250918.mbx

250918.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 187 Headlines 20/20 CUSTOM MOLDED: Anders Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime 3M COMPANY: Gregory Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams AEGIS TRUST: Ralston Sues Over Losses From Mismanaged ESOP Plan AHOLD DELHAIZE: Owens Files Suit Over Data Breach ALLSTATE SALES: Horling Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY: Tejon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida APPLE INC: Faces Hendrix Suit Over Direct Copyright Infringement ARKANSAS FEDERAL: Mosley Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fee Charges AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Schultz Suit BAPTIST HEALTH: Weissberg Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri BETTER HOME: Santos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premiums BNBUILDERS INC: Schlueter Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty BRICKELL BRANDS: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California BWPSS HOLDINGS: Cuesta Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York CAPRI NAILS: Li Appeals Tossed Settlement Approval Bid to 2nd Cir. CELLULAR TOUCH: Clontz Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Under FLSA CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Oct. 22 Hearing on Bid to Toss Khan Suit Set CHELSEA FC HOLDINGS: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Peed Says CINCO SPIRITS: Faces Suit Over Tequila "100% de Agave" False Claims COMERICA BANK: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Way2Go Cards for $2MM COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Barbett Files Suit in D. Columbia COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Sands Sues Over Leaked Personal Info CONSERVATION CORPS: Hinojos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CURRIE HAIR: Golt Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Estheticians DBEST PRODUCTS: Faces Jackson Suit Over Website's Access Barriers DELOITTE CONSULTING: Reaches Prelim Settlement in Data Breach Suit DELTA AIR: Seeks Denial of Goodyear's Bid for Class Certification DISNEY DTC: Installs Website Trackers Without Consent, Tasker Says DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING: Sefo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EL LIDO PLAZA: Monteagudo Sues Over Inaccessible Property EQT CORP: Hice Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order to 3rd Circuit EVERGY INC: Allowed Leave for to File Docs Under Seal EVRY JEWELS: Reaches $3.5MM Settlement in Fake Discounts' Suit FANATICS HOLDINGS: Menzer Balks at Memorabilia Products' False Ads FARMERS INSURANCE: Nolan Sues Over Inadequate Data Security FAVORITE WORLD: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Set Nov. 5 FORBES MEDIA: Agrees to Settle Video Privacy Class Suit for $7.5MM FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $5.6MM GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt EV Owners Sue Over Defective Batteries GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Engines GLORIA JEAN'S: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GPAC LLC: Falconer Suit Transferred to D. South Dakota GRAIL INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending GREAT KILLS MARINA: Carmona Sues Over Unpaid Wages H&R ACCOUNTS: Faces Boyd Class Suit Over Debt Collection Notices HEALTHPRO HERITAGE: Smith Suit Removed to E.D. California HOMEOVER GENERAL: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Starling Says INSIDER INC: Lara Suit Removed to N.D. California INSPIRA MEDICAL: FLSA Collective Wins Certification JAMES CUNNINGHAM: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Defalco Says JAMES H. CUNNINGHAM: Kirkland Sues Over Leaked Personal Info JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Acevedo Suit Removed to M.D. Florida JMJ ENTERPRISES: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Tossed JUST INGREDIENTS: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website KS BRANDS LLC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LA SENZA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges LAGADA CORP: Faces Guarcax Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. LANGDON & COMPANY: Sadler Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud LIDO LABS: Voegtli Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California LOOT COMPANY: Automatically Renews Subscription, Rodriguez Claims MANA PRODUCTS: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: McNeil Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Thornhill Suit Removed to N.D. California MERRITT, BC: Unfixed, Unstable Dikes Led to Flooding, Suit Says MESK INVESTMENT: Final Settlement Hearing in Wage Suit Set Oct. 31 MICHAEL FOODS: Jackson Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MICHIGAN: Court Awards $3.5MM Attys' Fees to Class Counsel MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Hirth Suit Removed to D. Kansas MISSION PRODUCE: Continues to Defend Kachuk Class Suit in D.C. MOUNT SINAI: Mitto Seeks Unpaid Wages for Patient Care Associates MUSH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Oats' False Protein Content NEW STRATA: McClain Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Alleging Heart Drug Monopoly OPW FUELING: Underpays Machine Operators, Solis Suit Alleges POST HOLDINGS: Dog Food Products Falsely Advertised, Suit Says PRIMO WATER: Faces Suit Over Spring Water Products' False Claims PUBLIX SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Suit Says QUAKER OATS: Zhen Appeals Class Cert. and Attorney Fees Ruling RANA POULTRY: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. RED RIVER SCIENCE: Elledge Suit Removed to C.D. California RICH HOLDINGS: Spinella Sues Over Retaliatory Conduct Under FLSA RICHARDSON MEDIA: Misclassifies Editors and Writers, Merrell Says ROCKBROS USA: Jackson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ROMEO'S PIZZA: Dietrich Combined Bid for Certification OK'd ROUND STAR NY: Barnett Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida RTR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Hecht Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York S. MARTINELLI: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Misleading Juice Labels SAFEWAY INC: Lara Suit Removed to N.D. California SAN DIEGO, CA: Duardo Sues to Recover Unpaid Bonus SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gomez Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. SCOPE HEALTH: Noonan Sues Over Non-FDA Approved Ophthalmic Products STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Filing Extension Referred to Judge Prose TD BANK: Dou Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 22 THAI SUMMIT: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime TIARA YACHTS: Court Narrows Claims in Stodolak Suit TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Gotay Says TRANSUNION LLC: Settles Consumer Credit Data Suit for $2.5MM TRANSUNION: McLeod Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info TRAX RETAIL: Grant Suit Removed to N.D. California U.S. RENAL CARE: Taclob Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. UNION SETTLEMENT: Hernandez Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Denied Student Loan Forgiveness WEIRTON MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit WOLVERINE FUELS: Fails to Properly Pay Beltmen, Goins Suit Claims YAKIMA PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Says [^] Antitrust Practice of Major U.S. Class Action Law Firms ********* 20/20 CUSTOM MOLDED: Anders Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Dalton Anders, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 20/20 CUSTOM MOLDED PLASTICS, LTD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00468 (N.D. Ind., Sept. 4, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),as a result of the Defendant's failure to include the Plaintiff's attendance bonus in the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for overtime purposes was a uniform practice that applied to hundreds and perhaps thousands of employees. During at least some of the months in which the Plaintiff received an attendance bonus, he worked overtime one or more workweeks. However, when the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff's overtime pay for these workweeks, the Defendant failed to include the attendance bonus in the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. Nor did the Defendant ever include a catch-up payment that incorporated the attendance bonus into the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for over one year. 20/20 Custom Molded Plastics, Ltd. is a corporation with its principal place of business in Bluffton, Wells County, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Elliott, Esq. Noah W. Vancina, Esq. BECKMAN LAWSON, LLP 201 W. Wayne Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 Phone: (260) 422-0800 3M COMPANY: Gregory Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Marcus Gregory, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; 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-12183-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2025), is brought for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to the 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: Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy 98, Suite D-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Phone: 205-434-2866 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com AEGIS TRUST: Ralston Sues Over Losses From Mismanaged ESOP Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI RALSTON, on behalf of the ARCO DB Companies, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEGIS TRUST COMPANY, LLC, ROBERT E. LESSER, RICHARD G. SCHULTZE, MARQUIS J. "MARK" MUMMERT, JEFFREY L. COOK, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01340 (E.D. Mo., September 5, 2025) is brought against the Defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for losses suffered by the ARCO DB Companies, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its participants caused by the Trustee when it caused the Plan to engage in ERISA prohibited transactions in connection with its leveraged purchase of ADB stock from the Selling Shareholders, and other plan-wide relief. Plaintiff Ralston brings this suit against Aegis Trust Company, LLC and its Managing Member, Robert E. Lesser (together, "Trustee"), who served as the fiduciary trustee for the ARCO DB Companies, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan" or the "ESOP") at the time the Plan acquired shares of ARCO DB Companies, Inc. in 2019. According to the complaint, the Trustee caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions under ERISA when it caused the Plan to purchase Company stock from the Selling Shareholders and transfer assets of the Plan to them, and financed that purchase with loans from the Selling Shareholders and the Company, who were parties in interest to the Plan. The Selling Shareholders, as the counterparties to the transactions and ADB directors and senior officers, were knowing participants in the prohibited transactions. The Plan, Plaintiff, and all Plan participants have been injured and participants deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to enforce her rights under ERISA and the Plan. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks, in the alternative, to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and the improper profits realized by Defendants resulting from their causing prohibited transactions and knowingly participating in the prohibited transactions, and equitable relief. Aegis Trust Company, LLC, a New Hampshire limited liability company, is the surviving entity following a merger effective on July 18, 2023, with Aegis Fiduciary Services, LLC which at the time of the ESOP Transaction was a New York limited liability company. Aegis Fiduciary was founded in 2017. Aegis Trust was created on May 4, 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 34 N. Gore Avenue, Suite 102 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 863-5446 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com todd@feinbergjackson.com - and - Mary Bortscheller, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2112 Broadway Street NE, Suite 225 #137 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (510) 606-5219 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: mary@feinbergjackson.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Owens Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- SIERA OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, and FOOD LION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00815 (M.D.N.C., September 5, 2025) arises from the Defendants' data breach that primarily exposed employment records from current and former staff across Ahold Delhaize's U.S. brands. As part of their normal business operations, Ahold Delhaize and Food Lion collect highly sensitive data about their former and current employees, including their names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, financial information, and more. Ahold Delhaize and Food Lion employees have no choice but to trust Defendants to keep their data secure. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have been and must continue to be vigilant and review their credit reports for incidents of identity theft, and educate themselves about security freezes, fraud alerts, and other steps to protect themselves against identity theft, says the suit. Plaintiff Siera Owens was an employee of Defendant Food Lion on or around 2004 and 2005. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC provides critical support services to the various retail and distribution companies under Ahold Delhaize USA, a division of the global food retailer Ahold Delhaize.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt F. Hausler, Esq. HAUSLER LAW FIRM, PLLC 524 East Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 247-3255 Facsimile: (704) 247-3267 E-mail: khausler@hauslerlaw.com - and - Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 578-5582 E-mail: mboyle@bgandg.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ALLSTATE SALES: Horling Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HORLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE SALES GROUP, INC., ANTHONY TEPEDINO, and PATRYK MIELNICKI, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-15321 (D.N.J., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act and the New Jersey WARN Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on August 29, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act and the New Jersey WARN Act. Allstate Group Sales, Inc. is a provider of engineering and construction services, headquartered in Holmdel, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gail C. Lin, Esq. Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY: Tejon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express Company. The case is styled as Roger Tejon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Express Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-24024-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Express Company or Amex -- https://www.americanexpress.com/ -- is an American bank holding company and multinational financial services corporation that specializes in payment cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com APPLE INC: Faces Hendrix Suit Over Direct Copyright Infringement ---------------------------------------------------------------- GRADY HENDRIX and JENNIFER ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07558 (N.D. Cal., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for direct copyright infringement. The case arises from the Defendant's use of copyrighted works on Apple Intelligence model, including the Foundation Intelligence Models and OpenELM language models, without creators' consent. Apple did not compensate creators for use of their copyrighted works and concealed the sources of their training datasets to evade legal scrutiny. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class are deprived control over their work, undermined the economic value of their labor, and positioned Apple to achieve massive commercial success through unlawful means, says the suit. Apple Inc. is a technology company based in Cupertino California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Gould, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: bgould@kellerrohrback.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW PC 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 Email: mb@buttericklaw.com ARKANSAS FEDERAL: Mosley Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fee Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA MOSLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARKANSAS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02101-TLB (W.D. Ark., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Electronic Fund Transfers Act. The case arises from the Defendant's improper assessment of (a) overdraft ("OD") fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds, (b) OD fees on ATM transactions and one-time debit card transactions, and (c) multiple fees on an item that the accountholder only presented for payment once. As a result of the Defendant's improper and deceptive practices, its customers, including the Plaintiff, have been economically harmed. Arkansas Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in Pulaski County, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: chris@jefirm.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD, PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD, PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Email: sgold@kalielpllc.com AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Schultz Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jennifer Schultz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Avenue5 Residential, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-CV-00088-SAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from Spokane County Superior Court to the Eastern District of Washington, is brought against the Defendant for violations of Washington State's Residential Landlord-Tenant Act and Washington State's Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment. On Dec. 31, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Stanley A. Bastian granted on Aug. 22, 2025. The Court finds class action the superior method of managing this litigation, noting that if provisions of the Defendant's lease agreements are found to be illegal, then the common question of statutory damages under Washington State law, as shared by the proposed class, will predominate as the central issue in the litigation. The appellate case is entitled Avenue5 Residential LLC v. Jennifer Schultz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Case No. 25-5623, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JENNIFER SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Shayne Sutherland, Esq. CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Email: ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com - and - Christopher M. Hogue, Esq. HOGUE LAW FIRM 905 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 402 Spokane, WA 99201 Email: chris@spokaneadvocate.com Defendant-Petitioner AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC is represented by: Robert D. Lee, Esq. Rohan Mohanty, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 340-1000 Email: rlee@cozen.com rmohanty@cozen.com BAPTIST HEALTH: Weissberg Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Arlene Weissberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baptist Health South Florida, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-23874 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Sept. 4, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00690-BCW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract. Baptist Health South Florida -- https://baptisthealth.net/ -- is a faith-based not-for-profit healthcare organization and clinical care network in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq. Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave, NW, S-1100, Ste. 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 861-1698 Fax: (202) 861-1783 Email: escully@bakerlaw.com gketeltas@bakerlaw.com - and - Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 200 S Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4832 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com BETTER HOME: Santos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------- MAGALY SANTOS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER HOME HEALTH INC, a Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00789 (M.D. Fla., August 29, 2025) is a collective action brought pursuant by Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime premiums, an additional amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff, and all similarly situated employees, at a rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and its other similarly situated at their regular or "Straight time" rate of pay for all hours worked, including all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid home health aide from September 2021 through the present. Better Home Health Inc. employs individuals who provide in-home health and caregiving services for the elderly and infirm in and around Lee County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey L. Seldin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 807-7765 Facsimile: (954) 807-7786 E-mail: cseldin@forthepeople.com BNBUILDERS INC: Schlueter Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Schlueter, individually and as representative of a class of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the BNBuilders, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiff v. BNBuilders, Inc., Brad Bastian, Rich Finlay, the BNBuilders, Inc. Board of Directors, GreatBanc Trust Company, John and Jane Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01713 (W.D. Wash., September 5, 2025) is an action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, seeking plan-wide relief on behalf of the BNBuilders, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and class-wide relief on behalf of a class of similarly situated ESOP participants and their beneficiaries. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other employee-participants (whose ESOP retirement accounts were used to purchase 100% of BNBuilders stock from the Sellers) were not given an opportunity to negotiate or otherwise take part in the determination of the price that they paid for BNBuilders stock. They learned of the ESOP Transaction after it was completed and the $206 million purchase price was approved, by which time the ESOP was left deeply in debt and the Sellers received $206.5 million. Rather than involving the employees whose retirement accounts would be used to buy BNBuilders, the Sellers' advisors (who were paid a commission if the Transaction closed) identified GreatBanc Trust Company to be the ESOP trustee because they believed GreatBanc would approve the Transaction and not aggressively negotiate the purchase price. The Trustee and its valuation advisor also failed to adequately account for persistent inflation and the resulting economic headwinds, including higher interest rates (affecting the demand for their construction projects) and prolonged supply chain disruptions (affecting their ability to complete and be compensated for projects on time). The Defendants' actions financially harmed the ESOP and caused Plaintiff to suffer significant losses in his individual retirement account, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover the losses suffered by the ESOP and the participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP, to obtain other equitable and remedial relief as provided by ERISA, and to otherwise remedy Defendants' prohibited transactions and fiduciary breaches in violation of ERISA. BNBuilders, Inc. is a Western United States general contractor that specializes in commercial construction projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie G. Reiser, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jreiser@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com apienta@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 400 South 4th Street # 401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jschutz@cohenmilstein.com BRICKELL BRANDS: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Dotson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Brickell Brands, LLC, Case No. 25STCV16963 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 4, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08385 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Brickell -- https://brickellmensproducts.com/ -- is the fastest men's skin care and grooming company.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Rebecca J. Wahlquist, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 547-4916 Fax: (213) 547-4901 Email: bwahlquist@kelleydrye.com BWPSS HOLDINGS: Cuesta Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BWPSS Holdings LLC, et al. The case is styled as Carlos Cuesta, an individual; Access 4 All, Inc., a Florida not for Profit Corporation; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BWPSS Holdings LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company; Choice Hotels International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Pinecone Holdings Inc., a New York Corporation; Case No. 1:25-cv-01213-ECC-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the American Disabilities Act for Accommodations Civil Rights. BWPSS Holdings LLC is in the Business Management Consultant business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Horn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. HORN, ESQ. LLC 500 Lake Street-Suite D Ramsey, NJ 07446 Phone: (201) 884-6000 Fax: (201) 205-1382 Email: hornesq@gmail.com CAPRI NAILS: Li Appeals Tossed Settlement Approval Bid to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEQUAN LI is taking an appeal from a court order denying his joint motion for settlement approval in the lawsuit entitled Dequan Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capri Nails & Eco Spa Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-6296, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Dec. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a joint motion for settlement approval, which Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto denied without prejudice on Aug. 22, 2025. The Court finds that the proposed attorney's fees are unreasonable. The appellate case is entitled Li v. Capri Nails & Eco Spa Inc., Case No. 25-2140, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DEQUAN LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11355 Defendants-Appellees CAPRI NAILS & ECO SPA, INC., et al. are represented by: Diane Hwakyung Lee, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DIANE H. LEE 1630 Center Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 CELLULAR TOUCH: Clontz Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI CLONTZ v. CELLULAR TOUCH WIRELESS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00805 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, plus liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages. The Plaintiff, and other employees similarly situated, were employed by the Defendant as Store Managers at the Defendant's cellular telephone retail stores. The Defendant is owned and operated by Samer Mubarak. The Defendant maintains retail stores across Florida, including the store in which Plaintiff worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. Peter M. Jennings, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., No. 104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com Peter@GunterFirm.com CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Oct. 22 Hearing on Bid to Toss Khan Suit Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ ChargePoint Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2025, that the hearing on the motion to dismiss the Khan second amended complaint is set for October 22, 2025. A class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on November 29, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "NorCal Court") against the Company and certain of its former officers (the "Class Defendants"). A second class action lawsuit (together with the November 2023 Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed against the Class Defendants on January 22, 2024. On May 16, 2024, the NorCal Court consolidated the Class Actions into one action captioned Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-06172-NW, appointed two lead plaintiffs, and appointed lead counsel. On July 19, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint which purported to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023. This Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that the Class Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act regarding, (1) ChargePoint's handling of supply chain disruptions; (2) ChargePoint’s revenue; and (3) the value of ChargePoint’s inventory. Lead Plaintiffs also alleged the Class Defendants engaged in a scheme to prematurely recognize revenue in violation of Sections 10(b) and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Class Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 17, 2024, and the motion was fully briefed and scheduled to be heard on July 16, 2025. On July 8, 2025, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the NorCal Court vacated the hearing so Plaintiffs could file a Second Amended Complaint, which they did on July 22, 2025. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the same claims based on the same theories as the Consolidated Amended Complaint, but names an additional former officer as a Defendant and adds additional challenged statements made within the same Class Period. Pursuant to the NorCal Court's scheduling order, Class Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint by September 17, 2025. The motion is scheduled to be fully briefed by October 8, 2025, and heard on October 22, 2025. A Case Management Conference is scheduled to be held concurrently with the motion to dismiss hearing. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. is a designer, developer and a marketer of networked electric vehicle charging system infrastructure based in California. CHELSEA FC HOLDINGS: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Peed Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GARLAND PEED V, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHELSEA FC HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02322-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal., September 5, 2025) is a consumer digital privacy class action against the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly disclosed to third parties, including Meta, Google, TikTok, LinkedIn, and X (formerly Twitter) the personally identifiable information and video-watching history of users of its ChelseaFC.com website, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, without their knowledge or consent. The Defendant collects and shares Website users' personal information through the use of tracking technologies called "pixels." Pixels are invisible snippets of code that monitor how users interact with a website. By engaging in this conduct, the Defendant violated the privacy rights of Plaintiff and the Class Members under the VPPA and state law, says the suit. The Plaintiff has been a subscriber of Defendant, having created an account with Defendant by submitting his email address. Chelsea FC Holdings Limited operates ChelseaFC.com website that delivers prerecorded audiovisual materials to subscribers, such as soccer match highlights, behind-the-scenes interviews, and news and updates about the Chelsea Football Club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. Clapp, Esq. Jamie N. Herrick, Esq. CLAPP LEGAL APC 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Telephone: (760) 209-6565 ext. 101 Facsimile: (760) 209-6565 E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com jherrick@clapplegal.com - and - Edward J. Wynne, Esq. George R. Nemiroff, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Ste. 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: ewynne@wynnlawfirm.com gnemiroff@wynnnelawfirm.com CINCO SPIRITS: Faces Suit Over Tequila "100% de Agave" False Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Cinco Spirits Group has knowingly misrepresented that its Cincoro-brand tequila varieties are made from 100% agave when, in fact, the products are adulterated with other forms of alcohol. The 25-page lawsuit claims that although Cincoro bottles are labeled "100% de Agave," lab testing has confirmed that the spirits contain significant amounts of ethanol not derived from the tequilana weber blue variety of agave, which is grown in a specific, defined territory in Mexico and is the only type of agave used in the production of authentic tequila. According to the suit, the analysis used a technique that identifies the plant origin of ethanol in a spirit. The results showed that the Cincoro tequila testing sample failed to meet the U.S. and Mexico's stringent regulatory requirements for tequila labeled as 100% agave, the case asserts. The complaint explains that under the regulations, a tequila product represented as 100% agave is considered adulterated if the ethanol content is not made exclusively from sugars obtained from "Blue Weber" agaves. The filing contends that the company has misled consumers by representing that its line of Cincoro tequilas -- whose varieties include Blanco, Reposado, Añejo, Gold, Extra Añejo, Añejo Cristalino and AC Milan -- is created with "100% Tequilana Blue Weber agaves." The Cincoro tequila lawsuit alleges that despite charging premium prices for the spirits, which reportedly retail online for between $89.99 and $1,724.99 per bottle, Cinco Spirits Group has not delivered on its promises of pure, authentic tequila. As the case tells it, consumers would not have paid as much for the products, or purchased them at all, had they known the spirits were allegedly adulterated with other types of ethanol. A January 2025 Mezcalistas.com article indicates a growing problem regarding the adulteration of tequila with cane alcohol, claiming that purported corruption in the tequila industry has compromised the quality of the products exported from Mexico. The class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased one or more Cincoro tequilas during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] COMERICA BANK: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Way2Go Cards for $2MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Comerica Bank and Conduent State & Local Solutions have agreed to a nearly $2 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims they denied California Way2Go cardholder disputes involving unauthorized transactions. The Comerica Bank settlement benefits individuals who were issued a California Way2Go prepaid Mastercard and had their unauthorized transfer dispute denied for conflicting information. According to the class action lawsuit, Comerica Bank and Conduent State & Local Solutions violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and California law by denying California Way2Go cardholder disputes involving unauthorized transactions. The California Way2Go card program is managed by Conduent State & Local Solutions, which is a subsidiary of Conduent Inc. The program provides prepaid debit cards to residents who receive government benefits, such as unemployment insurance, child support and other payments. Comerica Bank is a financial institution that offers banking services to consumers and businesses. Comerica and Conduent have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this $1.956 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Comerica Bank and Conduent California Way2Go card settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount of their disputed claim. According to the settlement website, class members can receive around 73% of the amount they disputed. For example, if a class member disputed a $1,000 transaction, they could receive around $730. If any funds remain in the settlement after the first round of payments, a second round of payments will be distributed to class members who accepted their first payment. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 10, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Comerica Bank settlement is scheduled for Dec. 11, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Who's Eligible All California Way2Go cardholders who had their unauthorized transaction disputes denied for conflicting information since July 20, 2020. Potential Award 73% of the disputed claim amount Proof of Purchase N/A 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. Exclusion and Objection Deadline 11/10/2025 Case Name Sparkman v. Comerica Bank, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 12/11/2025 Settlement Website CAUnauthorizedTransactionsSettlement.com Claims Administrator Sparkman v Comerica c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 23680 Jacksonville, FL 32241 (855) 349-7023 Class Counsel E. Michelle Drake BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. Beth E. Terrell Blythe Chandler TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC [GN] COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Barbett Files Suit in D. Columbia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Connections, Inc. The case is styled as Cherika Barbett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Connections, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03021 (D.D.C., Sept. 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Community Connections -- https://communityconnectionsinc.org/ -- has been committed to innovative and compassionate mental health services, addiction treatment, and residential care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Rathod, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 412 H Street, NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Sands Sues Over Leaked Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- EVELYN SANDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03105 (D.D.C., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on October 21, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Community Connections, Inc. is a behavioral health agency, with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com CONSERVATION CORPS: Hinojos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conservation Corps of Long Beach. The case is styled as Emery Hinojos, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Conservation Corps of Long Beach, Case No. 25STCV26077 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Conservation Corps of Long Beach -- https://www.cclb-corps.org/ -- is a youth development nonprofit social enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com CURRIE HAIR: Golt Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Estheticians ---------------------------------------------------------- TINA GOLT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURRIE HAIR SKIN NAILS OF WILMINGTON, LLC, CURRIE HAIR, SKIN, AND NAILS, OF JUSTISON LANDING, LLC, and RANDALL J. CURRIE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01109-UNA (D. Del., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Delaware, and the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and unlawful deductions. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an esthetician. Currie Hair Skin Nails of Wilmington, LLC is a salon owner and operator in Delaware. Currie Hair, Skin and Nails of Justison Landing, LLC is a salon owner and operator in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret M. DiBianca, Esq. DIBIANCA LAW, LLC 1201 N. Orange St., Suite 504 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 268-8520 Email: mdibianca@dibilaw.com DBEST PRODUCTS: Faces Jackson Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DBEST PRODUCTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07390 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://dbest-products.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. DBest Products Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal DELOITTE CONSULTING: Reaches Prelim Settlement in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ News From The States reports that the woman who now spends 15 to 30 minutes a day checking her bank information, even after setting up new accounts to avoid any more surprise Amazon charges. The mother of a 2-year-old claimed as a dependent on a stranger's tax return. Another woman who now locks and unlocks her EBT card every time she uses it. The man who claims his "time has been lost forever and cannot be recaptured." These are a few experiences cited by plaintiffs in a March 28 class action lawsuit against the architect and vendor of the state of Rhode Island's online public benefits and health insurance marketplace portal, RIBridges. The system was hacked by cybercriminals in July 2024, exposing the personal information of an estimated 644,401 Rhode Islanders. The data breach went undetected and unpublicized until mid-December. The cybercriminal group Brain Cipher took credit for the breach and leaked the data online shortly before the new year. Now the plaintiffs are one step closer to possible relief under a tentative agreement with defendant Deloitte. Documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island show the parties entered into mediation in June. Following an Aug. 19 mediation session, lawyers for both sides told the court on Aug. 25 that they'd reached an agreement "in principle" and would file a preliminary-approval motion within 45 days. Details, however, are slim as to what that settlement might look like. Peter Wasylyk, who serves as the plaintiffs' local liaison on the multistate legal team representing the aggrieved, said in a phone call that "it's only internally settled." "So at this point, unfortunately, there's no information to give other than what was filed with the court," Wasylyk said. "Once the final settlement is drafted, we're going to file it with the court. I'm sure we'll have a lot more to say once we get the final settlement." On Sept. 5, District Judge Melissa R. DuBose extended a stay on approval so that both parties can work out the final settlement on paper. The parties have until around Oct. 9 to file their draft agreement for court approval. The tentative settlement intends to resolve the case Pannozzi v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, which merged a set of six interrelated lawsuits filed in response to the RIBridges data breach into one case. A small number of people who did not apply for benefits were also affected, as the federal government allows states one connection to national databases used to determine benefit eligibility, a pathway RIBridges fulfills in the Ocean State. People affected by the breach -- whose stolen data may have included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and health and banking information -- were notified earlier this year and provided free credit monitoring. If the court approves the settlement, it's likely a public claims site would go live so eligible people could apply for any possible compensation. Following that, a final court "fairness hearing" typically approves the settlement terms and payouts. Deloitte has already reimbursed the state $5 million for credit monitoring and other costs associated with the incident. Neither Deloitte nor the Rhode Island Department of Administration -- which runs the RIBridges system through its technology office -- responded to requests for comment. A separate civil investigation by the office of Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha is still ongoing, spokesperson Tim Rondeau said in an email Thursday, September 11. Meanwhile, the state is in the final steps of securing a vendor, The Northland Highland Holding Company LLC, to "modernize" the RIBridges system, according to a procurement determination form posted online in July. The RIBridges architecture dates back to the late 2010s and, last year, the state started seeking a new vendor to build upon, but not replace, Deloitte's existing system. The nearly $3.8 million contract would run from Jan. 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, with four annual renewals possible after the existing contract period. Deloitte points finger at Brain Cipher The March 28 filing from the plaintiffs and their attorneys allege that Deloitte's "lax data security policies" helped to create the conditions for the breach, and that "Plaintiffs and Class Members were injured and lost money or property, which would not have occurred but for the unfair and deceptive acts, practices, and omissions" it alleges by Deloitte. "Deloitte was at all times fully aware of its obligation to protect the personal and financial data of consumers, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class," the 71-page suit reads. "Deloitte was also aware of the significant repercussions if it failed to do so." In a 52-page memo filed on May 27 in support of Deloitte's motion to dismiss the case, the defense argued that the multibillion-dollar consultancy actually had no duties to the plaintiffs or any consumers, but to the state alone. The memo signed by one of Deloitte's attorneys, Jeffrey S. Brenner of Providence firm Nixon Peabody LLP, argues that the suit does not "allege any facts establishing a direct relationship between Deloitte and Plaintiffs -- either through contract, commerce, or otherwise." "Indeed, Plaintiffs do not even allege that they were aware at any point prior to the RIBridges Incident that Deloitte had a role in the Rhode Island State-managed RIBridges system, much less that they had any direct relationship with Deloitte at any point whatsoever," the memo reads. Brenner concluded that Brain Cipher was the true source of the plaintiffs' woes, and that the cyber gang's actions were "specifically designed to subvert and evade Deloitte's operation of the RIBridges system." "Thus, even if Plaintiffs were able to establish that Deloitte breached a duty of care, Brain Cipher's criminal cyber-attack severs the causal chain and renders any alleged negligence on the part of Deloitte too 'remote' to give rise to liability," the attorneys wrote. Because Brain Cipher was the ultimate source of injury, the attorneys argued, Deloitte could not be held accountable for the impact alleged by the plaintiffs. The defense was not too impressed by the extent of that impact either, writing that the complaint offered "no specific facts tying their alleged injuries to the RIBridges Incident." In the case of one plaintiff who testified in court documents that he had lost irretrievable time dealing with the breach's after-effects, the defense wrote that the plaintiff "fails to include any specific allegations of how his lost time would have been spent -- and expressly alleges that it may have been used for 'recreation.'" "Moreover," the memo adds, "the theory that they were damaged as a result of the RIBridges Incident is facially inconsistent with Plaintiffs' own admission that thousands of data breaches occur every year that could just as likely be the cause of the alleged injuries." [GN] DELTA AIR: Seeks Denial of Goodyear's Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying bid for class certification. Delta is an international air carrier. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZIBmEV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brett C. Bartlett, Esq. Lennon B. Haas, Esq. Seth J. Fortin, Esq. Danielle Shapiro, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 E-mail: bbartlett@sayfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com sfortin@seyfarth.com dshapiro@seyfarth.com DISNEY DTC: Installs Website Trackers Without Consent, Tasker Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN TASKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISNEY DTC LLC, THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02368 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of aiding, employing, agreeing, and conspiring with third parties to collect electronic communications of the visitors of their website, www.disney.com, without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. According to the complaint, the Defendants enable third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications to accomplish the Defendants' commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. By installing and activating trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order, the Defendants violated the law. Disney DTC LLC is an entertainment and media company, with its headquarters in Burbank, California. The Walt Disney Company is an entertainment and media company, with its headquarters in Burbank, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, minor, by and through their guardian, VERONIKA PIKEEVA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC., a corporation; DISNEY ENTERTAINMENT OPERATIONS LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-08518 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2025) is a class action individually and on behalf of all other individuals who had their privacy invaded by Disney's intrusive and unlawful business practices of enabling the collection of personal information from millions of children under the age of 13 in the United States without providing notice to parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent. Since 2020, Disney has failed to mark its animated videos, cartoons, movie clips, and other content clearly aimed at children under 13 as "made for kids" on YouTube. Disney's intentional omission of the designation has allowed the collection of personal data from children, including persistent identifiers (like cookies and device IDs) and sensitive information (such as identity and location), all without notifying parents or securing verifiable parental consent. Accordingly, Disney generates substantial advertising revenue from opening up its audience of millions of children under the age of 13 to YouTube's targeted advertising algorithm at the expense of their privacy and in direct contravention of state and federal law. Disney's conduct constitutes an invasion of the right to privacy for millions of children in the United States. Minor Plaintiff bring claims on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated children under the age of 13 injured by Disney's grossly deceptive conduct, asserts the suit. Disney is a worldwide media conglomerate that produces and distributes highly popular child-directed content, including through its official channels on YouTube, a video-sharing platform owned by Google, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEDLEY, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00724 (D.D.C., Filed March 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amir H. Ali entered an order granting the Plaintiff's consent motion to extend the deadline to file a motion for class certification. The deadline to seek class certification is stayed pending resolution of the pending motions to dismiss. In the event applicable claims survive dismissal, the parties shall propose a schedule for class certification in the meet-and-confer report required by this Court's standing order. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC] DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING: Sefo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DNATA US Inflight Catering, LLC. The case is styled as Judean Sefo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DNATA US Inflight Catering, LLC, Case No. 25STCV26016 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Dnata US Inflight Catering LLC -- https://www.dnata.com/en/ -- provides catering services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 EL LIDO PLAZA: Monteagudo Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------- Andy S. Aguilar Monteagudo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. EL LIDO PLAZA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24014-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 4, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although well over 32 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. EL LIDO PLAZA, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the subject Commercial Property and business; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access therein and all other common areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com EQT CORP: Hice Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID HICE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled David Hice, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EQT Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00896-WSH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants to remedy the environmental contamination and polluting events caused by negligent gas drilling operations, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including future medical monitoring for the residents affected by the Frac-out incident. On Aug. 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed motion for preliminary injunction. On Nov. 20, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for contempt and to strike expert reports. On Aug. 26, 2025, Judge W. Scott Hardy denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm and denied as moot the Defendants' motion for contempt and to strike expert reports. The appellate case is entitled David Hice, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EQT Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-2729, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID HICE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joy D. Llaguno, Esq. HOOK & HOOK PLLC 430 East Oakview Drive, Suite 101 Waynesburg, PA 15370 Telephone: (724) 824-3302 Facsimile: (724) 638-2186 Email: jllaguno@hooklaw.com EVERGY INC: Allowed Leave for to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doll, et al v. Evergy, Inc., et al. Case No. 4:25-cv-00043(W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 22, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. The Defendants may file their listed exhibits in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification under seal, as well as an unredacted version of their opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Evergy is a public utility holding company that operates primarily through its subsidiaries to provide electricity services.[CC] EVRY JEWELS: Reaches $3.5MM Settlement in Fake Discounts' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a settlement valued at approximately $3.5 million has been reached to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged that Evry Jewels, Inc. misled consumers by advertising fake discounts on merchandise sold on EvryJewels.com. The court-approved website for the Evry Jewels class action settlement can be found at ProductPriceSettlementEJ.com. The deal covers all consumers who, between September 3, 2021 and September 3, 2024, purchased one or more products on EvryJewels.com while in California, Oregon or Washington. According to the official Evry Jewels class action settlement website, eligible class members will receive a $14 benefit in the form of a cash payment or store credit for each order they placed on EvryJewels.com during the qualifying period. To receive a $14 cash payment per order, consumers must submit a valid claim form by October 28, 2025. Head to this page to file an Evry Jewels settlement claim form online. Alternatively, you can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return to the settlement administrator by mail. The website notes that class members only need to submit one claim form to receive a payout for each order they placed, even if they made more than one purchase during the qualifying period. To file a claim form, consumers will need the unique notice ID provided in the personalized settlement notice issued about the deal. Online submission requires a confirmation code, which can also be found in the notice. Class members who do not file a timely, valid claim form will automatically receive a $14 store credit for each qualifying order they placed, the website says. The credit does not expire and can be applied toward any purchase made on EvryJewels.com, the site adds. The website shares that approximately 250,000 orders were placed during the qualifying period, putting the total value of settlement benefits at around $3,500,000. The settlement agreement, which resolves the class action lawsuit against Evry Jewels, was granted preliminary approval from the court on July 30, 2025. The parties now await a hearing on October 30, 2025, at which time the court will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal. Evry Jewels settlement benefits will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval, the website relays. The approval process may be prolonged by appeals, which must be resolved before any payments are distributed. [GN] FANATICS HOLDINGS: Menzer Balks at Memorabilia Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Samantha Menzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fanatics Holdings, Inc., Fanatics Collectibles Topco, Inc., Fanatics Collectibles Intermediate Holdco, Inc., Fanatics Retail Group North, LLC, Fanatics LLC, and John Does, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07383 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2025) is a consumer class action against Fanatics for false advertising, unfair and deceptive marketing practices, breach of implied contract, and materially misleading claims and omissions it negligently employed and disseminated in connection with the sale of its memorabilia products. This case is on behalf of the Plaintiff and other consumers of Fanatics' sports memorabilia who paid unjust premiums for unique authentication IDs for their treasured pieces of team or player history when, in reality, Fanatics knew (or should have known) a counterfeit operation was mimicking the Company's products including the unique authentication identification markers, resulting in unjust enrichment to the Company and degrading legitimate purchasers' memorabilia. As a result of the Company's misconduct, purchasers such as Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive the full benefit of the bargain for which they paid, says the suit. Fanatics Holdings, Inc. is an apparel and memorabilia company with its principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Alex J. Ephraim, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com aje@federmanlaw.com - and - Jonathan C. Schwartz, Esq. SCHWARTZ LEGAL, PLLC 8810 SW 8th Street Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 648-1915 E-mail: jonathan@jcslegal.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Nolan Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURA JUNE NOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., SALESFORCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07585 (N.D. Cal., September 5, 2025) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and over 1.1 million others due to Defendants' alleged inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to Defendants with the understanding that Defendants would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. On May 30, 2025, Defendant Farmers discovered that one of its third-party vendors -- Defendant Salesforce -- alerted Farmers to suspicious activity involving an unauthorized actor accessing one of Salesforce's databases containing Farmer customer information. The actual Data Breach occurred on May 29, 2025. The complaint alleges that Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was exposed and compromised in the data breach. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory/injunctive relief. Farmers Insurance Exchange offers several types of insurance, including homeowners insurance, auto insurance, and commercial insurance throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (628) 267-1537 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: Mram@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com FAVORITE WORLD: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Set Nov. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- California consumers who purchased on or more products from shapermint.com at a discounted price between April 19, 2020, and July 31, 2025, may be eligible to claim $6 to $12 in vouchers from a class action settlement. Favorite World LLC, Shapermint's parent company, agreed to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it deceptively advertised various discounts of its products on its website in violation of California laws. Who are the class members and what can they receive? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They purchased one or more class products from www.shapermint.com at a discounted price below the listed manufacturer's suggested retail price on the website for personal, family or household purposes between April 19, 2020, and July 31, 2025, while residing in California. -- "Discounted price" means a sale price below the original MSRP without taking into account any coupon codes, store credit or any other credits that could further reduce the purchase price during the checkout process. These class members will automatically receive a $6 voucher to use on www.shapermint.com. The class also includes "qualifying class members" who can receive an additional payment. These class members must have purchased at least four class products between April 19, 2020, and July 31, 2025, while residing in California. For every additional class product purchased, they can receive an extra $1 voucher credit up to $12. How to claim a settlement voucher Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive the $6 voucher. To claim extra $1 voucher credits up to $12, class members must file a claim online. The claim deadline is Nov. 5, 2025. Settlement administrator's contact information: Phoenix Settlement Administrators, P.O. Box 7208, Orange, CA 92863, 800-523-5773, notice@phoenixclassaction.com What information is necessary to submit a claim? To file an online claim, class members must provide the email address and last name they used to make a purchase from www.shapermint.com. Payout options -- Voucher code sent to the email address the class member used to order from www.shapermint.com Settlement fund The settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $25,000 initially with additional payments for reasonable expenses -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $475,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each ($10,000 total) -- Vouchers to eligible class members: Dependent on number of valid claims Important dates -- Deadline to request exclusion or object: Oct. 22, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Nov. 5, 2025 -- Final fairness hearing: Dec. 15, 2025 When is the Minor, et al. v. Favorite World LLC payout date? The settlement administrator will send voucher codes once it processes all claims and the court grants final approval. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Shapermint advertised deceptive discounts and false prices that enticed consumers to purchase its products. Favorite World LLC denies any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement to avoid further litigation costs and risks. [GN] FORBES MEDIA: Agrees to Settle Video Privacy Class Suit for $7.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Forbes has agreed to pay $7.5 million to resolve claims it violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing subscriber information with Facebook. The settlement benefits individuals who were Forbes online account holders, Forbes mobile application account holders or newsletter subscribers who have a Facebook account and who accessed a video through Forbes' website between July 25, 2020, and Dec. 1, 2022. According to the class action lawsuit, Forbes shared subscriber information with Facebook through a Facebook tracking pixel. Plaintiffs in the case say this violated the VPPA, which prohibits the sharing of video consumer information without consent. Forbes is a news and information website that covers a variety of topics, including business, technology, entrepreneurship, leadership and lifestyle. Forbes has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $7.5 million settlement to resolve the VPPA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Forbes settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members who submit a valid claim form can receive a payment of up to $15. However, payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 21, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Forbes settlement is scheduled for Nov. 17, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 4, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits those who were Forbes U.S. online account holders, mobile application account holders or newsletter subscribers who have a Facebook account and accessed a video through Forbes.com from July 25, 2020, to Dec. 1, 2022, on the same device and browser they used to access Facebook. Potential Award Up to $15 Proof of Purchase N/A 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 11/04/2025 Case Name Ramirez v. Forbes Media LLC, Case No. CACE-25-011695, in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida Final Hearing 11/17/2025 Settlement Website ForbesVPPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Forbes.com Privacy Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 621-7730 Class Counsel Philip L. Fraietta Alec M. Leslie BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Gary M. Klinger Alex Honeycutt MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Mark S. Melodia HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP [GN] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $5.6MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. has agreed to pay a more than $5.6 million settlement to end a consolidated class action lawsuit over an April 2024 data breach that allegedly exposed the personal information of approximately 750,000 people. The Frontier class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 20, 2025 and covers all U.S. residents who received notice in or around June 2024 that their private information may have been compromised in the Frontier data breach. The court-approved website for the Frontier settlement can be found at FrontierDataSettlement.com. Related Reading: Frontier Communications Data Breach Lawsuit According to the settlement website, Frontier settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive either reimbursement of up to $5,000 for documented, proven losses resulting from the data breach or a flat cash payment of $100, as well as free credit monitoring services. Per the site, documented losses related to the Frontier Communications data breach may include charges and expenses such as bank fees, cell data charges (based on the amount of data used), other cell phone charges (only charged per minute), long distance phone charges, gasoline for local travel, credit report fees, postage, identity theft insurance products and credit monitoring. Claimed expenses must have been incurred between April 14, 2024 and the date the claim form is submitted, the settlement website relays. Reasonable documentation, such as emails, receipts and telephone records, must be submitted along with the claim form to receive reimbursement for these losses. Class members who do not submit documentation of data breach-related losses may, alternatively, elect to receive a flat cash payout of $100. Additionally, all Frontier settlement class members are eligible to claim two years of three-bureau credit monitoring that will include: -- Identity theft insurance (no deductible); -- Dark web scanning with immediate notification of potential unauthorized use; -- Access to fraud resolution agents to help investigate and resolve instances of identity theft; and -- Comprehensive public record monitoring. To submit a claim form online, class members must visit this page and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in their copy of the data breach settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the form. All Frontier settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than October 27, 2025. A hearing is scheduled for November 18, 2025 to determine whether the class action settlement will receive final court approval. Frontier settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Frontier Communications Parent class action lawsuit claimed that the company neglected to properly safeguard the sensitive personal information stored in its systems from an April 2024 data breach that exposed the private data of approximately 750,000 people. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt EV Owners Sue Over Defective Batteries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Chevrolet Bolt EV owners filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC, LG Electronics USA Inc. and LG Energy Solution Michigan Inc. Why: The plaintiffs claim the companies sold Chevy Bolt EVs with defective batteries that pose a fire risk and fail to provide the advertised range. Where: The Chevy Bolt EV class action lawsuit was filed in Michigan federal court. Chevy Bolt EV owners have filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC, LG Electronics USA Inc. and LG Energy Solution Michigan Inc., accusing the companies of selling vehicles with defective batteries that pose a fire risk and fail to provide the advertised range. The plaintiffs, who filed the class action lawsuit in Michigan federal court, claim that GM and LG knew about the battery defects but failed to disclose them to consumers, causing them to pay a premium for vehicles that did not meet their expectations. According to the Chevy Bolt EV class action, the vehicles affected by the battery defects include the 2017-2019 Chevrolet Bolt EVs, which were equipped with LG's lithium-ion batteries. The plaintiffs allege that the batteries suffer from a manufacturing defect that can cause them to overheat and catch fire, as well as a design defect that reduces their capacity and range over time. The plaintiffs claim that they experienced significant problems with their vehicles, such as reduced range, inability to charge fully, inability to park indoors, range anxiety and depreciation. They say that they would not have bought the vehicles or would have paid less for them if they had known about the defects. Chevy Bolt EV owners claim GM, LG failed to provide adequate repair or replacement The Chevy Bolt EV owners also allege that GM and LG failed to provide adequate repair or replacement for the defective batteries, despite issuing multiple recalls and software updates. They say that the companies' attempts to fix the problem were insufficient and delayed, leaving many owners with unsafe and unreliable vehicles. The Chevy Bolt class action lawsuit says GM's recall notices instructed users to limit their battery charge to 90% and avoid parking their vehicles indoors, which further reduced their vehicles' range and utility. The Chevy Bolt EV class action lawsuit accuses GM and LG of violating various state and federal laws, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of all persons who bought or leased a 2017-2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV. They are seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorney fees. Back in 2024, General Motors and LG reached a $150 million settlement with Chevrolet Bolt owners over the same battery issue, while a separate class action alleges over 600,000 GM vehicles are equipped with faulty engines that can spontaneously fail. What do you think of the allegations in this Chevy Bolt EV class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan D. Selbin, Daniel S. Robinson and others. The Chevy Bolt EV class action lawsuit is Johnson, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-12364, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Engines ----------------------------------------------------------------- Auto Lemon Lawyer reports that a recently filed class action lawsuit alleges that General Motors (GM) marketed vehicles containing a defective engine prone to spontaneous failure. Plaintiffs Mezanur Rahaman, Gerald Reed, and Farrah Forrest allege the engine defect impacts 2021–2024 Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV; Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Suburban, and Tahoe; as well as GMC Sierra 1500, Yukon, and Yukon XL models. According to the plaintiffs, the alleged defect may cause the engine to fail abruptly and without warning, thereby increasing the likelihood of an accident. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who bought or leased the affected vehicles, along with subclasses in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. The plaintiffs allege GM sold nearly 600,000 vehicles with a defective engine linked to issues in the connecting rod or crankshaft. The plaintiffs allege GM has failed to offer a sufficient or lasting fix for the defect under its express and implied warranties. The plaintiffs allege that General Motors is liable for breach of express and implied warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and New York’s General Business Law. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial, court-ordered relief, and compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages on behalf of themselves and the class. The lawsuit, Rahaman, et al. v. General Motors LLC (Case No. 4:25-cv-11925-SDK-KGA), is before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN] GLORIA JEAN'S: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffees Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10345 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2025) is a civil rights action against Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffees for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.gloriajeans.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. On July 2, 2025, the Plaintiff started searching on Google for "flavored coffee Chicago." Among the results, she found Gloriajeans.com and began browsing the website, moving through different sections to explore the available coffee bean products. However, as she tried to navigate the website and complete her purchase, she encountered accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to proceed. Without any prior notice, a pop-up window appeared and could not be closed, disrupting her ability to continue browsing, says the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffees' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Gloria Jean's Gourmet Coffees Corp. operates the website that offers flavored coffee beans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law GPAC LLC: Falconer Suit Transferred to D. South Dakota ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Benjamin Falconer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly of situated v. GPAC, LLC, a South Dakota Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:25-cv-00088 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota on Sept. 4, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04173-RAL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. GPAC -- https://gogpac.com/ -- is a top recruiting agency with over 30 years matching talented candidates with high quality companies in numerous industries across the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren E. Marley, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 360 E 8th Ave, Suite #411 Bowling Green, KY 42101 Office: 270-495-6801 Direct: 270-495-6798 Fax: 270-495-6839 Email: lmarley@forthepeople.com GRAIL INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------- GRAIL, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that an amended complaint was filed on June 21, 2024 alleging that GRAIL, in addition to Illumina Inc., and certain of their respective current and former directors and others violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL and disclosures concerning the same. GRAIL was previously acquired by Illumina, Inc. in August 2021, at which point it became a 100% owned subsidiary of Illumina, and held separate as a part of binding hold separate commitments implemented pursuant to orders issued by the European Commission. GRAIL separated from Illumina on June 24, 2024, and was a limited liability company from August 19, 2021 to June 21, 2024 when it was converted into a corporation in anticipation of such separation. GRAIL has an indemnification obligation for certain current and former directors and officers involved in the matter pursuant to indemnification agreements entered into by these individuals and GRAIL. On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The first-filed case is captioned "Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al.," the second-filed case is captioned "Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al.," and the third-filed case is captioned "Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al." The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of Grail. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On April 11, 2024, the court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action captioned "In re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation," No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP, and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs. On September 13, 2024 the plaintiffs further amended the complaint. On November 12, 2024, the Grail moved to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 20, 2024, and the company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on February 3, 2025. The motion to dismiss is currently pending before the federal district court. GREAT KILLS MARINA: Carmona Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Julio Carmona, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GREAT KILLS MARINA CAFE INC. d/b/a MARINA CAFE, JOSEPH LABRIOLA, ROBERT PARASCANDOLA, and ROSEMARIE SALADINO, Case No. 1:25-cv-04921 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for unpaid wages including overtime. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 12 hours per day and 75 hours per week, Defendants did not pay him the legally-required minimum wage, spread of hours pay, or time and one-half for his overtime hours; and misappropriated his tips. The Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other tipped employees: wages at not less than the applicable minimum wage rate(s) for work performed, in violation of FLSA and NYLL; wages at not less than 1.5 times said employees' regular rate(s) of pay for work performed in each workweek in excess of 40 hours, and one hour's pay at the applicable minimum hourly wage rate for each workday in which the spread of hours for work performed exceeded 10 hours, the Defendants' misappropriation of the tips of Named Plaintiff and other tipped employees, in violation of NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a busser. Great Kills Marina Cafe is a fine dining establishment on Staten Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica E. Harris, Esq. James M. Reif, Esq. Eliza I. Schultz, Esq. GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 228-7727 Email: jharris@grmny.com jreif@grmny.com eschultz@grmny.com H&R ACCOUNTS: Faces Boyd Class Suit Over Debt Collection Notices ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA BOYD, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. H & R ACCOUNTS, INC., and MEDUIT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-12834-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich., Sept. 8, 2025) is a consumer class action for damages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Despite these statutory guardrails, the Defendants sent Plaintiff and members of the proposed class debt collection notices that publicly revealed that Plaintiff and the proposed class members were obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a past due debt owed, or asserted as due and owing to Defendants' client, in violation of the FDCPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, to a creditor other than Defendants. H & R is in the business of collecting defaulted and charged-off consumer medical debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charity A. Olson, Esq. OLSON LITIGATION, PLC P.O. Box 708 Saline, MI 48176 Telephone: (734) 255-6908 E-mail: colson@olsonlawpc.com HEALTHPRO HERITAGE: Smith Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Virgil Smith, on behalf of himself and the putative Class Members v. HealthPro Heritage LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0010701 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. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01178. The Complaint alleges seven causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class-wide basis: failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; failure to pay overtime wages in violation Cal. Lab. Code Section 510; failure to provide and/or make available meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7 and 512; failure to authorize and permit rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7; failure to provide timely and accurate itemized statements in violation of Cal. Lab Code Section 226 and 226.3 ; waiting time penalties in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201-203; and unlawful business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel B. Chammas, Esq. Julia B. Chang, Esq. FORD HARRISON LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com jchang@fordharrison.com HOMEOVER GENERAL: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Starling Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY STARLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMEOVER GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC and "STORM LEADS INNOVATION," Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00993-JDK (E.D. Tex., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote their products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendants' action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm. HomeOver General Contractors, LLC, is a company that sells roofing and contracting services based in Carrollton, Texas. Storm Leads Innovation is a telephone lead generator, doing business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com INSIDER INC: Lara Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Scott Pflaumer, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. INSIDER, INC., Case No. 25CV471958 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-07481. The Plaintiff asserts a single claim against Defendant for violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). CIPA provides that "any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts: Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation" or "Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Pearson, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (714) 557-3800 Facsimile: (714) 557-3347 Email: Matthew.Pearson@wbd-us.com INSPIRA MEDICAL: FLSA Collective Wins Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA OATMAN and DENISE RICHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01695-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Kiel entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification to facilitate notice of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective is granted for a proposed FLSA collective consisting of: "Non-exempt employee paramedics who taught classes from March 6, 2022, to the present ("FLSA Collective")." The Defendant shall, within 30 days of the execution of this stipulation, provide the names, and the last known addresses and email addresses for all members of the FLSA collective. The opt in period for members of the FLSA collective shall be 60 days. Inspira provides general medical and surgical hospital services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yzAagE at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES CUNNINGHAM: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Defalco Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DORZANNA DEFALCO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JAMES H. CUNNINGHAM INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. D/B/A CUNNINGHAM GROUP, Case No. 1:25-cv-10796 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, as part of its business, the Defendant receives and maintains the Private Information of thousands of its current and former clients and their patients. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former clients and their patients. But the Defendant allegedly lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On Sept. 10, 2024, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network and after an investigation it discovered that an unauthorized party had access to Defendant's network from Sept. 6, 2024, until September 13, 2024 -- an entire eight days. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. Cunningham is an independent health insurance agency in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com JAMES H. CUNNINGHAM: Kirkland Sues Over Leaked Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ MALLORY KIRKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES H. CUNNINGHAM INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. d/b/a CUNNINGHAM GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10730 (N.D. Ill., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between September 6, 2024, and September 13, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. James H. Cunningham Insurance Agency, Inc., doing business as Cunningham Group, is an insurance company, headquartered in Elmwood Park, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Acevedo Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pedro Acevedo, and others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Case No. 2025-CA-007321-O was removed from the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-01689. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, asserts violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Catherine H. Molloy, Esq. Michael J. DeMaio, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 318-5700 Facsimile: (813) 318-5900 Email: molloyk@gtlaw.com michael.demaio@gtlaw.com JMJ ENTERPRISES: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY WADE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JMJ ENTERPRISES, LLC & TRACI JOHNSON MARTIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Biggs entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, -- denying the Defendants' motion to amend class certification order, and -- granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for clarification of the Court's Order. The Plaintiffs brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and violations of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, against the Defendants. On Sept. 30, 2023, the Court, granted in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify a Rule 23 Class, dismissed Count IV of the amended complaint, and denied the Defendants' motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. JMJ is a residential group home provider for mental health and IDD consumers. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3fJJS3 at no extra charge.[CC] JUST INGREDIENTS: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Just Ingredients, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06619 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://justingredients.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. Accordingly, Justingredients.us contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Copine's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Justingredients.us provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Just Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com KS BRANDS LLC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. KS BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07338 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://kindscience.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the 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 complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. KS BRANDS, LLC, operates the Kind Science online retail store, as well as the Kind Science interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal LA SENZA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. La Senza, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10375 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.lasenza.com, to be fully accessible and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 16, 2025, the Plaintiff turned on a Google search with the term "order bras online," and among the top results she came across Defendant's website. As she tried to navigate the website and complete her purchase, she encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed. Without any prior notice, a pop-up window appeared and could not be closed. Additionally, some link texts did not clearly describe the destination content, making it difficult to understand where the links would lead, says the Plaintiff. The website allegedly contains access barriers which deny the full and equal access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Lasenza.com and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Lasenza.com in Illinois State and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in La Senza's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. La Senza, Inc. operates the website that offers women's lingerie and intimate apparel, including bras, panties, sleepwear, loungewear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LAGADA CORP: Faces Guarcax Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- LUIS EDUARDO GUARCAX CHILEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAGADA, CORP. (D/B/A RITZ DINER), ACROPOL REST. CORP. (D/B/A RITZ DINER), and GEORGE KALOGERAKOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07389 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Guarcax was employed by the Defendants as a cook at Ritz Diner from approximately January 5, 2021 until on or about September 7, 2023. Lagada, Corp., doing business as Ritz Diner, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 1133 1st Ave., New York, New York. Acropol Rest. Corp., doing business as Ritz Diner, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 1133 1st Ave., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 679-9660 Email: ctucker@saccofillas.com LANGDON & COMPANY: Sadler Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY SADLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00549-FL (E.D.N.C., August 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. With this action, the Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, 46,0613 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on April 28, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII that was being kept unprotected. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, the suit asserts. Langdon & Company, LLP is a North Carolina based Certified Public Accounting Firm serving clients throughout the southeastern United States and globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Lantheus Holdings, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 26, 2025 and August 5, 2025. CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from competition and pricing dynamics, seasonality, and macroeconomic fluctuations. In truth, Lantheus' optimistic reports of Pylarify's sales growth potential and pricing normalization fell short of reality; Lantheus, despite defendants claims, did not have an accurate understanding of the pricing and competitive dynamics of Pylarify's market. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Lantheus Holdings, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- visit link https://zlk.com/pslra-1/lantheus-holdings-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=167013&wire=1&utm_campaign=29 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] LIDO LABS: Voegtli Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lido Labs. The case is styled as Austin Voegtli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lido Labs doing business as: American Service Pets, Case No. 8:25-cv-01982 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lido Labs doing business as American Service Pets -- https://americanservicepets.com/ -- is the nation's leading all-in-one solution for approving emotional support animals for housing and psychiatric service animals for travel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com LOOT COMPANY: Automatically Renews Subscription, Rodriguez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LOOT COMPANY LLC, d/b/a WWW.LOOTCRATE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02320-WQH-SBC (S.D. Cal., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of automatically renewing paid subscription via its website, https://www.lootcrate.com/. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated California laws by: (1) 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. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful business practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers incurred charges, says the suit. The Loot Company LLC is an online retailer doing business in California. [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 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com MANA PRODUCTS: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- ClaimDEPOT reports that consumers whose personal information the September 2023 Mana Products Inc. data breach compromised may be eligible to claim up to $4,000 from a class action settlement. Mana Products Inc. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging a targeted cyberattack exposed sensitive personal information, including names and Social Security numbers, to unauthorized third parties. Who can file a Mana Products claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They resided in the United States at the time of the data breach. -- The Mana Products Inc. data security incident that began on or around Sept. 2, 2023, compromised their personal information. -- Mana Products Inc. sent them a notice of the data security incident. How much can class members get? -- Documented out-of-pocket expenses: Reimbursement of up to $400 for documented expenses related to the data breach, such as attorney or accountant fees, credit report or monitoring fees, credit freeze fees and miscellaneous expenses like notary, postage or copies. -- Reimbursement for lost time: Compensation of $20 per hour for up to four hours (maximum $80) spent addressing issues related to the breach. The combined cap for out-of-pocket expenses and lost time is $400. -- Documented extraordinary expenses: Reimbursement of up to $4,000 for actual, documented expenses resulting from fraud or identity theft likely related to the data breach and not already covered by other benefits. -- Alternative cash payment: Instead of the above benefits, class members may opt for a one-time $25 cash payment. -- Credit monitoring services: All class members can receive two years of credit monitoring from all three credit bureaus, including $1,000,000 in identity theft protection insurance. The total amount available for cash benefits is $200,000. If the total approved claims exceed this amount, the settlement administrator will reduce payments proportionally (pro rata) How to claim a settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download, print, complete and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. Class members can also request a paper claim form by calling 844-496-0787 or emailing info@ManaProductsSettlement.com. The deadline to submit a claim is Nov. 13, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Mana Data Security Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 What information is required to submit a claim? -- To submit an online claim form, class members must log in with the notice ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Those who are unable to locate their ID and PIN contact the settlement administrator by emailing info@ManaProductSettlement.com and providing their full name and mailing address. -- For out-of-pocket and extraordinary expenses, class members must provide receipts or other documentation. They may include self-prepared documents to explain or support their claim, but these are not sufficient on their own. -- For lost time, class members must describe the tasks they performed and the amount of time they spent. -- For the alternative $25 payment and credit monitoring, class members need only select the appropriate option. Payout options -- PayPal (online claims only) -- Venmo (online claims only) -- Zelle (online claims only) -- Paper check Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $120,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Credit monitoring costs: Determined by number of valid claims -- Payments to eligible class members: Up to $200,000 for all cash benefits Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Oct. 14, 2025 -- Claim deadline: Nov. 13, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Dec. 11, 2025 When is the Mana Products Inc. settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court approves the settlement and resolves any appeals. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Mana Products Inc. failed to adequately protect personal information during a targeted cyberattack in September 2023. The plaintiffs claimed this failure led to unauthorized access to sensitive data, including names and Social Security numbers. Mana Products Inc. denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and uncertainties of further litigation and provide benefits to those affected. [GN] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: McNeil Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MCNEIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. and the MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. CORPORATE BENEFITS DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02975-TJS (D. Md., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Marriott Health and Welfare Benefit Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendants' tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendants enriched themselves at the expense of the Plan. Marriott International Inc. is a multinational hospitality company with its principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ssingh@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Thornhill Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Thornhill, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCLANE FOODSERVICE, INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV457425 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07475. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 8 purported causes of action for: failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Emails: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Phone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com MERRITT, BC: Unfixed, Unstable Dikes Led to Flooding, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Olsen, writing for Castanet, reports that Merritt residents displaced by flooding in 2021 have filed a class-action lawsuit against the municipality, alleging the city should have done more to fix dikes it knew were unstable. The lawsuit alleges that the flooding that destroyed dozens of homes in Merritt was foreseeable, and the city had plenty of warning that its flood defences needed to be strengthened. It also suggests that the municipality didn't do enough to warn residents that flooding was possible as the November 2021 atmospheric river bore down on British Columbia. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday, September 9, in B.C. Supreme Court by plaintiffs Jennifer Biddlecome and Michelle Hintz on behalf of themselves and other Merritt residents negatively impacted by flooding between Nov. 14 and Nov. 16, 2021. The City of Merritt has not filed a response. The city did not respond to The Tyee's request for comment. The Merritt suit follows on the heels of a class action filed by residents in Abbotsford that also alleges authorities didn't do enough to forestall flooding in the fall of 2021. That class action was certified last year but has not yet proceeded to trial. The allegations Merritt was one of the B.C. communities hardest hit by flooding in November 2021. That month's record-breaking atmospheric river dumped immense amounts of rain to the south, north and west of Merritt. Some of that water drained into the Coquihalla River and flowed south, wiping out large stretches of the Coquihalla Highway. Farther north, the deluge caused the Coldwater and Nicola rivers to swell and breach their banks. The two rivers meet in Merritt, and both blew through dikes meant to protect the town. The floodwaters not only swept through entire neighbourhoods but also caused the city's wastewater treatment plant to fail. That prompted the evacuation of the entire city -- the largest displacement of residents during the 2021 disaster. The plaintiffs say local officials knew that dikes protecting homes in Merritt were susceptible to failure. Their suit points to inspection reports between 2017 and 2021 that recommended maintenance work to strengthen the dikes and raise their crest. The suit says annual inspections noted that tree growth and erosion were threatening the stability and integrity of the dikes but that recommended work to fix and maintain the dikes wasn't done. The lack of dike maintenance, the suit says, "was a direct cause of the Merritt flood." The inspections were first unearthed two years ago by a 2023 freedom of information request by Ben Parfitt, then a policy analyst for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. (Parfitt is now a Tyee reporter. He was not involved in this story.) The plaintiffs The Merritt plaintiffs, Michelle Hintz and Jennifer Biddlecome, both had their homes flooded in 2021. At the time of the flood, Hintz had lived in a rented home for seven years with her husband and three kids. The suit says her home was damaged, as were her personal belongings. She has yet to return to the home. Biddlecome had bought her home the year before the flood. Luke Zacharias, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the flood has had an "utterly devastating" impact on his clients. "A lot of people lost everything in this flood and there's really been very little in the way of compensation from the province or the city to this point in time," he told The Tyee. Both Hintz and Biddlecome have been outspoken about the impact of the flood on their lives and critical of the city's response. Biddlecome told Global News in 2022 that insurance inspectors declared her home to be a writeoff but that she was left paying utilities, garbage and tax bills to service it. Hintz told the Merritt Herald that federal disaster assistance failed to come close to covering her family's flood losses. "There were enough subtle warnings before it got to the point that we needed to evacuate that the City should have at least been aware, even to put out a warning," Hintz told the Herald. "Nothing like that happened." The Abbotsford case The Merritt suit follows another filed in 2021 by Caroline Mostertman on behalf of Abbotsford residents impacted by the flooding of Sumas Prairie. That class action is still winding its way through the court process, demonstrating how long a suit can take to reach a resolution. As in Merritt, Abbotsford's dikes failed and were known to be too low. But the Sumas Prairie class-action suit is focused on whether the city's operation of its floodgates aggravated and caused the flooding of low-lying areas. Only last summer did a B.C. Supreme Court judge certify the suit, ruling that the class action could proceed and that the plaintiffs could represent the broader group of impacted people. The City of Abbotsford contested certification of the suit, saying that it could not be determined how much of the flooding was the result of the city's actions. The judge, however, accepted testimony from a hydrologist who declared that it was possible to determine just how much of the water would have been the result of the allegedly improper handling of the city's floodgates. Since the suit was certified, two more plaintiffs have been added. What comes next Zacharias, the lawyer for the Merritt plaintiffs, said certification tends to be the key turning point of a class-action suit. "If you do get certified, the vast majority of cases are resolved after that through a settlement because class actions as trials are extremely difficult to navigate," he told The Tyee. The Merritt case will likely involve wrangling over whether the plaintiffs have taken too long to file their lawsuit, Zacharias said. The statute of limitations generally requires civil lawsuits to be filed within two years of the event at the centre of a case. It has now been nearly four years since the atmospheric river. But Zacharias said the plaintiffs will argue that the case should be allowed to proceed because it is based on information -- the discovery of the dike inspection reports -- that was obtained less than two years ago. That argument is based upon a legal rule that the clock starts ticking on a claim when a person might reasonably have known that an act or omission may have contributed to an injury, loss or damage. The Merritt suit was filed on Sept. 9, almost two years since the first news stories were published about the dike inspection reports unearthed by Parfitt. There is little precedent for class-action suits in British Columbia related to flooding, and the legislation that enables such suits is relatively new. Class actions are designed to allow plaintiffs to pool their resources for legal fights that may otherwise pose too much of a financial burden for individuals, Zacharias said. The suits can allow plaintiffs to attempt to recoup damages from natural disasters. But the lawsuits filed following the 2021 atmospheric river may have a broader impact across British Columbia, influencing how municipalities and governments approach emergency management and respond to warnings that their communities are vulnerable to future disasters, Zacharias said. "They have to take this into consideration as a risk and be attendant when they're given warning by consultants they hire to tell them what's going on." [GN] MESK INVESTMENT: Final Settlement Hearing in Wage Suit Set Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that IHOP has agreed to pay over $4.09 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the restaurant failed to properly disclose wage scale and salary information in its job listings in Washington. IHOP has agreed to pay over $4.09 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the restaurant failed to properly disclose wage scale and salary information in its job listings in Washington. The IHOP class action settlement received preliminary court approval on June 30, 2025, and covers anyone who submitted a job application with IHOP in Washington between January 1, 2023 and November 30, 2023, where the job listing did not disclose the salary or wage information for the position. The defendant must have a record of your application for you to qualify as an IHOP settlement class member, the settlement website states. The court-approved website for Mesk Investment's IHOP settlement can be found at MILISettlement.com. IHOP settlement class members who mail in a timely, valid claim form may be able to receive a payment of up to $5,000 from the settlement fund. A more accurate estimate of your prospective settlement payment can be found on the claim form sent out to all class members along with the settlement notice, the website notes. According to the settlement website, IHOP will pay a maximum of $6,298,000 to eligible class members, depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed. If you are a class member and have lost your claim form, you may contact the settlement administrator at the email or phone number listed here. Claim forms must be submitted by mail to the address found on this page of the settlement website. Claim forms must be submitted or postmarked no later than September 26, 2025. A hearing is set for October 31, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Class action settlement payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The IHOP class action lawsuit alleged that the company failed to properly disclose wage scales and salary ranges on its Washington job listings, violating the state's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act. According to court documents, more than 3,100 people qualify for the IHOP class action settlement. [GN] MICHAEL FOODS: Jackson Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN JACKSON & ALICIA LUBOLD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01113-UNA (D. Del., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiffs and other employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as under the laws of Illinois and Pennsylvania. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly failed to compensate Named Plaintiffs for all hours worked and hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff Jackson worked for Defendant at its facility in Lansing, Illinois as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the role of pasteurizer from August 2020 until August 2024. Plaintiff Lubold also worked for Defendant at its facility in Klingerstown, Pennsylvania as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the role of Laborer from approximately 2011 until March 2025. Michael Foods, Inc. is a for-profit domestic corporation registered to conduct business in Delaware. The Company operates 17 plant locations across the United States engaged in the business of producing and supplying food services, food ingredients, and retail offerings.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com MICHIGAN: Court Awards $3.5MM Attys' Fees to Class Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.D., BY NEXT FRIEND B.N., et al., v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and ELIZABETH HERTEL, Case No. 1:18-cv-11795-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class settlement and granting Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for attorney' fees. The Plaintiffs' Counsel is awarded $3.5 million in attorneys' fees, paid according to the Parties' settlement agreement. The Court further entered an order that the case is dismissed, and this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce or modify the Agreement, until further order of this Court. This is a final order and closes this case. Because all four Civil Rule 23(e) factors also favor approval, all eleven relevant factors support approving the settlement agreement. So this Court will do so and grant the motion for final approval. The case involves Michigan's compliance with the Federal Medicaid Program, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and procedural due process. The Plaintiffs proposed that the class included the following people: "All Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries under the age of 21 in the State of Michigan for whom a licensed practitioner of the healing arts acting within the scope of practice under state law has determined, through an assessment, that intensive [HCBS] are needed to correct or ameliorate their emotional, behavioral, or psychiatric condition." Michigan Department of Health and Human Services provides public assistance, child and family welfare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hNmDNo at no extra charge.[CC] MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Hirth Suit Removed to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kristen Hirth, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. JO-2025-CV-001879 was removed from the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02513. The Plaintiff alleges that MAPS failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that MAPS failed to comply with HIPAA Guidelines. The Plaintiff further alleges that MAPS failed to comply with industry standards. Further, the Plaintiff claims that Defendant's alleged failures caused a security breach which allowed highly sensitive data, including PII and PHI, to be stolen and used for fraudulent purposes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MISSION PRODUCE: Continues to Defend Kachuk Class Suit in D.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- Mission Produce Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kachuk class suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. On February 21, 2025, the lawyers that represent the Organic Consumers Association filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Kachuk Enterprises, Bantle Avocado Farm, Maskell Family Trust, and Northern Capital, Inc., owners and operators of avocado orchards located in California, against the Company and certain other avocado distributors ("Kachuk matter"). The lawsuit alleges violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment related to defendants' alleged representations to consumers that their avocados are sustainably and responsibly sourced. Plaintiffs primarily seek injunctive relief, monetary and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, and restitution. On the OCA matter, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 25, 2025. The Court has denied its motion to dismiss and is allowing limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. The Court will allow renewal of the motion to dismiss at the conclusion of discovery. On the Kachuk matter, defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss on May 2, 2025. The hearing before the court on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for September 24, 2025. The Company is vigorously defending against the claims asserted in the lawsuit. Mission distributes and sells its avocados, or causes its avocados to be distributed and sold, throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] MOUNT SINAI: Mitto Seeks Unpaid Wages for Patient Care Associates ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULETTE MITTO and DAVID GERVAIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOUNT SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07461 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay wages, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs Mitto and Gervais were employed by the Defendant as patient care associates from January 8, 1990, until March 31, 2024. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. is a healthcare services provider in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Kansao, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave., Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: robert@employeejustice.com MUSH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Oats' False Protein Content --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against MUSH Foods Inc. Why: The plaintiff alleges the company misrepresents the amount of protein in its overnight oats products. Where: The MUSH Foods class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges MUSH Foods misrepresents the amount of protein in its overnight oats products. Plaintiff Dimitra Charalampopoulou filed the class action complaint against MUSH Foods on Aug. 29 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, MUSH Foods markets its protein overnight oats as containing 15 grams of protein per serving but fails to disclose that the protein is of lower quality and less digestible than animal-based protein. The lawsuit says that MUSH Foods' oats are made from plant-based ingredients, such as oats and peanuts, which have lower protein quality scores than whey or meat. The company allegedly does not include the percent daily value (%DV) of protein on the nutrition facts panel, which would show the adjusted amount after accounting for the plant-based origin. The class action lawsuit claims that consumers are misled into believing they are getting more protein than they actually are, and that they pay a premium for the products as a result. MUSH Foods' protein claims are unlawful, plaintiff alleges Charalampopoulou argues she regularly checks the nutrition facts panel before buying any protein supplement and relied on the 15 grams of protein claim when purchasing MUSH Foods' oats. She says she would not have bought the products, or would have paid less, if she had known the true protein content. Charalampopoulou seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased MUSH overnight oats. She also seeks to represent a subclass of consumers in California. The MUSH class action lawsuit alleges violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law and for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. The plaintiff is seeking certification of the class action, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and a jury trial. Meanwhile, Quaker Oats recently faced a class action lawsuit alleging it sells oat-based products with dangerously high levels of the pesticide chlormequat. What do you think of the allegations in this MUSH Foods class action? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Adrian Gucovschi and Nathaniel Haim Sari of Gucovschi Rozenshteyn PLLC. The MUSH Foods class action lawsuit is Charalampopoulou v. MUSH Foods Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-07316, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] NEW STRATA: McClain Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL MCCLAIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW STRATA INC. d/b/a FIVE STRATA, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07539-TSH (N.D. Cal., September 5, 2025) is an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that the Defendant sent telemarketing calls promoting their goods and services, including to individuals who were on the National Do Not Call Registry. According to the complaint, such calls were made without the call recipient's prior express written consent. The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant marketed its services through the use of pre-recorded telemarketing calls. Because these calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, Plaintiff sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls, says the suit. New Strata Inc. is a corporation headquartered in Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari -------------------------------------------------------------- CHERI POE filed on September 8, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-263, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the case captioned Cheri Poe, Petitioner vs. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case Nos. 23-3124, 23-3243. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner CHERI POE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Alleging Heart Drug Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 INSURANCE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07230 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2025) is a civil action arising from anticompetitive and illegal conduct by brand drug company Novartis, which extended its monopoly for Entresto, Novartis's heart failure drug with more than $4 billion in sales in the United States in 2024. According to the complaint, Novartis improperly submitted U.S. Patent Number 8,101,659 ("659 patent") for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also known as the Orange Book, which served to delay generic competition to Entresto by at least six months, during which time Novartis sold more than $2 billion of Entresto in the United States. The 659 patent does not meet the statutory criteria for an Orange Book listing -- the 659 patent does not claim the drug substance of Entresto, i.e., a chemical complex of sacubitril and valsartan, nor does it claim Entresto's drug product or a method of using Entresto. By improperly listing the 659 patent, Novartis was able to secure an additional six months of market exclusivity in the form of a pediatric exclusivity, which prevented the approval of generic competitors to Entresto from at least January 2025 to July 2025, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks overcharge damages arising from Novartis' improper Orange Book listing of the 659 patent for Entresto, which delayed the launch of generic Entresto. The Plaintiff, Iron Workers Local 580 Insurance Fund, is a health and welfare benefit fund based in New York. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation is a pharmaceutical company in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. Lisa Lamb Port, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com llambport@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin Cooper, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. Kyle Quackenbush, Esq. Jordan N. Isern, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com jisern@girardsharp.com OPW FUELING: Underpays Machine Operators, Solis Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ESTRELLA SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPW FUELING COMPONENTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00562-FL (E.D.N.C., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay proper wages, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff worked as a machine operator for the Defendant until he suffered a work-related accident in October 2021 and was subsequently terminated November 22, 2021. OPW Fueling Components LLC is a global manufacturer and solutions provider based in Hamilton, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. Briahna B. Koegel, Esq. S. Byron Frazelle, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 S. Academy Street Cary, NC 27511 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com sbfrazelle@gildahernandlaw.com POST HOLDINGS: Dog Food Products Falsely Advertised, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Post Holdings Inc. Why: The plaintiff alleges the company falsely advertises its Nature's Recipe dog food as containing no artificial preservatives. Where: The class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Post Holdings Inc. falsely advertises its Nature's Recipe dog food as containing no artificial preservatives. Plaintiff Karla Elisa Cortez filed the Nature's Recipe class action complaint against Post Holdings on Aug. 14 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the company falsely advertises its Nature's Recipe dog food as containing "no artificial preservatives" despite the product containing citric acid, a synthetic preservative. The plaintiff alleges that the false advertising violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The class action seeks to represent all consumers who purchased the Nature's Recipe dog food in California and is asking for damages and restitution for the purchase price of the products, which were allegedly falsely labeled. Citric acid not natural, Nature's Recipe class action alleges The Nature's Recipe dog food class action claims that consumers are misled into believing they are purchasing a premium product free from artificial ingredients, when in reality, the dog food contains citric acid produced through chemical processes. The lawsuit argues that the citric acid used in Nature's Recipe dog food is not naturally derived from fruits but is instead manufactured using a type of black mold called Aspergillus niger. This process involves significant chemical processing, making the citric acid artificial, the lawsuit states. The class action cites various studies and regulatory documents to support the claim that manufactured citric acid is synthetic and can cause adverse health effects. While a number of foodstuffs have faced similar allegations, this lawsuit follows similar allegations filed against The Kroger Co. for falsely advertising its Abound brand of dog as containing no artificial preservatives. What do you think of the allegations in this Nature's Recipe dog food class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Michael T. Houchin, Craig W. Straub and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal P.C. The Nature's Recipe dog food class action lawsuit is Cortez v. Post Holdings Inc., Case No. 2:25-at-01067, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] PRIMO WATER: Faces Suit Over Spring Water Products' False Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer is suing Primo Water Corp., Primo Water North America Inc. and Mountain Valley Spring Co. LLC. Why: The plaintiff alleges Mountain Valley Spring Water is falsely advertised free of pollutants when it actually contains carcinogens. Where: The Mountain Valley Spring Water class action was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Mountain Valley Spring Water is falsely marketed as purely sourced and free of pollutants when it actually contains multiple carcinogens. Plaintiff Jeffrey Nadel filed the class action complaint against Primo Water, Primo Water North America and Mountain Valley Spring in Florida federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Mountain Valley Spring Water is marketed as "America's Premium Spring Water" and "the very best bottled water you can drink," commanding premium prices 4-8 times the cost of standard bottled water. The lawsuit states these premium prices are justified through claims of "purely sourced" water that is "free of pollutants" and "exceptionally healthful," with emphasis on the water's "3,500-year natural filtration." However, independent laboratory testing in July 2025 allegedly detected arsenic, uranium and bromoform, which are substances with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level Goals of zero, meaning no safe level for human consumption. The lawsuit alleges the presence of bromoform, a chlorination byproduct, indicates likely undisclosed chlorine-based treatment, contradicting the defendants' disclosed ozonation/UV processes. The lawsuit further claims that Mountain Valley may have known about the contamination and concealed it, as the company experienced a supply shortage coinciding with viral social media posts exposing the issue. Consumers paid premium prices for contaminated water, lawsuit says Nadel says he and other health-conscious consumers paid substantial premiums believing they were purchasing "the very best bottled water you can drink" -- water that was "purely sourced" and achieved through natural processes without additives. Instead, they received water containing detectable carcinogens and disinfection byproducts, the lawsuit alleges. Nadel seeks to recover the premium prices consumers paid based on the defendants' false promises and to prevent them from continuing to deceive the public about the true nature of their water. The lawsuit is looking to represent anyone who bought Mountain Valley Spring Water in glass bottles from retail stores for personal, family or household use during the period from June 7, 2023, through the date of class certification. Nadel is suing for violations of state and federal consumer laws and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In 2024, a Nevada jury awarded $230 million in damages to 15 plaintiffs who said they suffered liver damage from drinking Real Water's alkaline water. The plaintiff is represented by Travis Robert-Ritter of Albrecht Law LLC. The Mountain Valley Spring Water class action lawsuit is Nadel v. Primo Water Corp., et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-80993, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] PUBLIX SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIX SECURITY FIRST LLC and RONALD ARCHER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15312 (D.N.J., September 5, 2025) is a class action complaint contending that Defendants unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals overtime compensation owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wages and overtime compensation owed pursuant to the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees as independent contractors, but they were actually employees pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL. Further, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that they were not paid the New Jersey minimum wages for any of their work and were not paid an overtime premium at one and a half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Security Guard from approximately mid-2023 until March 2025. Publix Security First LLC is a for-profit company formed in Delaware, that does business in New Jersey and maintains a principal place of business located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-021 E-mail: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com QUAKER OATS: Zhen Appeals Class Cert. and Attorney Fees Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- PAT ZHEN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Kessler, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350. On July 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted on Aug. 7, 2025. The Court awards $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel. The Court finds the requested amount of attorneys' fees to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The Court also finds that Class Counsel have incurred $72,003.41 in litigation costs. All of these costs were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary given the complex nature and scope of this case. The Court rules that the Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement for these costs. The appellate case is entitled Kessler v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 25-2146, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Defendant-Appellee THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY is represented by: Benjamin Fleming, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Objector-Appellant PAT ZHEN appears pro se. RANA POULTRY: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Angela Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rana Poultry Corp. d/b/a Saba Live Poultry, Sala Doe and Yamal Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07393 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to recover from the Defendants, jointly and severally: (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage; (ii) back wages for overtime work for which Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay; (iii) compensation for the Defendants' violations of the "spread of hours" requirements of the NYLL; (iv) liquidated damages; and (v) statutory damages for the Defendants' violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed at Saba Live Poultry from approximately January 2021 to October 2021, and again from March 2023 to September 2024. Throughout her employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff's duties were packing, cleaning, and cutting chickens. Rana Poultry Corp. d/b/a Saba Live Poultry owns and operates a poultry located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com RED RIVER SCIENCE: Elledge Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jesse B. Elledge, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RED RIVER SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; SAWTST LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVVS2504515 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02316. The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David G. Hagopian, Esq. Garrett V. Jensen, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 622-1661 Email: dhagopian@cdflitigation.com gjensen@cdflaborlaw.com RICH HOLDINGS: Spinella Sues Over Retaliatory Conduct Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SPINELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICH HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-12341-JFA (D.S.C., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a travel relief driver until his termination on or about October 6, 2023. Rich Holdings, Inc. is a food company doing business in South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack E. Cohoon, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA Post Office Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 904-7914 Facsimile: (803) 904-7910 Email: JCohoon@BurnetteShutt.Law RICHARDSON MEDIA: Misclassifies Editors and Writers, Merrell Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON TAYLOR MERRELL, CASEY BECKETT and SABRINA BATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICHARDSON MEDIA GROUP, INC., MAGIC VALLEY PUBLISHING COMPANY and DANIEL RICHARDSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01214 (W.D. Tenn., September 5, 2025) is an individual and collective action complaint brought to obtain injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief on behalf of the named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated who performed work for the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were misclassified as exempt employees but were actually non-exempt employees of the Defendants under the FLSA and were denied payment for all hours worked and overtime pay required by the federal law. Named Plaintiffs allege violations of the FLSA and seek monetary relief in the form of unpaid time, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other damages for herself and those similarly situated. The Plaintiffs are each former employees of the Defendants. Shannon Taylor Merrell worked as an editor. Her primary duties included drafting and editing content to be published in the Defendants' newspaper. Plaintiffs Casey Beckett and Sabrina Bates were staff writers for the Defendants. Richardson Media Group, Inc. owns and operates multiple newspapers in and around Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Weinman, Esq. WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES 112 S. Liberty Street - Suite 224 P. O. Box 266 Jackson, TN 38302 Telephone: (731) 423-5565 Facsimile: (731) 423-5372 E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com ROCKBROS USA: Jackson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKBROS USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07396 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, rockbrosusa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on August 3, 2025, and the last occurring on August 22, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Smart Bike, Brakes and Tail Lights from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the items to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. ROCKBROS USA LLC operates the website that offers cycling gear and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ROMEO'S PIZZA: Dietrich Combined Bid for Certification OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY DIETRICH, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. ROMEO'S PIZZA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's combined motion for certification. Accordingly, the court approves the giving of conditional notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, pursuant to section 216(b) of the FLSA, in respect to Count One, and certifies a Rule 23 class action in regard to Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five. The court also grants the request to appoint Plaintiff Bradley Dietrich as class representative, and the law firm of Biller & Kimble, LLC as lead counsel for the putative class. Notice, as approved by the court, may now be given to the parties. On Oct. 22, 2024, Dietrich, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated delivery drivers, filed the instant Combined Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and FLSA Conditional Certification. Dietrich asks the court to certify, and designate him as the representative of, the following class, pursuant to Rule 23: "All current and former delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at the Defendants' Romeo's Pizza stores in the State of Ohio between the date three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint and Dec. 31, 2019 ("Rule 23 Class")." In addition, the Plaintiff asks the court to conditionally certify the following class under the FLSA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All current and former delivery drivers employed at the Defendants' Romeo's Pizza stores between the date three years prior to the filing of the original complaint and Dec. 31, 2019 ("FLSA Collective")." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HOTniu at no extra charge.[CC] ROUND STAR NY: Barnett Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Round Star NY, LLC. The case is styled as Jillian Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Round Star NY, LLC doing business as: Soccer Stars, Case No. 1:25-cv-24027-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Round Star, Inc. doing business as Super Soccer Stars -- https://www.soccerstars.com/ -- operates a sports camp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RTR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Hecht Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTR Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled as Menachem Hecht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RTR Financial Services Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04924 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RTR Financial Services, Inc. -- https://www.rtrfs.com/ -- is a national leader in account management services focused on improving revenue collections and fostering better communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com S. MARTINELLI: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Misleading Juice Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- JOLY RAMIREZ and SORANGIE SANCHEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. S. MARTINELLI & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-07569 (N.D. Cal., September 5, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold Martinelli responsible for misleadingly marketing its Apple Juice, Sparkling Cider, and Sparkling Blush products in violation of the New York General Business Law, the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally designed the front labels of the Products so that consumers come away with the impression that the Products contain only 100% Juice, and nothing else. The Defendant did so because consumers place great value and are willing to pay more for juice products that they believe are 100% juice and contain no additives. The Products are also misbranded and misleading under relevant state regulations for juice products labeled as 100% juice. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unfair, unlawful, and deceptive practices, the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer out-of-pocket losses, the complaint asserts. S. Martinelli & Company is a non-alcoholic cider and juice company founded in 1868 and located in Watsonville, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street Suite 650 #1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com SAFEWAY INC: Lara Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gilma Elizabeth Lara, on behalf of herself, and those similarly situated v. SAFEWAY INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV131263 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07505. The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging various violations of the California Labor Code, the applicable collective bargaining agreement, and the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: jkb@paynefears.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Duardo Sues to Recover Unpaid Bonus -------------------------------------------------- George Duardo, Nick Hibbs and Jason Deneau, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:25-cv-02311-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid paramedic certification bonus, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, and other relief. This action arises from Defendant's failure to properly pay the paramedic bonus of $500.00 as part of the "regular rate" of pay used to calculate Plaintiffs' compensation under the FLSA, the City improperly classified it as a non-pensionable stipend and not part of regular pay. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and Defendant was aware of this. The Defendant failed to include this paramedic bonus/stipend in calculating Plaintiff's "regular rate" of pay under the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiff was paid overtime compensation that was less than one and one-half times the actual regular rate of pay, in violation of the FLSA., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Fire Department, employed in various Ranks--including but not limited to Firefighter Paramedics, Captains, Battalion Chiefs, and Fire Engineers--who maintained a Paramedic license. The Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Cunningham, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. CUNNINGHAM, APC 10405 San Diego Mission Rd., Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 819-9288 Email: jjc@jimcunninghamlaw.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gomez Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santander Consumer USA, Inc. The case is styled as Miguel Gomez, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Case No. HHD-CV25-6210144-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., Sept. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Misc - All other." Conservation Corps of Long Beach -- https://www.cclb-corps.org/ -- is a youth development nonprofit social enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC (414047) 35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512 Rocky Hill, CT 06067 SCOPE HEALTH: Noonan Sues Over Non-FDA Approved Ophthalmic Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- William Noonan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scope Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04997 (E.D.N.Y., September 5, 2025) is a consumer protection and restitution action arising from Defendant's unlawful marketing and sale of over-the-counter ophthalmic products containing unapproved active pharmaceutical ingredients, in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a Warning Letter to Defendant on July 9, 2025, identifying numerous violations of the FDCA, including the marketing of new drugs without an approved New Drug Application or Abbreviated New Drug Application, misbranding, and failure to conform to Current Good Manufacturing Practices. The products subject to the FDA's enforcement action include, among others, OPTASE(R) Dry Eye Intense Drops and similar products marketed by Scope, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased the Products unaware that they were misbranded and unapproved and, thus, were being sold in violation of federal law. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated consumers and asserts claims for negligence per se and unjust enrichment, seeking appropriate monetary and equitable relief. Scope Health, Inc. markets, sells, and distributes ophthalmic products to consumers nationwide, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. FURIA LAW, LLC 880 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 830-1915 E-mail: furiap@furiafirm.com STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Filing Extension Referred to Judge Prose ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holtsclaw v. Stake Center Locating, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order referring to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose the motion for extension of Time to File For Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Stake is engaged in infrastructure and fiber optic network locating.[CC] TD BANK: Dou Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 22 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dou, et al., v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-04880 (S.D.N.Y., Filed June 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order granting Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply: -- The Plaintiffs shall reply to Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by Oct. 22, 2025. The nature of suit states Securities & Exchange related issues. TD is an American national bank.[CC] THAI SUMMIT: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- ANISLEIDY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THAI SUMMIT AMERICA CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-12801-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 5, 2025) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief caused by the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately April 2023 through July 9, 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Thai Summit America Corporation is headquartered in Howell, Michigan, and employs hundreds of hourly employees in locations located in Michigan and Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com TIARA YACHTS: Court Narrows Claims in Stodolak Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAZ STODOLAK, et al., v. TIARA YACHTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00098-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jane M. Beckering entered an order: -- Granting Tiara's Motion to Dismiss on Supplemental Jurisdiction Grounds; and -- Dismissing without prejudice Counts II and III of the First Amended Complaint The Plaintiffs' class action allegations in the First Amended Complaint are stricken as redundant and immaterial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law class action claims here for two independently sufficient reasons: 1) there is an insufficient "similarity between the predicate factual findings necessary to the resolution of both the federal and state law claims," and 2) the state law claims would "predominate" over the FLSA claims over which the court "has original jurisdiction." The Plaintiffs allege that Tiara (1) requires the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers to don and doff Personal Protective Equipment ("PPE") equipment during unpaid meal breaks, before clocking in, or after clocking out; and (2) fails to properly compensate hourly employees for overtime by excluding an allegedly non-discretionary quarterly bonus from Tiara's overtime rate calculation. The Plaintiffs seek to include all Tiara employees, including those in all twenty-eight departments at Tiara’s Holland manufacturing facility and nationwide, in a class action brought under Rule 23 Tiara is a Michigan corporation that manufactures luxury watercraft. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wvHcXv at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Gotay Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RENE GOTAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10704 (N.D. Ill., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about July 28, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TransUnion LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Ross Brown, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 1 Allied Dr., Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 Email: cbrown@cbplaw.com TRANSUNION LLC: Settles Consumer Credit Data Suit for $2.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------ William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that individuals whom Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC monitored through TransUnion's Triggers for Collection product and then requested their removal between Jan. 20, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2023, may qualify to claim at least $40 from a class action settlement. TransUnion LLC agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it continued to send consumer credit report data to third-party collection agencies after PRA instructed it to stop. The lawsuit claims this conduct violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Who are the class members? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They are natural persons in the United States or its territories. -- They received a User Reference Number from the data TransUnion and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC produced. -- The data shows TransUnion sent PRA data through its Triggers for Collection product for that URN. -- This occurred more than two business days after PRA submitted a request to delete that URN from TFC. -- This occurred between Jan. 20, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2023. There are approximately 38,805 class members. TransUnion's records indicate an individual is among the affected consumers if they received a postcard notice about the settlement. How much is the TransUnion payout? The settlement establishes a $2.5 million fund. After deducting settlement administration costs, attorneys' fees and a service award to the class representative, the settlement administrator will distribute the remaining funds equally among all class members who do not opt out. The anticipated minimum payment per class member is at least $40. The exact amount depends on the number of class members who do not opt out and the final administrative costs. No action needed to receive payment Class members who received a notice about the settlement do not need to file a claim or take any action to receive a settlement payment. The settlement administrator already has the necessary information to identify eligible class members. The settlement administrator will mail checks automatically to eligible class members after the court grants final approval. Those whose addresses have changed should contact the settlement administrator to update their information. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Wilson v. TransUnion, LLC c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 16, West Point, PA 19486 $2.5 million settlement fund breakdown The $2,500,00o settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $833,333.33 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: The remaining funds If any funds remain after all distributions (for example, from uncashed checks), the settlement administrator will split them equally between the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the National Consumer Law Center. Important dates -- Exclusion/opt-out deadline: Nov. 4, 2025 -- Final fairness hearing: Dec. 15, 2025 When is the Wilson v. TransUnion payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments approximately 45 days after the court enters an order of final approval of the class action settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged TransUnion continued to send consumer report data to third-party collection agencies through its Triggers for Collection product even after Portfolio Recovery Associates instructed it to stop. The plaintiff claimed this violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnion denies these allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risks, costs and delays of continued litigation. [GN] TRANSUNION: McLeod Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- DURANT MCLEOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, TRANSUNION LLC, SALESFORCE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08553 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, violations of the California Customer Records Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and Unfair Competition Law, invasion of privacy, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on or about July 28, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. TransUnion is a consumer credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. TransUnion LLC is a subsidiary of TransUnion, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Salesforce, Inc. is a software company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Deanna S. Leifer, Esq. Kristen B. Doyan, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dleifer@maternlawgroup.com kdoyan@maternlawgroup.com TRAX RETAIL: Grant Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Requita Grant, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. TRAX RETAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-627800 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07487. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following wage and hour class claims: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked; Failure to Provide Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Violation of Labor Code Section 226; Failure to Timely Pay all Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq. Amanda Bolliger, Esq. Ryan C. King, Esq. GBG LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 840 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 603-5000 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com amandabolliger@gbgllp.com ryanking@gbgllp.com U.S. RENAL CARE: Taclob Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Renal Care, Inc. The case is styled as Albert Taclob, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. U.S. Renal Care, Inc., Case No. 25STCV26043 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." U.S. Renal Care -- https://www.usrenalcare.com/ -- is a leading provider of in-center and home dialysis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma Geesaman, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-875-2008 Email: e.geesaman@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- UiPath Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a 2024 securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 20, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, CEO Daniel Dines, former CEO Robert Enslin, and CFO Ashim Gupta (the "2024 Securities Action"), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or acquired UiPath common stock, and purchasers of UiPath call options and sellers of put options, between December 1, 2023 and May 29, 2024. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's AI-powered Business Automation Platform and UiPath's strategy for, the success of, and customer demand for the platform, and sought unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. On January 21, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and on July 23, 2025, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety but allowed plaintiffs until September 12, 2025 to file a second amended complaint. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. UNION SETTLEMENT: Hernandez Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLINA JUAREZ HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNION SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07372 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022 including discrimination and failure to accommodate, retaliation, interference, protected leave retaliation, failure to pay wages and wage supplements, and declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an administrative assistant on or around September 7, 2020, until August 12, 2024. Union Settlement Association, Inc. is a nonprofit company with its principal place of business at 237 East 104th Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane Seppinni, Esq. Megan Jones, Esq. SEPPINNI LAW, PLLC 40 Broad St., 7th Fl. New York, NY 1004 Telephone: (212) 859-5085 Email: shane@seppinnilaw.com megan@seppinnilaw.com UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Denied Student Loan Forgiveness -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam S. Minsky, writing for Forbes, reports that the Trump administration is facing a potential class action lawsuit over blocked, denied, or delayed student loan forgiveness. And how this legal battle moves forward could have profound financial implications for hundreds of thousands of student loan borrowers. The latest action was initiated by the American Federation of Teachers, one of the nation's largest teachers unions. The AFT filed an amended complaint on Tuesday, September 9, seeking to expand the claims and allegations outlined in its original lawsuit filed in March over stalled applications for income-driven repayment plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, or PSLF. The amended complaint also seeks class action status for covered student loan borrowers. Here's what to know about this latest legal challenge, and why it's so important for borrowers pursuing affordable payments and student loan forgiveness. The AFT's original lawsuit that it filed against the Trump administration in March concerned the temporary shutdown of the IDR application system and the ensuing backlog of applications that, the union argued, effectively prevented borrowers from enrolling in repayment plans that they are legally entitled to access under federal law. IDR plans allow borrowers to make payments based on their income and family size, with the possibility of student loan forgiveness after 20 or 25 years in repayment. The Trump administration had argued that a temporary shutdown of the IDR application system was necessary in response to a court decision in a separate legal challenge over the SAVE plan, one of four current IDR options. But the AFT disputed this. The AFT had also argued in its original suit that the Department of Education's IDR shutdown and subsequent application backlog was effectively preventing borrowers from accessing student loan forgiveness through the PSLF program. Enrolling in an IDR plan is usually required for borrowers pursuing PSLF. And the department had encouraged borrowers stuck in the SAVE plan forbearance to utilize the PSLF Buyback program to qualify for student loan forgiveness, if they were eligible, but the PSLF Buyback program was seemingly facing its own backlog of applications. PSLF Buyback allows borrowers to make a lump sum payment so that certain prior non-qualifying periods of deferment or forbearance can count toward loan forgiveness. [GN] WEIRTON MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Weirton Medical Center has agreed to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit filed over a January 2024 data breach that may have compromised the personal information of current and former patients. The court-authorized website for the Weirton Medical Center data breach settlement can be found at WeirtonSettlementDataBreach.com. The deal with the West Virginia-based nonprofit hospital covers a class of approximately 26,725 United States residents who were sent notice that their private information was potentially accessed or exposed in the Weirton Medical Center data breach, which occurred between January 14 and January 18, 2024. According to the official Weirton Medical Center settlement website, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be eligible to receive benefits from the deal, including credit monitoring services and a cash payment. The deadline to file a Weirton Medical Center settlement claim form is November 5, 2025. Class members can submit a claim form online on this page. Those who wish to file by mail may download and print a PDF claim form or call 844-496-0731 to request a paper copy. Claim form submission requires a unique notice ID provided in the settlement notice issued about the deal. To file a claim form online, consumers will need a PIN, which can also be found in the notice. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Weirton Medical Center will provide class members who submit a valid claim form with one year of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services at no cost. In addition, the website says that consumers can file a claim form to receive reimbursement of up to $5,000 per person for documented monetary losses incurred between January 18, 2024 and November 5, 2025 that are reasonably traceable to the data breach. The site notes that consumers will not be compensated for expenses that have already been reimbursed by another source, including any compensation provided in connection with the credit monitoring and identity theft protection product offered as part of the hospital's notice letter. Alternatively, class members can opt for a $50 cash payment in lieu of expense reimbursement, the website shares. The Weirton Medical Center class action settlement received preliminary approval from United States District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on July 8, 2025. The parties now await a hearing on November 3, 2025, at which time the court will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal. The agreement relays that, should the deal be ultimately approved, settlement benefits will be distributed to eligible class members within 60 days following the date it goes into effect, provided the hospital has furnished the funds. According to the lawsuit against Weirton Medical Center, the January 2024 cyberattack may have compromised patients' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical and treatment data, health insurance details and outstanding medical bill balances. The data breach lawsuit alleged that patients have been exposed to a greater risk of fraud and identity theft as a result of the unauthorized disclosure of their private information. [GN] WOLVERINE FUELS: Fails to Properly Pay Beltmen, Goins Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY GOINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOLVERINE FUELS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00767 (D. Utah, September 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Goins was employed by the Defendant as a beltman from approximately August 2024 until November 2024. Wolverine Fuels, LLC is a coal mining company headquartered in Sandy, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Telephone: (801) 415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 Email: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com YAKIMA PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YAKIMA PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07234 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://yakima.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on August 10, 2025, and the last occurring on August 12, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Rooftop Accessories from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Yakima Products, Inc. operates the website that offers an array of goods and services including car racks and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal [^] Antitrust Practice of Major U.S. Class Action Law Firms ----------------------------------------------------------- Your guide to the Antitrust litigation practice of 25 of the country’s major class action firms representing plaintiffs. The featured firms are: BERGER MONTAGUE PC BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP DICELLO LEVITT LLP EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP EDELSON PC GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP GRANT & EISENHOFER PA HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP HAUSFELD LLP JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM LLP KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ROBINS KAPLAN LLP SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP SEEGER WEISS LLP STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC Antitrust litigation seeks to address violations of laws designed to promote fair competition and protect consumers, businesses, and the economy from anticompetitive practices that include monopolization, price-fixing, bid-rigging, market allocation, and other concerted actions that restrain trade or harm competition. Antitrust class actions enable groups of similarly affected individuals or entities to collectively seek redress for damages caused by the unlawful conduct. Plaintiff law firms play a pivotal role in antitrust litigation, particularly in private actions brought by individuals, businesses, or classes of plaintiffs. These firms are instrumental in identifying potential violations. They conduct thorough investigations, gather evidence through discovery and collaborate with economic experts to demonstrate market harm. Their work involves drafting complaints, navigating complex legal procedures, and advocating for remedies, whether through settlements or trials. Class Action Updates is reader-supported. To receive new posts, be a subscriber. A full-text copy of the Class Action Updates Special Report is available at: https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/antitrust-practice-of-major-us-class ********* 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 ***