment. Payout options Qualifying class members will receive a paper check mailed to the address on file with the Florida Parking Co. $650,000 Florida parking citation settlement fund The settlement fund of $650,000 includes: -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $195,000 -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $45,000 -- Service award to class representative: $10,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: $424,600 Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 28, 2025 -- Final fairness hearing: Oct. 13, 2025 When is the Florida Parking Co. class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will mail checks to eligible class members approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Florida Parking Co. issued parking citations containing misleading statements about the consequences of nonpayment, such as its affected on credit ratings, vehicle registration, license renewal and vehicle rental The plaintiff also claimed terms like "citation" and "fine" made the notices appear as if they were issued by a government entity. UPP Global denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid further expense and the possibility of a trial. [GN] WASTE CONNECTIONS: Valdes FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as GIRALDO VALDES, and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WASTE CONNECTIONS OF FLORIDA, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2025 014050-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-23885 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Waste Connections violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. In connection with these allegations, the Plaintiff brings two counts under the FLSA, one for alleged unpaid wages and one for alleged retaliation. Waste Connections of Florida, Inc. provides solid waste collection, recycling, and landfill disposal services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jacox@bakerlaw.com [] Illinois Appeals Court Rejects FDCPA Class Action Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- insideARM reports that on August 27, an Illinois appellate court affirmed a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration in an FDCPA class action. The case involved a 2022 collection email about a charged-off account originally opened with a wireless provider in 2007 and later sold to a debt buyer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA by failing to provide clear instructions for opting out of future email communications. The defendants argued that the arbitration clause in the original service agreement -- which required arbitration of "any dispute that results from this agreement or from Services" -- should apply. The court disagreed, finding that FDCPA claims are "akin to torts" and do not arise from the original contract. The appellate court explained that a mere connection to the original contract was insufficient, emphasizing that the "real source of the dispute" was the 2022 collection email, and that the case did not concern a right that accrued or vested under the agreement. The appellate court further noted that arbitration clauses are intended to "implement a contract, not to transcend it," and concluded that compelling arbitration in this instance would have extended the agreement beyond its intended reach. As a result, the FDCPA class action litigation was permitted to proceed. [GN] [] Wetherington Law Probes Illegal Vehicle Booting in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- Wetherington Law Firm is actively investigating a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of Texas drivers who were unlawfully booted by private booting operators. The investigation focuses on companies that may have violated the Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 2308, and related Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) rules governing nonconsensual booting and towing. The firm is gathering evidence from drivers across Texas who were immobilized without proper signage, overcharged beyond legal limits, or pressured into unlawful cash-only payments. Once sufficient evidence is assembled, the firm intends to file a class action seeking refunds of booting fees, compensation for related losses, and court orders stopping these predatory practices. Who May Be Included in the Proposed Class Our proposed class action seeks to represent: All persons in Texas who, on or after January 1, 2020, paid boot removal fees or related charges to a private booting operator under circumstances that violated Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2308 or TDLR booting regulations. The Court will ultimately decide the exact class definition after the lawsuit is filed. Texas Booting Laws at a Glance Texas law is unusually specific about when and how private vehicles may be booted. Under Occupations Code Chapter 2308, booting is only legal if: -- The property posts clear, TDLR-compliant signs at every lot entrance stating vehicles may be booted. -- The booting company is licensed by TDLR as a booting operator. -- The boot removal fee does not exceed the maximum set by state law (currently capped at $75 statewide). -- The company accepts cash, debit, or credit card payments, with no unlawful surcharges. -- A TDLR-licensed booting technician installs and removes the boot. -- The operator removes the boot within one hour of payment. Violations of these rules can make a booting incident unlawful and open the company up to civil liability. Why We Are Investigating Despite clear laws, reports from Texas drivers show that many booting companies allegedly: -- Boot cars on properties without legally required signage. -- Charge boot removal fees above the $75 statutory maximum. -- Refuse to accept credit or debit cards, demanding cash only. -- Delay for hours before removing boots, even after payment. -- Operate without a valid TDLR booting license. -- Use intimidation or harassment when drivers question their rights. These practices not only violate state law but may also constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices, giving drivers the right to recover damages. Legal Claims Under Review The anticipated lawsuit is expected to assert claims including: -- Violations of Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 2308 (Vehicle Towing and Booting Act). -- Violations of TDLR Booting Regulations. -- Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). -- Unjust Enrichment and Conversion for wrongfully taking money or holding vehicles hostage. -- Injunctive Relief to require companies to comply with Texas booting laws and regulations. If successful, these claims may entitle drivers to recover full refunds, statutory damages, treble damages under the DTPA, and attorneys' fees. Potential Defendants While the lawsuit has not yet been filed, Wetherington Law Firm is investigating multiple Texas-based booting operators. Many have been the subject of: -- TDLR disciplinary actions, -- consumer complaints, -- and local news investigations highlighting predatory booting practices in cities such as Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Once filed, the lawsuit will identify the operators and property owners shown by evidence to be responsible. How to Participate in Texas Booting Class Action Drivers who were booted in Texas may be entitled to compensation. To join our investigation: -- Contact Wetherington Law Firm at (470) 600-2751 or submit your information through our secure website form. -- Provide documentation -- including boot removal receipts, photos of signage (or lack thereof), payment records, and any communication with the booting company. -- Share details -- such as the date, location, company name, and the amount you paid. There is no cost to participate. If the case is filed as a class action, Wetherington Law Firm expects to handle it on a contingency basis, meaning you will not owe attorneys' fees unless we secure a recovery. About Wetherington Law Firm Wetherington Law Firm represents individuals and classes in complex litigation nationwide, including consumer protection, predatory practices, and illegal towing and booting cases. Our attorneys have successfully challenged abusive corporate behavior in multiple states and are Statement from Counsel "Texas law is clear: booting companies cannot charge more than $75, must be licensed, and must follow strict rules to protect drivers," said Matt Wetherington, founding partner at Wetherington Law Firm. "Yet many companies ignore these rules, leaving drivers stranded, embarrassed, and financially exploited. We are investigating to put an end to these practices and recover money for Texans who were taken advantage of." [GN] ********* 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 ***