250924.mbx

250924.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 24, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 191 Headlines 2020 HARWIN: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Garcia Says AFRICAN METHODIST: Ct. Partially Junks Bid to Dismiss Cross Claims ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Colgan Files Suit in D. Minnesota ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Crownover Files Suit in D. Minnesota ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Faces Shareholder Suit over Psychiatric Drugs AMAZON.COM INC: Rogers Suit Removed to C.D. California AMERICAN PLUMBING: Marston Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages APEX, NC: Supreme Court to Decide on Cert. of Fee Charges Suit ATTALA STEEL: Court Grants Preliminary Settlement Approval BLUE & CO: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Hensley Says CARETRACKER INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ferrari Alleges CARVE DESIGNS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Davis Says CHICAGO, IL: Lane Sues Over Disabled's Access to Public Walkways CHURCHILL DOWNS: Cordoba Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMERICA BANK: Final Court Approval Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 11 COMFORT SYSTEMS: 2d Cir. Certifies Questions in Wage Claims Appeal COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suits Says CORNWELL QUALITY: Faces Eisele Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access COX AUTOMOTIVE: Carr Alleges Unfair Labor and Business Practices DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT: Fultz Sues Over Disabled's Hotel Room Access DEXCOM INC: Court Dismisses Most Claims in Securities Fraud Case DICKEY'S BARBEQUE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Williams Says DREAMWEALTH LLC: Serratos Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida EL MARIACHI: Posadas Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA: Vesely Sues Over Third-Party Trackers ENDEAVOR HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villalobos Says ETERNAL CARE INC: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Heretick Suit Removed to C.D. California FACTORY ENOVA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Knowles Alleges FARMERS INSURANCE: Emanuel Sues Over Data Breach FOX HEAD INC: Tupper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Court Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss "Cicchi" GREENSTONE LLC: $70.75MM Settlement to be Heard on April 8 HAITIAN AMERICANS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilson Alleges HALF/NUTS INC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Agrees to Settle Maui Wildfires Suit for $135M HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Lumpkin Sues Over Customers' Leaked Info HGS MAGICAL: Faces Awad Suit Over TCPA Violations HOLLAND, MI: Phothisan Appeals Court Order to Mich. Ct. of Appeals HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: "Leverman" Stays in Calif. District Court HYATT HOTELS: Fails to Provide Bed Heights Info, Niles Suit Says INOTIV INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wagner Alleges JM SMUCKER: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ward" Salmonella Suit KD CREATIVES: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Carruth" Denied KEYS PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Pappas Files Suit in S.D. Florida L'OREAL USA INC: Barrales Files Suit in C.D. California LAGOM KITCHEN: Faces Walker Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Disseminates False Material Info, Margolis Says LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whatley Alleges LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Evans Alleges LATINO FARM: Court Denies Bid to Remand Wage Class Action LINCOLN MEMORIAL: Denies Student Accommodations, Harris Suit Claims LOANCARE LLC: $5.9M Settlement in "Curry" Has Final Court Approval LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss "Alms" Securities Class Denied LUNA NORTE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Echols Suit Alleges MAERSK INC: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Reeves Alleges MDL 2873: Brayboy Sues Over Harmful Aqueous Film Forming Foams MDL 2873: Chaplinski Seeks Damages Over PFAS-Related Injuries MDL 2873: Cole Sues Over Unsafe Aqueous Film Forming Foams MDL 2873: Ecanosti Sues AFFF Manufacturers Over PFAS Contamination MDL 2873: Faces Born Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Ferrero Sues Over Exposure to Harmful, Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Niblack Sues Over Unsafe, Hazardous Substances MDL 2873: Otero Sues Over PFAS-Related Personal Injuries MDL 2873: Pope Seeks Damages Over Toxic Chemicals' Exposure MDL 2873: Populo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Substances MDL 2873: Rover Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Taylor Seeks Damages Over Toxic Chemicals' Exposure MERCY SURGICAL: Bloom Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania MITSUBISHI HEAVY: Goodell Jr. Sues Over Defective Engines MONTEREY MECHANICAL: "Carrillo" Remanded to State Court NETFLIX INC: Reality TV Contestant Sues Over Working Conditions NEW YORK: Denies GPD Program Services to Veterans, Pena Suit Says NICKEL GROUP CA: Clark Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PEACH SKIN: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PENNYMAC LOAN: Yurowitz Sues Over Improper Property Tax Notice PETERSON'S OIL: 1st Cir. Affirms Insurance Coverage Ruling PPG EMPLOYEE: Bellon Appeals Court Order in ERISA Suit to 4th Cir. QUMPUS INC: Valerio Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia R & L CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Workers, Lojano Claims RED ROBIN: Faces Lemasters Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ill. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Judge Refuses Arbitration in Privacy Class Suit RETINA VITREOUS: Horning Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. RETROFITNESS LLC: Court OKs Bid to Dismiss "Herrera" w/o Prejudice RITHM CAPITAL: Faces Cortez Suit Over 401(k) Plan Losses RIVERSIDE RESORT: Wins Partial Dismissal of Data Breach Lawsuit ROUSE SERVICES: Mack's Junk Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois SABAI DESIGN: Evans Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website SALESFORCE INC: Failed to Protect Private Info, Tatum Says SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Whicker Sues Over Defective Refrigerators SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Alleges SELECT PORTFOLIO: Must Face Pay-to-Pay Fee Class Action Suit SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Giana Sues Over Production of Copyrighted Works SKY ORGANICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Suit Says SPECIALIZED LOAN: Must Face "Butler" FLSA Claims T20 WORLD: Wins Motion to Compel Arbitration in Flag Dispute TAPESTRY INC: "Merrell" ADA Class Suit Moved to Central California TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gordon Alleges TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Alleges TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tobin Alleges TWC 2022: Foy Sues Over Sex-Based Discrimination & Retaliation ULTIMATE AUTO SERVICE: Jarillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED SERVICES: Court Clarifies Filed-Rate Doctrine Questions UNITED STATES: Ramos Appeals Denied Attorney Fees Order to 9th Cir. USHEALTH ADVISORS: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Sessoms Suit V.F. CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Children's Online Privacy Violation WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shareholder Suit over IPO WINCHESTER CARPET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Says WOODSTREAM CORP: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind XANDR INC: Porcuna Sues Over Data Privacy Violations YAMAHA MOTOR: Ellert Files Suit in M.D. Florida ********* 2020 HARWIN: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Garcia Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2020 HARWIN 59 SHOPPING CENTERS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-CV-04252 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 7250 Harwin Drive, Houston, TX 77036, Harris County, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. 2020 Harwin 59 Shopping Centers, Ltd operates commercial establishments in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com AFRICAN METHODIST: Ct. Partially Junks Bid to Dismiss Cross Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as In Re: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:22-md-03035-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), Judge S. Thomas Anderson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part the African Methodist Episcopal Church Defendant's motion to dismiss Symetra Life Insurance Company's Amended Cross-Complaint. This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. Background and Procedural History The litigation stems from massive losses to the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred a series of civil actions to this Court on June 2, 2022, for coordinated management of pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. The case involves the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the AMEC Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan, the AMEC Department of Retirement Services, the AMEC General Board, and the AMEC Council of Bishops as defendants. Symetra Life Insurance Company filed cross-complaints against these parties. At all times material to this action, AMEC served as the Plan sponsor, named fiduciary, and employer of participants in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan. As the Plan sponsor and fiduciary, AMEC owed duties of prudence and loyalty to the Plan and its participants, including the duty to prudently select, monitor, and manage the Plan's investments. Rather than creating a retirement plan committee of competent professionals or hiring an experienced retirement plan investment advisor to assist it in managing the Plan, AMEC assigned the Executive Director of AMEC's Department of Retirement Services the duty to act as the sole trustee of the Plan. This individual had sole authority to manage and administer the Plan, including sole authority to invest the Plan's assets. Any member of the AME Church was eligible to run for the position of Executive Director, and no experience with retirement plans or investments was required. Jerome Harris served as Executive Director of the Department of Retirement Services from 2000 to July 2021, making him the sole trustee of the Plan with complete authority and control to manage the Plan and invest its assets. Between 2004 and July 2021, Harris ran unopposed and was elected four more times for consecutive four-year terms as Executive Director and sole Plan Trustee. As a result,Harris served as the sole Plan Trustee for more than 20 years from 2000 to July of 2021. In June 2021, Harris reported that the value of the Plan's assets was approximately $126.8 million. However, investigation revealed that Harris had overstated the value of the Plan's assets by more than $88.5 million, with approximately $88 million of that overstatement attributable to Harris's investment of Plan funds in the Motorskill Entities, which had become worthless. Symetra's Relationship with the Plan Between 2001 and 2021, Harris entered into multiple contracts with Symetra on behalf of AMEC and the Plan, including annuity contracts and Guaranteed Interest Contracts. Under these agreements, AMEC deposited money into Symetra contracts in exchange for contractual promises from Symetra to pay back that money with interest in the future. The contracts explicitly stated that Symetra was not a plan fiduciary and would not assume fiduciary duties or provide investment advice to AMEC or the Plan. Section 9.8 of the Plan Document stated that insurance companies such as Symetra that issue contracts to the Plan shall be protected and held harmless in acting in accordance with any written direction of the Trustee, and shall have no duty to see to the application of any funds paid to the Trustee, nor be required to question any actions directed by the Trustee. Investment Losses and Investigation Investigation revealed that Harris had invested Plan assets in various ventures outside of Symetra, including Florida real estate, venture capital funds known as the Motorskill Entities, a loan to Day and Night Solar LLC, and an entity called Financial Freedom Funds LLC. These investments, particularly the Motorskill Entities, resulted in substantial losses to the Plan. The investigation concluded that Harris's representation in June 2021 that the Plan's value was $126.8 million was false. All of the Plan's investments in the Motorskill Entities had become worthless. At no time when Symetra transferred monies from a Symetra contract pursuant to Harris's directions did Symetra know or have reason to know about the ultimate destination or risks of these transfers. Symetra filed an Amended Cross-Complaint asserting the following causes of action under Tennessee law: 1. Breach of contract against AMEC and the Plan 2. Common law indemnification against AMEC 3. Negligent misrepresentation against AMEC and the Plan 4. Contribution against all AMEC Defendant and other defendants 5. Contractual indemnification against AMEC 6. Declaratory relief regarding Harris's authority as trustee, AMEC's fiduciary status, and Symetra's lack of liability Court's Analysis and Rulings Breach of Contract Claims The court analyzed Symetra's breach of contract claims based on Section 9.8 of the 2006 Plan document and three agreements: a 2007 annuity contract, a 2007 Guaranteed Interest Contract, and a 2008 Guaranteed Interest Contract. The AMEC Defendant argued that the 2007 and 2008 GICs had expired and therefore could not support breach of contract claims. The court rejected this argument, finding that the AMEC Defendant had not shown why the maturity of the GICs meant Symetra could not enforce the exculpatory clauses found in those contracts. The court distinguished the case from Gridsmart Technologies, Inc. v. Marlin Controls, Inc., noting that unlike in Gridsmart, the parties had not briefed whether the GICs contained termination clauses or how termination affected future enforcement rights. The court held that Symetra had alleged sufficient factual matter to show that AMEC's breach of contract caused damages, including costs, liabilities, expenses, and attorney's fees. However, the court granted the motion in part, ruling that Symetra could not recover damages for negative publicity under Tennessee breach of contract law, as damage to reputation is not recoverable in breach of contract actions because such damages are nonquantifiable and speculative. Negligent Misrepresentation Claims The AMEC Defendant argued that Symetra failed to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, contending that Symetra merely alleged that AMEC disavowed provisions from the 2003 Recordkeeping Services Agreement. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Symetra's Amended Cross-Complaint stated a plausible claim for negligent misrepresentation as inconsistent or alternative grounds for relief. The court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2) permits a party to allege claims alternatively or hypothetically, and Rule 8(d)(3) allows pleading of multiple separate claims regardless of consistency. The AMEC Defendant argued that Symetra's contribution claim was premature because no judgment had been entered against Symetra and overbroad because Symetra would not be entitled to contribution unless found jointly and severally liable with AMEC for negligence. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that federal pleading rules permit the assertion of contingent cross-claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g). The court explained that contingent cross-claims are permissible to preserve a defendant's right to seek contribution from others, and that Symetra had plausibly alleged a basis for its contingent cross-claim based on the possibility of joint and several liability with other alleged tortfeasors. The AMEC Defendant argued that the 2003 and 2008 Recordkeeping Services Agreements never took effect because an arbitrator determined the agreements were not binding due to lack of proper signatures by both parties. The court denied the motion to dismiss, noting that the AMEC Defendant had not raised the doctrine of collateral estoppel or briefed its elements. The court declined to reach the issue without a more complete presentation on a motion to dismiss. Additionally, the court found that viewing the allegations in a light most favorable to Symetra, there was sufficient factual matter to conclude that claims against Symetra arose out of the agreements. The AMEC Defendant argued that Symetra failed to allege the kind of relationship that might create a common law right to indemnification and contended that Symetra was not an innocent third party. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the argument raised disputes of fact that could not be addressed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Symetra, the court held that the pleading plausibly alleged that AMEC could be liable to Symetra under an implied indemnification theory based on AMEC's alleged breach of contract and negligent misrepresentations. Symetra sought declarations that: (1) Harris was Plan Trustee with authority to act on behalf of the Plan; (2) AMEC is a Plan fiduciary; and (3) Symetra has no liability to AMEC or the Plan for following Harris's written directives to transfer Plan funds. The AMEC Defendant argued that Symetra had not established Article III standing and alternatively that the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Symetra had established each element of Article III standing. The court applied the five-factor Grand Trunk test for exercising jurisdiction over declaratory judgment claims and concluded that the balance of factors weighed in favor of exercising jurisdiction. The court noted that in this mixed action seeking both coercive relief and declaratory relief, equitable considerations counseled heavily in favor of not abstaining. The court held that Symetra's Amended Cross-Complaint alleged plausible claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, contractual indemnification, common law or implied indemnification, contribution, and declaratory relief. The court granted the motion in part only with respect to Symetra's claim for breach-of-contract damages related to bad publicity, finding that such damages are not available under Tennessee law. Therefore, the AMEC Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Cross-Complaint was granted in part and denied in part. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UX4XtQ from PacerMonitor.com ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Colgan Files Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Michelle Colgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03285-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Ste 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: (612) 991-2934 Email: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anderson Tuggle, Esq. Larry E. LaTarte, Esq. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 766-6822 Email: anderson.tuggle@faegredrinker.com larry.latarte@faegredrinker.com - and - Francis Xavier Nolan, IV, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 389-5083 Email: franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Crownover Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Tiffany Crownover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03308-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E Gustafson, Esq. Frances Ivy Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq. Shashi K Gowda, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com - and - Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3g Larkspur, CA 94939 Phone: (415) 461-6400 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com - and - James F. Clapp, Esq. CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Phone: (760) 209-6565 Fax: (760) 209-6565 Email: tzaayer@clapplegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Anderson Tuggle, Esq. Larry E. LaTarte, Esq. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 766-6822 Email: anderson.tuggle@faegredrinker.com larry.latarte@faegredrinker.com - and - Francis Xavier Nolan, IV, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 389-5083 Email: franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Faces Shareholder Suit over Psychiatric Drugs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alto Neuroscience, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 13, 2025, that on July 21, 2025, a purported stockholder of the company filed a lawsuit against the company, certain executive officers, and certain current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-06105). The complaint is a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, related to the company's IPO in February 2025, and violations of the Exchange Act thereafter. The proposed class consists of purchasers or acquirers of the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its IPO as well as purchasers or acquirers of the company's common stock between February 2, 2024 and October 22, 2024, both dates inclusive. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, fees, and costs. The complaint claims, among other things, that the company's offering documents and subsequent public disclosures contained materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts about the prospects of its "ALTO-100" for bipolar depression. Alto is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company in aid of psychiatry by leveraging neurobiology to develop personalized and highly effective treatment options focusing on major depressive disorder, bipolar depression, treatment resistant depression and schizophrenia. AMAZON.COM INC: Rogers Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Omar Rogers, an Individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV21070 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07830-FMO-SSC. In the Complaint, Plaintiff challenges the sale of a product named "Terramycin," alleging that its sale violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), the California Health & Safety Code, and other unidentified California laws because: it is a prescription drug that "cannot be sold in California without a prescription"; and the product is "not actually Terramycin at all." The Plaintiff alleges that the product is sold and marketed in the Amazon.com store. On these bases, the Complaint asserts three causes of action against Amazon for violations of the unfair and unlawful prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code Section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"), as well as for unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin S. Asfour, Esq. Katy M. Ramos, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: +1 310 552 5000 Facsimile: +1 310 558 5001 Email: kevin.asfour@klgates.com katy.ramos@klgates.com AMERICAN PLUMBING: Marston Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH EZRA MARSTON, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PLUMBING PROFESSIONALS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05122-ELR (N.D. Ga., September 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants in this case violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated Plumbers, time and one half for all of their hours worked over 40 each week. Plaintiff Marston was employed by Defendant as a plumber from June 2024 to April 2025. American Plumbing Professionals, Inc. is a plumbing company based in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com APEX, NC: Supreme Court to Decide on Cert. of Fee Charges Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Carolina Journal reports that the North Carolina Supreme Court will decide whether a lawsuit challenging a recreation fee Apex charges to developers can move forward as a class action. A trial judge ruled in 2024 that the complaint filed by Empire Contractors can proceed as a class-action suit. The plaintiff and Apex offered an hour of oral arguments on the issue Tuesday, September 16, afternoon. The North Carolina Supreme Court will decide in the months ahead whether developers challenging a recreation fee in Apex can move forward with a class-action suit. The town has asked the high court to reverse a trial judge's decision allowing the class action. Justices heard oral arguments in the dispute. Plaintiff Empire Contractors filed suit in March 2023, challenging Apex's requirement of a $64,000 payment in lieu of dedicating land for recreation in its 20-lot, 3.5-acre development. A trial judge ruled in April 2024 that the case could involve other developers who paid the same type of fee. "I think everybody's interests are aligned here," argued Jim DeMay, Empire's lawyer. "The interest is the town's not spending these fees, and they're not using it for our particular benefit. So everybody is joined at that." A state law allowing Apex to charge the fee requires the money to be used for parks and recreation projects in or near the affected subdivision. "We deposed everybody with the town that knows anything about this issue," DeMay said. "Every one of them said for each class member, the town has no idea how the fees were spent." "Under the town's own spending rules, their own accounting principles, not a dollar of these fees have been spent on any project," he added. Apex's lawyer responded that state law sets no deadline for the town to spend the fees. "What they're saying is you illegally charged us this fee, and we're entitled to it back, and all of the class members are as well," said Dan Hartzog. "The statute . . . doesn't give us a time frame on which those fees must be spent." "Inherently, in parks and recreation planning, it takes some time to plan, purchase, develop a park," Hartzog continued. "For the plaintiffs to come in here and say, 'They have violated the statute and never had the authority to charge us in the first place,' is a premature determination at this point because the money could be spent on a neighborhood park right near their subdivision." The trial judge committed multiple "errors of law" that should prompt the state Supreme Court to throw out the case's class-action status, Hartzog argued. Apex argued in a February brief that a state law permitted the town to charge the fee. "To prove that a recreation fee-in-lieu paid as a condition of subdivision approval was unlawful, Plaintiff must show that the fee-in-lieu was beyond the scope of the enabling statute, which includes 'implied powers . . . essential to the exercise of those which are expressly conferred,'" Apex's lawyers wrote. "It is undisputed that the enabling statute allows Apex to adopt a regulation that '. . . provide[s] for payment of funds to be used to acquire or develop recreation areas serving residents of the development or subdivision or more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area,'" Apex's brief continued. "The statute contains only one express restriction on the use of the funds by cities: that they 'shall be used only for the acquisition or development of recreation, park, or open space sites.'" "Apex has additional authority by local act that allows the Town to 'us[e] a formula based upon a charge per dwelling unit of the development or subdivision without reference to property tax value,' so long as the 'the collection, maintenance, and use of such funds are otherwise consistent with G.S. 160A-372' and the fee-in-lieu does not 'exceed the fair market value of the land area that would have otherwise been required to be dedicated,'" Apex's lawyers wrote. Beyond the specifics of Empire Contractors' lawsuit, Apex argues that Superior Court Judge Gale Adams was wrong to conclude that this case could cover other developers. "The impact of each development will differ based upon many factors, including the number and type of dwelling units, the resources already available in the area of Town where the development is located, or whether the development increases the population of an existing area of Town or extends its boundaries," Apex's lawyers wrote. "In another example, the amenities built into the development by the developer may have the potential to mitigate its impact. Analysis of the impact of the development will also require fact-specific discovery and proof for each putative class member. This inquiry is ad hoc and fact- intensive. It is not susceptible to common proof, and the trial court erred in finding that it was a common issue of law or fact shared among the class." "There is a common nucleus of operative facts among all class members that underlie each of these issues," Adams wrote in the order granting the lawsuit class-action status. "Plaintiff's claim is typical of all other class members as it relates to the general theories of liability set forth in the common issues. The Court concludes that a 'class' exists in this action and that common issues of law and fact predominate over any individual issues." [GN] ATTALA STEEL: Court Grants Preliminary Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Betty Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Attala Steel Industries, LLC and MiddleGround Management, LP, Defendants, Civil Cause No. 4:23-cv-114-DAS (N.D. Miss.), United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted the Joint Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval. The Court reviewed the Motion, the Settlement Agreement, and additional submissions in support of preliminary approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for settlement of claims alleged in Count I (WARN Act) on a classwide basis and Count II (FLSA) with respect to the Represented and Opt-In Individuals. The Court considered the allegations, information, arguments, and authorities provided by the Parties in connection with the pleadings previously filed in this case, the information and authorities provided in the Motion, the terms of the Settlement Agreement including the definition of the Settlement Class and benefits to be provided, and the Settlement's elimination of any potential manageability issue that may otherwise have existed if the case continued to be litigated. In light of the Settlement, the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied to warrant preliminary certification of Count I (WARN Act) for purposes of moving forward with settlement and scheduling the fairness hearing. The Court found that the following requirements are sufficiently met with respect to Count I (WARN Act): the number of WARN Class Members contains approximately 133 members and is so numerous that joinder of all WARN Class Members is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to the WARN Class Members; Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the WARN Class Members she seeks to represent for purposes of the Settlement; Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the WARN Class and will continue to do so; questions of law and fact common to the WARN Class Members predominate over any questions affecting any individual WARN Class Member; and a class action provides a fair and efficient method for settling the controversy under the criteria set forth in Rule 23. The Notice Form attached as an Exhibit to the Motion fairly, accurately, and reasonably informs the WARN Class Members of the Settlement Agreement.In light of the Settlement, the proposed Notice Form satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The Notice Form is written in simple, plain language and provides key information about the Settlement Agreement so that each WARN Class Member can choose what to do, as well as the date, time, and place of the final hearing to consider approval of the Settlement Agreement. Service of the Notice Form by first class mail, postage prepaid, to each WARN Class Member at each WARN Class Member's last known address as shown in Defendant's records, as updated by Class Counsel, or if no address is known, their last known personal email, is adequate and will provide WARN Class Members with the greatest opportunity to receive notice. On a preliminary basis, the Court found the Settlement Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court authorized the dissemination of notice to the preliminarily approved WARN Settlement Class as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court found on a preliminary basis that the Settlement Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness because it has key indicia of fairness, in that the Parties reached the Settlement after investigating the strengths and weaknesses of the claims, the extensive negotiations were contentious and arm's-length, there is no evidence of collusion in reaching this Settlement, and the proponents of the Settlement are experienced in similar litigation. Therefore, the Court ordered as follows: The Motion is preliminarily granted to the extent set forth in this Order. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court hereby preliminarily certified the following Settlement Class for Count I (WARN Act), for settlement purposes only and pending a final determination on class certification under Rule 23: Plaintiff and all other individuals who were employed by Attala that suffered an employment loss as a result of Attala's idling of its Hillsboro facility in November 2022, and subsequent permanent closure of the Hillsboro facility in May 2023. Plaintiff Betty Brown is appointed as the Class Representative of the preliminarily approved Settlement Class. William "Jack" Simpson of Simpson, PLLC is appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court approved the proposed Notice Form and the proposed method of service by first class mail. ILYM Group is hereby appointed as the Settlement Administrator, whose reasonable fees and costs are to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. All Class Members have the right to either opt out of or object to the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the procedures and schedule set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Any Settlement Class Member who does not submit a valid and timely written Request for Exclusion shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement terms as well as all subsequent proceedings, orders and judgments in this case relating to the Settlement Agreement. The Court scheduled a Fairness Hearing to be held on January 8, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., which is approximately 100 days after the Preliminary Approval Date. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider whether the preliminary certification of the Settlement Class, the designation of Plaintiff as Class Representative, the appointment of Class Counsel, and the Settlement should receive final approval.At that time, the Court will also consider (1) the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, which shall be filed at least nine court days prior to the Fairness Hearing, and (2) objections, arguments against class certification, and similar matters. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f3zTdC from PacerMonitor.com The Settlement was presented by: William “Jack” Simpson, Esq., at Simpson, PLLC, in Booneville, Mississippi, counsel for the Plaintiff; and Jennifer M. Studebaker, Esq., and Courtney C. Hunt, Esq., at FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP, in Jackson, Mississippi; Kyle D. Johnson, Esq., at FROST BROWN TODD LLP, Louisville, Kentucky; and Brice C. Smallwood, Esq., at FROST BROWN TODD LLP, in Cincinnati, Ohio, counsel for the Defendants. BLUE & CO: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Hensley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN HENSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE & CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01812-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered in December of 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. Blue & Co., LLC is a financial consulting firm based in Carmel, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com CARETRACKER INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ferrari Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FERRARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARETRACKER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00834-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained on behalf of its clients is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. Caretracker, Inc. operates as a Provider of cloud-based electronic health record and practice management solution for healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 408 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com CARVE DESIGNS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Davis Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARVE DESIGNS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10993 (N.D. Ill., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. 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://www.carvedesigns.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 accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading structure, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, inadequate focus order, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. 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. Carve Designs, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law CHICAGO, IL: Lane Sues Over Disabled's Access to Public Walkways ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHERLNELL LANE, ILIANA RIVERA HAVEN, MICHELE LEE, and KEVIN SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10880 (N.D. Ill., September 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of pedestrian rights of way. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, and other public walkways. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. City of Chicago is a public entity in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel M. Weisberg, Esq. Emily Roznowski, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 300 South Wacker, Floor 32 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone (332) 217-2319 Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 Email: rweisberg@dralegal.org eroznowski@dralegal.org - and - Eric R. Swibel, Esq. Jack M. McNeily, Esq. Dylan Glenn, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 Email: eric.swibel@lw.com jack.mcneily@lw.com dylan.glenn@lw.com - and - Scott Gordon, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 Email: sgordon@dralegal.org - and - Eliana Fisher, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, Suite 2619 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 644-8644 Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 Email: efisher@dralegal.org CHURCHILL DOWNS: Cordoba Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Britany Cordoba, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHURCHILL DOWNS TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE COMPANY, d/b/a TWINSPIRES, Case No. 1:25-cv-06910-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2025), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website, https://www.twinspires.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. The Defendant owns and maintains the Website, https://www.twinspires.com which offers consumers access to online betting, promotions, and account services nationwide, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. James, Esq. Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: Mjames@employeejustice.com jon@norinsberglaw.com COMERICA BANK: Final Court Approval Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a more than $1.9 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged Comerica Bank and Conduent State & Location Solutions, Inc. unlawfully denied California Way2Go cardholders' unauthorized transaction disputes, apparently due to conflicting information. The Comerica and Conduent class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 12, 2025. The class action settlement covers any holder of a California Way2Go prepaid Mastercard who, on or before December 10, 2024, was denied reimbursement for an unauthorized transfer on their account despite Conduent's records not indicating any first-party fraud or a dispute over the quality of a good or service. The dispute denial must be marked by the letter codes FRD7-GO-Deny-Conflicting or FRD7-DenyConflicting Info in the defendants' systems to be included in the settlement, court documents specify. The court-approved website for the Comerica and Conduent California Way2Go settlement can be found at CAUnauthorizedTransactionsSettlement.com. No action is required on the part of Comerica and Conduent settlement class members to receive a pro-rata, or equal-share, piece of the $1,956,000 settlement fund. The money will be distributed by mailed check, unless a class member elects an alternate payment form. To select an electronic payment method, class members must visit this page and enter the unique notice ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. If a class member needs to update their mailing address, they can visit this page of the website and log in with their notice ID and PIN. Settlement class members can receive an estimate of the total amount they might receive from the settlement at https://www.caunauthorizedtransactionssettlement.com/page/award using their ID and PIN to log in. A hearing is scheduled for December 11, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Comerica and Conduent class action lawsuit charged that the companies wrongfully denied the unauthorized transaction disputes of California Way2Go prepaid Mastercard holders by claiming they had received conflicting information. [GN] COMFORT SYSTEMS: 2d Cir. Certifies Questions in Wage Claims Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as David Walton, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Kevin T. Maddison, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Comfort Systems USA (Syracuse), Inc., doing business as ABJ Fire Protection Co., Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Docket No. 23-7944, Circuit Judges Chin, Robinson, and Nathan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two critical questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding prevailing wage requirements under New York Labor Law Section 220. The case involves a class action lawsuit where the Plaintiffs brought five federal and state law claims against Comfort Systems arising out of Comfort Systems' alleged failure to pay prevailing wages or adequate overtime pay to its employees. The district court later certified the class for the purposes of settlement after the parties reached a settlement agreement in 2022. Comfort Systems is a full-service fire alarm and sprinkler company that offers fire alarm testing and inspection services and repair services. Plaintiffs Maddison and Walton were employed as Alarm Systems Technicians for Comfort Systems: Maddison from May 2011 to May 2015 and Walton from 2013 to 2014. Their job responsibilities included doing various types of electrical and sprinkler work including, but not limited to, installing, maintaining, inspecting, testing, repairing and/or replacing fire alarm, fire sprinkler, and security system equipment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.) granted Comfort Systems' motion for partial summary judgment on all prevailing wage related causes of action for three reasons: (1) the contracts did not affirmatively state that Comfort Systems would pay prevailing wages; (2) the contracts shortened the applicable statute of limitations to one year; and (3) even if the above were not true, fire alarm testing and inspection work is not the type of work subject to prevailing wages under Section 220. The district court concluded the contracts shortened the statute of limitations to one year and Plaintiffs, as third party beneficiaries, were bound to that contract term. The district court rejected Plaintiffs' assertion that the term should be considered void as against public policy, and noted that they cited no caselaw holding a one-year limitations period in a contract void as against public policy. The court further concluded that Plaintiffs could not enforce the prevailing wage requirement as third-party beneficiaries of Comfort Systems' public works contracts because those contracts did not contain any clauses expressly promising to pay prevailing wages. Finally, the district court concluded that the testing and inspection services covered by the contract were not subject to prevailing wages under the New York Labor Law. Circuit Judge Robinson, writing for the Court of Appeals, addressed three key questions: (1) Were Plaintiffs, as fire alarm inspectors and testers, entitled to prevailing wages under Section 220? (2) Is the promise to pay prevailing wages implicit in every public works contract so that individuals employed on public works projects may sue their employers to enforce the prevailing wage requirement under Section 220 even if the employer's written contract does not include the statutorily required promise to pay prevailing wages? And (3) Are agreements to shorten the statute of limitations in public works contracts to one year enforceable against workers bringing third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the prevailing wage law? The Court of Appeals decided the first question in the affirmative. Based on a 2009 New York State Department of Labor Opinion Letter, the court concluded that testing and inspection work falls within the scope of the prevailing wage statute. The NYS DOL concluded that a contract to satisfy the applicable inspection and testing requirements is, in the opinion of this Department, an integral part of an overall contract for the maintenance of a system and is, therefore, included within the coverage of Article 8 of the Labor Law. The Court of Appeals rejected Comfort Systems' contention that this case is distinguishable insofar as some of its contracts specifically disclaim any intent to contract for maintenance services. The court explained that Comfort Systems cannot contract around the prevailing wage requirement for testing and inspection services. As the Court of Appeals concluded in connection with the same controversy that led to the 2009 NYS DOL Opinion Letter, in requiring employers to include a provision agreeing to comply with Section 220, The legislature surely meant that the parties must agree to comply with the law as correctly understood, not as the parties may have misunderstood it. Because the Court of Appeals could not confidently predict how the New York Court of Appeals would answer the latter two questions, and these questions are of importance to the state and may require value judgments and public policy choices, the court certified two questions to that Court. The court noted that New York law is so uncertain that we can make no reasonable prediction about the answer to these questions, and concluded the prudent path is to certify to the New York Court of Appeals. Not only are Appellate Division cases divided, but sound policy and other considerations point in cross-cutting directions. All the contracts between Comfort Systems and the public works customers included a clause shortening the statute of limitations for a cause of action against Comfort Systems to one year, stating, No action shall be brought against Company more than one year after accrual of the cause of action. Additionally, some contracts contained a provision stating: This agreement is entered into with understanding that the services to be provided by abj Fire Protection Co. are not required to be paid under any local, state, or federal prevailing wage statutes. Some explained that the contract amount is based on our regular labor rates, if prevailing wage applies contact our office immediately for a revised Agreement. The court examined several key New York Court of Appeals cases including Fata v. S.A. Healy Co., Wright v. Wright Stucco, and Ramos v. Simplex Grinnell LP. The court noted that together Fata and Wright suggest that, at least where a public works contract promises to pay prevailing wages as required by Section 220, a third-party worker may enforce the prevailing wage requirement through a third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim. The court also analyzed New York Appellate Division cases that shed light on this issue, noting that several decisions point in conflicting directions. On one hand, Singh v. Zoria Housing, LLC and Wroble v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Engineering of New York, P.C. suggest that, in derogation of New York's general common law rules regarding third-party beneficiary claims, the contracting parties' stated intentions as to the availability of a third-party breach of contract claim are not dispositive. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 27.2 and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 500.27(a), the Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1. Is the promise to pay prevailing wages implicit in every public works contract so that individuals employed on public works projects may sue their employers for breach of contract to enforce the prevailing wage requirement under NYLL Section 220 even if the employer's written contract does not include the statutorily required promise to pay prevailing wages? 2. Are agreements to shorten the statute of limitations in public works contracts to one year enforceable against workers bringing third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the prevailing wage law? The Court of Appeals explained that it does not intend to limit the scope of the New York Court of Appeals' analysis through the formulation of these questions, and invited the Court of Appeals to expand upon or alter these questions as it deems appropriate. This panel will retain its jurisdiction. The parties' negotiated resolution of the remaining New York Labor Law claim regarding intra-day travel time towards overtime pay was incorporated into a class action settlement approved by the district court. The settlement agreement expressly reserved Plaintiffs' prevailing wage claims, which are the subject of this appeal. A copy of the Court of Appeals' decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LiaqmA from PacerMonitor.com COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suits Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WILKERSON, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02992 (D.C., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Community Connections, Inc. operates as a non profit organization. The Organization provides nursing, mental retardation, visual and physical impairment, orthopedic, seizure disorders, diabetes, and personal care services. [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 - 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 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com CORNWELL QUALITY: Faces Eisele Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW EISELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01915 (N.D. Ohio, September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around December 12, 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. The Cornwell Quality Tools Co. is a privately held American mortgage lending company based in Strongsville, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com COX AUTOMOTIVE: Carr Alleges Unfair Labor and Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM CARR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV133359 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 23, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a field service technician from approximately October 20, 2024 to January 6, 2025. Moreover, the alleged violations stem from Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate time and payroll records, failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses, and failure to pay accrued but unused vacation time, says the suit. Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC is an automotive services and technology provider headquartered in Atlanta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. Arnel O. Tan, Esq. Joseph O. Marshall, Esq. Christine V. Reyes, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 149 Sheldon Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: ryanc@protectionlawgroup.com arnel@protectionlawgroup.com joe@protectionlawgroup.com christine@protectionlawgroup.com DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT: Fultz Sues Over Disabled's Hotel Room Access ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARK FULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-12882-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its properties and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in guestrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Detroit Entertainment, LLC is a hotel owner and operator based in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com - and - Brian A. Hizer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN A. HIZER The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 841-3600 Facsimile: (419) 842-9966 Email: brianahizer@bex.net DEXCOM INC: Court Dismisses Most Claims in Securities Fraud Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as National Elevator Industry Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dexcom Inc., Kevin Sayer, Jereme Sylvain, and Teri Lawver, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1485-RSH-VET (S.D. Cal.), Judge Robert S. Huie of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss a Consolidated Amended Complaint in this putative securities class action. The court dismissed most of the challenged statements but allowed two statements to proceed to discovery. Lead Plaintiff National Elevator Industry Pension Fund brings this putative securities class action against Dexcom and its current and former senior executives on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Dexcom securities between April 28, 2023 and July 25, 2024. On December 13, 2024, the court consolidated the related actions and appointed the National Elevator Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller LLP as Lead Counsel. Dexcom is a medical device company headquartered in San Diego that designs, develops, and sells continuous glucose monitoring devices. The devices assist persons with diabetes in managing their blood glucose levels and are used both by individuals with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes who require insulin intensive treatment and individuals with Type 2 diabetes who use basal insulin, a long-acting insulin typically delivered once a day. In April 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded Medicare coverage for CGMs to Type 2 Basal patients. In response, Dexcom began promoting this expansion as an opportunity for the company to capture a greater share of the Type 2 Basal market. However, Dexcom faced several obstacles negatively impacting its ability to capture market share and effectively compete with Abbott. First, Dexcom's sales force was smaller and lacked the necessary relationships with PCPs. Second, Abbott had already entrenched itself as the CGM option for Type 2 Basal patients. Finally, Dexcom had begun transitioning to using pharmacies as its primary fulfillment channel. After allegedly recognizing it lacked the capacity and positioning to compete in the Type 2 Basal market, Dexcom initiated a major sales force expansion and restructuring set for 2024. At the same time, however, Dexcom allegedly continued to assure investors that it was succeeding and outperforming in the Type 2 Basal market. Defendant also allegedly falsely characterized the sales force expansion as opportunistic, rather than a defensive, remedial action. On July 25, 2024, Dexcom reduced its full-year revenue guidance by $300 million. In contrast to their earlier statements, Defendant now allegedly conceded Dexcom was not doing wonderful in the basal space and its sales force expansion was a remedial move to stem loss in market share. Following the announcement, Dexcom's stock price dropped by more than 40%. The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead Plaintiff challenged 14 statements made by the Individual Defendant between April 27, 2023 and June 5, 2024 as violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The court applied stringent legal standards requiring that securities fraud complaints satisfy the dual pleading requisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These requirements present no small hurdle for the securities fraud plaintiff. Falsity The Court first considers whether Plaintiff has adequately alleged falsity. Statement A - Dismissed as Puffery Statement A was made by Sayer on April 27, 2023, where he stated Dexcom was in a great position to compete as this market develops. The court concluded Sayer's subjective assessment Dexcom's competitive position was great is both unquantifiable and unverifiable, as well as extremely imprecise. Such a generic assertion of corporate optimism is inactionable puffery. The court concluded Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead falsity with respect to Statement A. Statement B - Opinion Statement Inadequately Challenged [Analyst]: So I wanted to ask you one about just how quickly the coverage has been established in the DME and the pharmacy channel. I thought it was an interesting comment that you made that you think you have more coverage in pharmacy than your competitor. Maybe you could compare that and talk about what that means for ultimately how much of the basal opportunity you think you can garner? . . . [Sayer]: On the basal opportunity, remember, Medicare sales process is durable medical equipment, and we have very good relationships with our distributors and in that channel, and we worked very hard to position them to be successful with the basal patients. And so we’re very comfortable there. Statement B was made by Sayer during the same Q1 2023 results call, where he claimed Dexcom had very good relationships with distributors and was very comfortable there. The court found Sayer's statement that Dexcom was very comfortable and had good relationships with its DME suppliers is subjective and more properly characterized as a statement of opinion. Proceeding under an omission theory is no small task for an investor. Plaintiff has not explained how Sayer's statement ruled out the possibility Dexcom was shifting to pharmacies as its primary fulfillment channel. The court concluded Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead falsity with respect to Statement B. **Statements C Through I - Various Deficiencies** [Analyst]: So I think the first question is you guys just got basal reimbursement for CMS at mid-April. I’m not sure if you’re going to be willing to talk about how that is so far. But I guess just bigger picture, do you guys have the capacity to bring on a significant number of those patients if you haven’t maybe added reps in a period of time? And how do you do so? [Sylvain]: Yes. So great question. And so far, I’ll tell you anecdotally, it’s gone very well. There’s been a lot of interest in it. The challenge, of course, is it’s generally sold through the DME and so it will take a little bit of time to quantify it. But anecdotally, people have been very excited about basal coverage. In terms of capacity, when we doubled the size of the sales force, the focus was calling on high decile prescribers of all insulin, including basal. And so the inroads have been made there. So from a coverage perspective, while we may want to expand coverage a little bit from the sales force, it wouldn’t be a material step change in how we’re going. It’d be normal as part of our thoughts around investments. So we do have a sizable sales force. The court systematically analyzed Statements C through I, finding various deficiencies in Plaintiff's allegations: Statement C involved Sylvain's claims about Dexcom's inroads and sizable sales force, which the court found too subjective to be objectively verifiable. Statement D was made by Lawver on June 23, 2023 during the Investor Day Conference Call: Taken together, you can see why we’re excited about our continued strong growth and leadership in the U.S. market. Dexcom delivers a leading customer experience with industry-leading loyalty and customer retention. And with G7, we have the industry’s most accurate sensor that is incredibly simple to use, that is also the most covered and has the lowest out-of-pocket costs. We have the right commercial infrastructure for leading with the endocrinologists and expanding our leadership in primary care with the type 2 basal and severe hypoglycemia markets where coverage has just opened up in the last couple of months. And when we take these covered populations together, intensive insulin therapy, basal and those with severe—risk of severe hypoglycemia, the CGM market in the U.S. is only 20% penetrated. So we have significant runway ahead in the U.S. It concerned Lawver's statement about having the right commercial infrastructure, which the court deemed too vague and subjective to be actionable as it was not tied to any objective metrics.For these reasons, the Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead falsity with respect to Statement D. Statement E was made by Sylvain on September 6, 20023 during the Healthcare Conference of Wells Fargo Analyst: We’re going to move on to basal adoption. Love to hear, Jereme from you what you’re seeing with basal adoption? Sylvain: Yes. I’m really encouraged by it to date. And I’ll kind of reference back to our last call, the PBMs and the health insurance companies have really taken basal adoption and really aggressively approved it. And so you saw 60% of commercial lives covered as of our last call for basal and met with Medicare coverage so comes Medicare Advantage. And so now you’ve actually got a majority of the basal population, a significant majority of the basal population covered. And where there’s coverage, we’ve always taken share, and you see us taking share in that space. So we feel pretty good about one, taking share; two, driving adoption through the market. And again, record new patients in the second quarter, part of that as a result of some of that basal and we expect to continue to do well in that market. The statement addressed Sylvain's claim about taking share where there's coverage, but the court found the referenced portion did not purport to make any representation regarding Dexcom's competitive position relative to Abbott's. Statements F through I were similarly dismissed for being either inactionable puffery, too vague, or inadequately explained as to how they were false or misleading. Statement J -Statement J was made by Sylvain on February 8, 2024 during a conference call discussing Dexcom’s Q4 2023 results: Analyst: Looking at the domestic performance, there’s been a clear acceleration in the back half of ‘23 on a 2-year stacked basis. And I’m wondering specifically if that’s just basal that’s helping there. It looks like it’s as much as 200, maybe 250 basis points of the acceleration. Is that the primary contributor to the domestic acceleration? What should we think about in terms of basal contribution to the topline this year? And are we inflecting right now as far as basal adoption goes with CGM here in the States? [Sylvain]: Yes. It’s a good question. Let me maybe just give some color as to how we’re thinking about the guidance. As you see the performance in the back half of the year, a lot of that has to do with being the most accurate sensor, launching with the G7 form factor and then, of course, having the basal coverage there. And so when you think about it, and you can see the share taking when you look at the script data, we are taking share. And having the sensor – the most advanced sensor on the market is the driver there. So that’s taking share. Now within those spaces, basal is a contributor, no question. As that category expands and we take share within that category, that does contribute to the overall numbers. And so you are right, basal is a contributor, but it has as much to do with us taking share as it does with category expansion. So think about both of those as contributors. As you think about 2024, we’ve talked a little bit about the adoption rate, basal in total adopting in this back half of the year around 9% to 10% per year on a per annum basis. The guide assumes about 8% there. And so I think you can assume that was the case. Our long-range plan was more like 6% to 7% per year. So we are seeing basal going faster than what was in our long-range plan. And what’s great about that is as we continue to take share and the category grows a little faster than expected, that will help contribute over the longer haul. The statement Survives Motion to Dismiss Statement J was made by Sylvain on February 8, 2024, during a conference call discussing Dexcom's Q4 2023 results. Turning to the specific portions Plaintiff references, Sylvain's statement that when you look at the script data, we are taking share is determinate and verifiable by reference to script data. According to the Consolidated Amended Complaint, Abbott secured seven out of ten prescriptions in the newly covered Type 2 Basal market in January 2024, and this share remained unchanged in April 2024. The court concluded Plaintiff has adequately alleged falsity with respect to the portion of Statement J discussed. Statement K - Also Survives Statement K was made by Sylvain on April 25, 2024, during a conference call discussing Dexcom's Q1 2024 results. Sylvain's statement that Dexcom was looking at the script data and therefore knew that it was taking share in the Type 2 Basal market is determinate and verifiable. As discussed above, Plaintiff's allegations regarding Abbott's market share of the Type 2 Basal Market between January 2024 and April 2024 plausibly suggest Sylvain's statement was false or misleading when made. The court concluded Plaintiff has adequately pleaded falsity with respect to the portion of Statement K discussed. **Statements L, M, and N - Dismissed** Statement L was dismissed as inactionable corporate puffery regarding Dexcom's very strong DME business. Statement M was dismissed because Plaintiff has not adequately explained how Sylvain's statement was false or misleading, particularly where Sylvain explicitly disclosed that one reason for the sales force expansion was that Dexcom needed additional coverage at PCP offices. Statement N was protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor provision for forward-looking statements, as it related to revenue guidance and was accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Scienter Analysis For Statements J and K, the court found adequate scienter allegations. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the most direct way to show both that a statement was false when made and that the party making the statement knew that it was false is via contemporaneous reports or data, available to the party, which contradict the statement. Sylvain's February 8, 2024 and April 25, 2024 statements explicitly reference both his ability to access and his reliance upon prescription data. Under these circumstances, it is unclear what further facts plaintiff would need to plead to create a stronger inference that Sylvain had access to information he discussed publicly. In other words, Sylvain bridged the scienter gap himself by referencing this prescription data directly. The court concluded that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts supporting a strong inference of scienter with respect to Statements J and K. Because the court concludes that Plaintiff's underlying Section 10(b) claims are subject to dismissal except as to Statements J and K, the court also granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim, which may proceed only to the extent this claim is predicated on Statements J and K. Leave to Amend Denied The court already dismissed Plaintiff's original Consolidated Complaint for failing to make clear which statements Plaintiff alleged were false and misleading and the manner in which such statements were false. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend its pleading. On amendment, Plaintiff again failed in some instances to adequately identify which specific statements it alleged were false or misleading. To the extent that it did, Plaintiff nonetheless failed to adequately plead falsity as to all but Statements J and K—in most cases, because the statements were nonactionable; in others, because Plaintiff failed to articulate how the statements were false. The court finds further amendment would be futile and denied Plaintiff leave to amend. Final Ruling For the above reasons, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 2 with respect to the portions of Statement J and K discussed. The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 2 with respect to the remainder of the challenged statements without leave to amend. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=10EyTs from PacerMonitor.com DICKEY'S BARBEQUE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Williams Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LARISSA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICKEY'S BARBEQUE RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00965 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 4, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant. The Company provides light, fresh starters and salads, center-cut steaks, chops and fresh seafood, wine, and sensational desserts. [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 - 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 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com DREAMWEALTH LLC: Serratos Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dreamwealth LLC. The case is styled as Fernando Serratos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Dreamwealth LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02436 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. DreamWealth -- https://www.dreamwealth.com/ -- is a leading full-service organization in the Insurance Distribution Space, offering a diverse range of insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com EL MARIACHI: Posadas Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISIDRO MORA POSADAS and MARCO ANTONIO CORONA ESCALONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EL MARIACHI HOLDING CORPORATION and PABLO BRAVO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05068 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 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 pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to pay wages on a weekly basis, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Posadas and Escalona worked as cooks and kitchen workers for the Defendants from in or around December 2008 until in or around March 2025 and from in or around May 2019 until in or around March 2025, respectively. El Mariachi Holding Corporation is a restaurant owner and operator based in Astoria, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA: Vesely Sues Over Third-Party Trackers --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL VESELY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; CMI MARKETING, INC. d/b/a RAPTIVE, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08552 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all California residents who have accessed and used www.britannica.com, where Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant enables third-party technologies that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act where, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance. By installing and activating the Trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order, the Defendant violated the state law, says the suit. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the website which is an online platform that offers digital services and content access to consumers.[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 E-mail: 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 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com ENDEAVOR HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villalobos Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ALMA VILLALOBOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDEAVOR HEALTH CLINICAL OPERATIONS, and NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10590 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Villalobos was employed by the Defendants as a patient care technician. Endeavor Health Clinical Operations is engaged in hospital and healthcare industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 ETERNAL CARE INC: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eternal Care Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Eternal Care Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01706-KM (M.D. Pa., Sept. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Eternal Care, Inc. -- https://www.eternalcare.ca/ -- is a housing stabilization service based out of the Twin Cities area here in Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Heretick Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Heretick, Lee Cochran, individually and on behald of all similarly situated individauls v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 30-02025-01486762CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01880-JWH-JDE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick Anthony Rispoli, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A. 18100 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (213) 757-6072 Fax: (213) 757-6172 Email: frederick.rispoli@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 275-5272 Fax: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 846-3862 Fax: (415) 358-6293 Email: MRam@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Thomas Billeci, Esq. John A. Vogt, Esq. Ryan Douglas Ball, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Phone: (949) 851-3939 Fax: (949) 553-7539 Email: mbilleci@jonesday.com javogt@jonesday.com rball@jonesday.com FACTORY ENOVA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Knowles Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACTORY ENOVA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07535 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 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://elementalbottles.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 accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. 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. Factory Enova, LLC 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 FARMERS INSURANCE: Emanuel Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Dwhitney Emanuel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07972-MWF-JC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendants due to a Data Breach and the Defendants' failure to protect the Plaintiff's Private Information. On August 22, 2025, Defendants disclosed for the first time a massive data breach (the "Data Breach") that had occurred nearly three months earlier. On May 29, 2025, cybercriminals hacked into a database maintained by one of Defendants' vendors. The database contained the private information of Farmers' customers, including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers and/or truncated Social Security numbers ("Private Information"). The exposed Private Information has significant value on illicit markets, particularly on the dark web, since Private Information can be used to commit identity theft, open fraudulent accounts, obtain loans, file false tax returns, secure government benefits, or facilitate medical and financial fraud. The risk of misuse remains for years or even decades after the initial compromise. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and the Class Members face a heightened and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud, have suffered loss of privacy, have spent and will continue to spend time and money on mitigation efforts, and have experienced diminution in the value of their Private Information. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to remedy Defendants' unlawful conduct and prevent future harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a customer of Defendants and furnished her Private Information to the Defendants. The Defendants engage in the business of providing property and casualty insurance products and related services to millions of consumers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. George R. Nemiroff, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Phone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com - and - James F. Clapp, Esq. Jamie N. Herrick, Esq. CLAPP & LAUINGER, LLP 701 Palomar Airport Rd., Ste 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Phone: (760) 209-6565 Facsimile: (760) 209-6565 Email: jclapp@clapplegal.com jherrick@clapplegal.com FOX HEAD INC: Tupper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fox Head, Inc. The case is styled as Tammy Tupper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fox Head, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0013120 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Fox Head, Inc. -- https://www.foxracing.com/ -- is an American extreme sports, protective equipment, and lifestyle-clothing brand founded in 1974.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Court Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss "Cicchi" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Matthew Cicchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, Graphic Packaging International, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action File No. 1:24-CV-2400-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss and denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Collective Certification on September 10, 2025. The Plaintiff's Motion for a Status Conference was denied as moot. The FLSA overtime claims against both defendants remain active for individual prosecution, while the state law breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were dismissed due to Section 301 preemption. The Defendant employs thousands of hourly manufacturing employees in dozens of facilities across the United States. Plaintiff Matthew Cicchi was employed by the Defendant as an hourly manufacturing employee in Michigan between August 2021 and April 2024. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to incorporate any shift premiums into their hourly employees' regular hourly rate calculation, resulting in prima facie violations of the FLSA. For example, the Plaintiff’s pay stub for the pay period 9/18/2023 through 9/24/2023 shows 56.50 hours of work, a base hourly rate of $27.50, and gross earnings of $1,788.45, inclusive of $7.83 in shift premium pay. However, his overtime rate did not account for the shift premium pay and, therefore, violated the FLSA.”. The Defendant also failed to include other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate calculation. The Plaintiff also complained of the Defendant's time-rounding policy that rounded employees' clock in and out times to match their shift starting time without paying for pre-shift or post-shift work performed in seven-minute windows.. The Defendant expected hourly workers to arrive at work 30 minutes prior to their starting time but they were not allowed to immediately clock in and begin working. The Defendant permitted the hourly employees to clock in within seven minutes of their starting time and clock out within seven minutes of their stopping time without incurring disciplinary points. The Defendant argued that GPI, Inc. should be dismissed because it no longer exists, having changed its name to Graphic Packaging International, LLC in 2018. Second, the Defendant argues that no claims can be brought against GPI, Inc. because the present actions by the Plaintiff under Georgia and federal law do not contain statutes of limitation that date back to when GPI, Inc. existed as an entity. The Court denied this motion, finding that the Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint with the intent to pursue a nationwide collective and class action. While the Defendant may be correct to assert that GPI, Inc. does not exist, this alone does not extinguish the potential claims against the entity. GPI, Inc. existed prior to 2018, signed the collective bargaining agreement, and employed individuals who may have claims against GPI, Inc. outside the state of Georgia. The Court examined whether Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted the Plaintiff's state law claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Court found that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was central to both claims because the Plaintiff's success on his breach of contract claim depended entirely on the interpretation of the CBA, as his employment was governed by the CBA and the offer letter was silent on the rounding matter. Similarly, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim depended on CBA interpretation because the offer letters lacked any mention of the rounding issue, while the CBA contained the only possible terms relating to rounding. The Court noted that merely stating that an interpretation of the CBA is unnecessary within the Second Amended Complaint will not defeat a finding of preemption when any inquiry into the breach will require interpreting provisions of the CBA. The Court also found the CBA's grievance procedure mandatory despite use of the word "may" in some provisions. The Court stated that all differences as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this agreement, or as to any question relating to wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment of any employee shall be taken up as hereinafter set forth. Because the Plaintiff failed to utilize the mandatory Grievance Procedure, Counts II (breach of contract) and III (unjust enrichment) were dismissed. The Plaintiff moved for conditional collective certification covering all current and former hourly manufacturing employees of the Defendant in the United States who worked at least 40 hours in a workweek at any time in the past three years. The Court found that the Plaintiff would have met his burden if the collective action were not nationwide, as each declarant's job positions and duties were similar and all were subject to the same alleged FLSA violations. However, the Court denied certification because the Plaintiff failed to show how all putative collective members nationally were similarly situated to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff's sole proof arose from nine declarants separated across three states and five facilities, while the proposed collective would apply across all 72 facilities within 25 states. The Court concluded that despite the low evidentiary threshold, the Plaintiff's declarations could not establish that all potential collective members were similarly situated when the declarants lacked geographic diversity with respect to the national operations of the Defendant. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3NdflB from PacerMonitor.com GREENSTONE LLC: $70.75MM Settlement to be Heard on April 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- NastLaw LLC and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Announce: If you purchased certain named generic pharmaceutical drugs directly from certain pharmaceutical manufacturers from May 1, 2009 through December 31, 2019, your rights may be affected by proposed class action settlements. A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. What is the lawsuit about? Two proposed settlements have been reached in a class action lawsuit ("the Lawsuit"), which alleges that Greenstone LLC, Pfizer Inc. and Glenmark Pharmaceutical Inc., USA (collectively "Settling Defendants") and other generic drug manufacturers violated the federal antitrust laws by conspiring to fix, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and engage in market and customer allocations of certain generic drugs (the "Named Generic Drugs"), causing direct purchasers of the Named Generic Drugs to pay more than they should have. The Settling Defendants deny liability as alleged in the Lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right. The proposed Settlement does not resolve any of the claims of the Settlement Class against the remaining Defendants. The Lawsuit against the remaining Defendants is ongoing. Who is included? The Court has certified two Settlement Classes, one for each proposed Settlement: (1) the Greenstone and Pfizer Settlement Class and (2) the Glenmark Settlement Class. Each Settlement Class includes all persons or entities, and their successors and assigns, that directly purchased one or more of the Named Generic Drugs from one or more Current or Former Defendants in the United States and its territories and possessions, at any time during the period from May 1, 2009 through December 31, 2019. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Current and Former Defendants and their present and former officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, judicial officers and their personnel, and all governmental entities. The Settlement Agreements listing the Named Generic Drugs and Current and Former Defendants are available on the Settlement website: GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com. The Settlement Agreements are also on public file with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, in the case In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:16-MD-02724. What do the settlements provide? The proposed Settlements provide for the following payments: (1) a $33,000,000 payment by Settling Defendants Greenstone LLC and Pfizer Inc. and (2) two payments totaling $37,750,000 by Settling Defendant Glenmark Pharmaceutical Inc., USA. These payments will comprise the total $70,750,000 "Settlement Fund." The Settlement Fund may be reduced to $62,260,000 or increased to a maximum of $88,405,662.50 under certain circumstances, as explained in the Settlement Agreements. In addition, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff ("DPP") attorneys who have worked on the Lawsuit for the Settlement Classes will seek Court approval to pay expenses, and service awards for the class representatives (or named plaintiffs) out of the Settlement Fund. DPP attorneys will also request a set-aside for attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the net Settlement Fund, including interest, after expenses (and service awards) are deducted. Any motion for expenses, service awards, and a set-aside will be filed no later than November 27, 2025, and posted on the Settlement website GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com thereafter. The calculations of the dollar amount that each Settlement Class Member will be paid from the Settlement Fund are set forth in the Plan of Allocation, which is also available on GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com. In conjunction with the distribution of the Settlement Fund, DPP attorneys intend to also distribute to members of these Settlement Classes $1,846,000 (plus any additional accrued interest) from a bankruptcy involving Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc. and its affiliates ("Mallinckrodt monies"). DPP attorneys do not intend to seek expenses, service awards, or a set-aside for a future request for attorneys' fees from the Mallinckrodt monies. What are your options? If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will remain in the Settlement Classes and are eligible to participate in the Settlements as described in this notice, if the Settlements are approved. However, you will need to complete, sign, and return the claim form (once it is sent to you) in order to obtain a payment. We do not know when the claim forms will be mailed. You should check GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com for information regarding timing. If you did not receive a Notice in the mail, and you think you are a potential Settlement Class Member, please identify yourself or your company by letter to the following address: In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation – Direct Purchasers, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173095, Milwaukee, WI 53217, or send an email to info@GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com, or call 877-315-0583. You may be required to submit proof of a qualifying direct purchase to establish that you are a Settlement Class Member. Such claimants may also be required to submit purchase data as part of the claims process. As a Settlement Class Member, unless you opt out of the Settlements, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court. In addition, if you are a Settlement Class Member, you may request exclusion from (or opt out of) one or more of the Settlements, and if you do not opt out, you may object to one or more of the Settlements. Instructions for opting out or objecting can be found in the publicly available case file and website, as described above. You must mail your request to opt out or your objection by January 12, 2026. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on April 8, 2026, at 11:00 am Eastern Time, to decide whether to approve the Settlements and any requests for a set-aside for a future fee petition, expenses, and service awards for the Class Representatives. The Court will also consider a Plan of Allocation for distributing the Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members. If there are objections, the Court will consider them at the hearing. You do not need to attend the hearing. If you wish to appear at the hearing, you must file a "Notice of Intention to Appear" with the Court and you may hire your own attorney to appear in Court for you at your own expense. For more information: Go to the website: GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com or call 877-315-0583 for more information on the Settlements, the lawsuit, and your potential rights and options related to the Settlement, and the Plan of Allocation. The website includes, for example, a list of the generic drugs that you would have had to purchase and a list of the generic manufacturers that you would have had to purchase directly from in order to be eligible for a payment. HAITIAN AMERICANS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SHEBA WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAITIAN AMERICANS UNITED FOR PROGRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04945 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a staff. The Haitian Americans United For Progress, Inc. (HAUP) operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides a supportive environment through education, training, culture, networking opportunities, and other support services to empower immigrants and refugees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clara Lam, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 Email: clam@bkllawyers.com HALF/NUTS INC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Half/Nuts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10835 (N.D. Ill., September 9, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://halfnuts.net, 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. Plaintiff Bahena attempted to complete a purchase on Halfnuts.net on July 2, 2025 after she searched Google of retailers offering specialty snacks, particularly nuts and chocolates. While navigating the website, the Plaintiff said she encountered multiple accessibility barriers, making it difficult to identify available options and preventing efficient browsing. The Plaintiff alleges that these barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Half/Nuts' policies, practices, and procedures to that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Half/Nuts, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of nuts, chocolates, candies, snacks, dried fruits, and gift trays.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: achan@ealg.law HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Agrees to Settle Maui Wildfires Suit for $135M ----------------------------------------------------------------- News.Law reports that Hawaiian Electric Company Inc. agreed to a $135 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it bears some responsibility for the August 2023 Maui wildfires that destroyed the towns of Lahaina, Kula and Olinda. The Hawaiian Electric settlement benefits individuals who suffered damages as a result of the Maui wildfires on Aug. 8, 2023. This includes people who owned or rented property, owned or worked for a business, were present in the area, suffered physical injuries, are relatives of deceased individuals, had travel plans that were canceled or delayed, had property damage or had businesses that suffered from a decline in tourism. [GN] HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Lumpkin Sues Over Customers' Leaked Info ------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKAH LUMPKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05200 (E.D. Pa., September 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on September 27, 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. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. is a healthcare services provider based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Alyssa D. Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com HGS MAGICAL: Faces Awad Suit Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HGS Magical Solutions Inc. The case is captioned as Samuel Awad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HGS Magical Solutions Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-80918-DMM (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2025). The suit alleges Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. HGS Magical Solutions, Inc. provides sliding glass door and window repairs, maintenance, and installation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com - and - Gerald Donald Lane , Jr. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th St Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com - and - Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th St Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com HOLLAND, MI: Phothisan Appeals Court Order to Mich. Ct. of Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------------ STACY PHOTHISAN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Stacy Phothisan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Holland, Defendant, Case No. _______, in the Ottawa Circuit Court, Michigan. The appellate case is entitled Stacy Phothisan vs. City of Holland, Michigan, Case No. 377279, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on September 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STACY PHOTHISAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Gregory D. Hanley, Esq. KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC 40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 306 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 544-1500 Facsimile: (248) 544-1501 Email: ghanley@kickhamhanley.com Defendant-Appellee CITY OF HOLLAND is represented by: Sonal H. Mithani, Esq. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC 101 North Main St., 7th Floor Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 663-2445 Facsimile: (734) 747-7147 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: "Leverman" Stays in Calif. District Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Peter Leverman, on behalf of all similarly-situated employees of Defendants, Plaintiff, v. Honeywell International Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04768-WLH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), Judge Wesley L. Hsu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand on September 9, 2025. The Court determined that Defendant met its burden to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 14 days of this Order. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant Honeywell International Inc. and worked for Defendant for nearly 30 years. Plaintiff alleges that he was required to provide 24/7 on-call support coverage to clients, which prohibited him from engaging in personal activities given that he was required to respond to calls within 2 hours. The Court reproduced four specific paragraphs providing color to this allegation: 1. "Specifically, Plaintiff was required to travel more than 8 hours from his home to provide 24/7 on-call support coverage prohibiting engagement in personal activities due to a 2 hour response time restriction by the customer. However, despite maintaining a 24/7 on-call policy for Plaintiff and the class members, Defendants only paid an additional hour for on-call pay." 2. "Plaintiff asked that he be compensated for at least eight hours on weekend days for remaining on-call, after which Defendants began paying the one hour a day rate and additionally paid Plaintiff for four hours of overtime on Saturdays and Sundays." "Despite this arrangement, Defendants regularly underpaid Plaintiff and the class members for all on-call hours worked." 3. "Due to Defendants' failure to compensate for on-call pay, any employee whose on call hours totaled more than 8 hours in a workday, or 40 hours in a workweek was not compensated for all hours worked, including overtime hours, as required under the California law." Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay plaintiff and class members minimum wages for all wages owed, failed to pay overtime wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff seeks recovery for the unpaid wages, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements and attorney's fees. On May 27, 2025, Defendant removed the case to federal court pursuant to CAFA. Defendant's Notice of Removal alleged that Plaintiff's complaint put into controversy over $5,000,000. In support of Defendant's Notice of Removal, Defendant submitted a declaration of Anita Swift, Defendant's Senior Paralegal, who declared that from October 16, 2020, to the date of the declaration on May 23, 2025, Defendant employed over 553 non-exempt employees in California. This class of employees worked approximately 131,772 workweeks, were paid an average minimum wage of $15 per hour and received over 22,637 wage statements in the same period. Pursuant to the Court's July 25, 2025 Order, both parties submitted supplemental briefing. Defendant's Supplement attached a declaration by Quoneisha Stephenson, a paralegal for Defendant whose regular duties including accessing and summarizing information from Honeywell's Human Resource Information System (HRIS) database. The Stephenson Declaration calculated the total number of workweeks between an employee's hire date and termination date that fall within the period between October 16, 2020, and August 7, 2025 for the 553 putative class members. That calculation yielded 108,373 workweeks. The Declaration additionally identified 519 employees subject to the alleged on-call policy and that group's corresponding aggregate number of workweeks (102,343). The Court found that the disposition of Plaintiff's Motion hinged on whether the action meets CAFA's $5,000,000 amount in controversy requirement. The Court determined that four of Defendant's assumptions justifying their amount in controversy estimates were reasonable: (1) the total number of workweeks at issue, (2) the amount of unpaid on-call wages allegedly owed to the putative class, (3) the amount of unpaid overtime wages allegedly owed to the putative class, and (4) the amount of wage statement penalties allegedly incurred by Defendant. The Court found that Defendant's reliance on employment records to more accurately calculate the number of workweeks at issue is well-founded and reasonable. The calculation methods employed by the Stephenson Declaration appear to adequately capture the unique periods of employment of each putative class member. Moreover, they assuage the Court's previous concern with the imprecise workweeks calculation in Defendant's initial briefing. The Court found Defendant's estimates of alleged unpaid on-call wages to be reasonable. Defendant interprets Plaintiff's unpaid on-call hour allegations to mean at least one 24-hour on-call period per workweek per employee who was on-call went unpaid in violation of the policy's contemplated one hour payment." The Court viewed this assumption as eminently reasonable given that Plaintiff alleges a pattern and practice of Labor Code violations in their Complaint where Defendants regularly underpaid Plaintiff and the class members for all on-call hours worked. Accordingly, the Court accepted Defendant's $1,625,595 estimate of unpaid on-call wages. The Court found that Defendant's amended estimate relating to unpaid overtime wages gave the Court pause. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant "conservatively assumed that each putative class member incurred one hour of unpaid overtime wages each workweek" for a total of $2,964,870 in unpaid overtime. In its Supplement, Defendant inflated this figure to $11,513,578.50 to account for five hours of unpaid overtime wages each workweek for each class member. The Court found this radical disparity in estimates goes mostly unexplained and determined that Defendant's amended estimate is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Defendant's $11,513,578.50 estimate is therefore disregarded for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy. The Court relied instead on defendant's previous estimate of one hour in unpaid overtime per week per putative class member, adjusted to account for Defendant's amended workweeks calculation ($15.00 x 1.5 rate x 1 hour per week x 108,373 workweeks = $2,438,392.50). The Court found that Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant's calculation regarding wage statement penalties, asserting that Defendant fails to explain why every employee would be entitled to the subsequent or maximum penalties under Section 226. The Court agreed with Plaintiff on this point, as Defendant made no showing that each putative class member received over 40 defective wage statements, enabling them to recover the $4,000 maximum statutory penalty. Nevertheless, the Court determined it need not address the proper estimate of these wage statement penalties as the total of unpaid on-call, unpaid overtime hours, and estimated attorney's fees meets CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. The Court found that attorney's fees are properly included in calculations of the amount in controversy. In this Circuit, 25% of the total recovery is the benchmark level for reasonable attorney's fees. The Court accepted Defendant's proposed 25% recovery for attorney's fees. That proportion of the estimated $4,063,987.50 in unpaid on-call and overtime hours is $1,015,996.88 in attorney's fees. The Court's accepted amount in controversy estimates are as follows: Alleged Straight-Time Unpaid On-Call: $1,625,595 Alleged Unpaid Overtime: $2,438,392.50 Alleged Wage Statement Penalties: Undetermined Attorney's Fees: $1,015,996.88 Other Causes of Action: Undetermined TOTAL: At least $5,079,984.38 A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ScSeK1 from PacerMonitor.com HYATT HOTELS: Fails to Provide Bed Heights Info, Niles Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER NILES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01382-CCW (W.D. Pa., September 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant discriminates against disabled people by not providing any meaningful information regarding bed heights on its websites or mobile applications, causing them to call the hotel directly to get this information. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to direct the Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations. Hyatt Hotels Corporation is a hospitality company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Ian M. Brown, Esq. CARLSON BROWN 222 Broad St. P.O. Box 242 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (724) 730-1753 Email: bcarlson@carlsonbrownlaw.com ibrown@carlsonbrownlaw.com INOTIV INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wagner Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- STEFANIE WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INOTIV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00049 (N.D. Ind., Sept. 2, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in August 2025. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for research operations with Defendant. Businesses like the Defendant's that collect individuals' Private Information owe individuals to whom the information relates a duty to protect the Private Information from disclosure and theft and to keep it safe and confidential. This duty arises under contract, statutory, and common law, industry standards, representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, and because it is foreseeable that hackers with nefarious intentions will target the Private Information and use it to harm the affected individuals, says the suit. Inotiv, Inc. operates as a contract research organization providing research and development resources. The Company sells its services to pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies around the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com JM SMUCKER: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ward" Salmonella Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Naythan A. Ward, Joe Pisciotti, Cameron Bopp, Tyneisha Ferguson, John Kraljevich, and James C. Mullins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J.M. Smucker Company, Defendant-Appellee, No. 24-3387 (6th Cir.), Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the class action complaint for lack of standing. The Plaintiffs brought this class action under Ohio law against J.M. Smucker Company alleging that Smucker sold them peanut butter that was contaminated with salmonella, thereby denying them the benefit of their bargain. The district court dismissed the Complaint for lack of standing. Smucker is an Ohio-based corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells Jif peanut butter products. In May 2022, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it was conducting a joint investigation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other state and local authorities into a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Senftenberg infections linked to certain Jif brand peanut butter products produced at the J.M. Smucker Company Facility in Lexington, Kentucky. The salmonella contamination affected Jif peanut butter products sold with the lot codes 1274425 - 2140425. In response, on May 20, 2022, Smucker voluntarily recalled over 40 Jif peanut butter product lines, and the FDA urged consumers to discard the recalled products. Each Plaintiff bought peanut butter from the recalled product lines and was unable to consume the purchased peanut butter. As of May 26, 2022, the FDA and CDC had identified a total of 16 people infected with the outbreak of Salmonella across 12 states from February 17, 2022 through May 1, 2022. On May 26, 2022, Ward filed a class action lawsuit against Smucker in federal court. Ward and the other named Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint on January 2, 2023, which is the operative Complaint. Smucker moved to dismiss for lack of standing, mootness, and failure to state a claim. On April 10, 2024, the district court dismissed the Complaint for lack of standing. On appeal, Plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in concluding that they failed to assert the requisite injury to establish standing. For a federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a case, a plaintiff must have standing to sue. To establish standing, a plaintiff must allege (1) an injury in fact that is (2) caused by the defendant's conduct and (3) likely redressable by a favorable court decision. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to establish injury-in-fact. To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Plaintiffs primarily based their theory of injury on Smucker having sold them contaminated peanut butter, arguing that this contamination deprived them of the benefit of their bargain and enhanced their risk of salmonella infection. The Court noted that an increased risk of illness can constitute injury-in-fact and that a plaintiff can suffer a concrete injury when he or she overpays for a defective product. According to the Court of Appeals both theories of injury relied on the same factual premise: that Plaintiffs purchased peanut butter contaminated with salmonella. Accordingly, for Plaintiffs to establish standing under these theories, they must allege facts sufficient to raise a plausible inference of contamination. The Complaint asserted that each plaintiff purchased Jif peanut products that were contaminated with Salmonella. The Complaint stated that, as of May 2022, the FDA identified 16 cases of salmonella infection linked to peanut butter products produced at Smucker's facility in Lexington, which caused Smucker to recall over 40 peanut butter product lines. It alleged that each named Plaintiff purchased peanut butter from these recalled product lines. The Court of Appeals referenced guidance from the Third Circuit's decision in Huertas v. Bayer US LLC, where plaintiffs expressly asserted that they purchased benzene-contaminated spray products. The Third Circuit emphasized that plaintiffs need not assert with specificity the extent of the contamination across all products, nor show that all products in the recall were contaminated. Nonetheless, the mere fact that a product purchased by plaintiffs was recalled does not nudge a claim of alleged contamination from conceivable to plausible. Unlike in Huertas, Plaintiffs did not offer any allegations suggesting sufficiently widespread or extensive contamination, such as allegations regarding sampling, testing, or other pertinent data or information. The Complaint did not allege any facts regarding the specific peanut butter products they purchased, other than the fact that the products Plaintiffs purchased came from recalled product lines. The Court of Appeals determined that a product recall, by itself, does not suffice to raise a plausible inference of contamination. Plaintiffs alleged that the FDA identified at least 16 reported cases of salmonella infection and traced those infections to Smucker's Lexington facility, which indicates that some peanut butter products sold by Smucker were contaminated. Under these alleged facts, it was possible that one or more Plaintiffs purchased contaminated peanut butter. But mere possibility is not enough - the allegations must cross the line from possible to plausible. The Circuit Judge said "The facts alleged did not raise the reasonable inference that the contamination was sufficiently extensive to plausibly affect any given product. Without additional allegations indicating the nature or extent of the contamination, the Court could not conclude that Plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to render plausible-- and not merely possible their bare assertion that they purchased contaminated products." Plaintiffs alternatively argued that, even if their specific peanut butter products were not contaminated, the products were nonetheless adulterated. Food is adulterated when it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health. However, Plaintiffs did not raise this adulteration argument in their briefing before the district court. The Court noted that it will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal unless failure to consider the issue will result in a plain miscarriage of justice. Because Plaintiffs did not raise this argument below, they forfeited it on appeal. Although Plaintiffs conceded that they did not present this argument to the district court, they argued that a plain miscarriage of justice will occur if this argument is not heard on appeal because of the heinous conduct of Smucker. But Plaintiffs offered no specific reason for why this appeal falls within the narrow category of cases in which considerations of justice are sufficiently exceptional to warrant considering their new theory. The Court of Appeals concluded "Because Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the peanut butter products they purchased were contaminated, they lacked standing for their claims of economic injury and risk of illness. Plaintiffs' adulteration-based theory of standing could not be considered due to forfeiture. Because Plaintiffs did not proffer any legally cognizable theory of standing, they could not prevail in this appeal." A copy of the Court's of Appeals' decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IbCSkSfrom PacerMonitor.com KD CREATIVES: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Carruth" Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jennifer Carruth, Plaintiff, v. KD Creatives, Inc. d/b/a Big Little Feelings, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-02484-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration motion in its entirety, stating: Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied in its entirety. The Court reset the Initial Scheduling Conference in this matter for November 10, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. before District Judge Dale A. Drozd by Zoom. Case Background and Claims On September 12, 2024, Plaintiff Jennifer Carruth filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant KD Creatives, Inc, dba Big Little Feelings. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly sold, transmitted, or disclosed records containing its customers' personal information to third parties. Specifically, Defendant installed programming code called the Meta Pixel onto its website, biglittlefeelings.com, which transmitted each customers' Facebook profile and purchases from Defendant's website to Meta. The Court noted that "On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff purchased pre-recorded videos from Defendant's website, and Defendant subsequently disclosed her Facebook profile and purchase information to Meta via the Meta Pixel." Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts one claim under federal law: violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Defendant's Arbitration Arguments Defendant moved to compel arbitration based on two purported arbitration agreements: (1) the terms of service disclosed on the checkout page of Defendant's website when Plaintiff made her purchase (Checkout Agreement); and (2) the terms and conditions disclosed in two separate emails that Defendant sent to Plaintiff after she made her purchase (Email Agreement). Legal Standard Applied The Court explained that the party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The Court must determine (1)whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. Analysis of the Checkout Agreement The Court determined that the Checkout Agreement is more akin to a sign-in wrap agreement rather than a browsewrap agreement as argued by Defendant. The agreement stated: By placing your order, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. For sign-in wrap agreements, the website operator must show that: (1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms. Context of Transaction Analysis The Court found that the context of the transaction in this case supports a finding that the Checkout Agreement was reasonably conspicuous. The Court reasoned that the user's relationship with Defendant necessarily continues after the initial purchase because in order to access the videos a user purchases from Defendant's website, one must create and log in to an account associated with the platform. Visual Design Deficiencies However, the Court found significant problems with the visual presentation. The Court noted that the Checkout Agreement is in relatively smaller text than the action button directly above it and the black text imposed upon the grey background further detracts from its conspicuousness. Critical to the Court's analysis was that the text that hyperlinks to the Checkout Agreement is in the same font color as the rest of the sentence in which it sits rather than another contrasting color to indicate the presence of a hyperlink. The Court emphasized that the only other signifiers that the Checkout Agreement is hyperlinked are underlining and capitalization of the first letter of the words Terms and Service. The Court distinguished this case from others, noting that the Checkout Agreement lacks other traditional hyperlink characteristics such as the use of a contrasting font color (typically blue) and the use of all capital letters. The Court specifically rejected Defendant's argument that mere underlining was sufficient, stating: The Ninth Circuit has specifically rejected Defendant's contention that mere underlining is sufficiently conspicuous notice. Insufficient Conspicuousness Finding After analyzing multiple design factors, the Court concluded: Considering both the context of the transaction and the visual design of the webpage, the Court concludes that the Checkout Agreement in this case falls short of the reasonable conspicuousness standard. Therefore, Plaintiff's click of the checkout button could not constitute unambiguous manifestation of assent to the arbitration agreement. Email Agreement Analysis Regarding the Email Agreement, Defendant argued that it sent Plaintiff two separate emails providing the login link for her course with notices stating: By logging in, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. However, the Court found this argument fatally flawed: Defendant has failed to offer any evidence that any part of the email that it asserts was sent to Plaintiff contains a hyperlink to the purported arbitration agreement. The Court concluded that Defendant has failed to carry its burden of establishing that notice of the arbitration agreement was reasonably conspicuous. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fhMhD from PacerMonitor.com KEYS PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Pappas Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keys Pathology Associates, P.A. The case is styled as Cody Pappas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEYS PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A, GENESIS BILLING SERVICES, INC, Case No. 4:25-cv-10072-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Keys Pathology Associates, PA is a healthcare provider in Marathon, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com L'OREAL USA INC: Barrales Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L'Oreal USA, Inc. The case is styled as Tina Barrales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. doing business as: La Roche-Posay, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-07912-AH-MAR (C.D. Cal., Aug. 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. L'Oreal USA, Inc. doing business as La Roche-Posay, LLC -- https://www.laroche-posay.us/ -- create a personalized skincare routine, wherever you are, with dermatologist-recommended La Roche-Posay serums, cleansers, moisturizers, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com LAGOM KITCHEN: Faces Walker Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lagom Kitchen Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10837 (N.D. Ill., September 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://fromourplace.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. Plaintiff Walker attempted to complete a purchase on Fromourplace.com on March 29, 2025 after she searched Google for online stores offering non-stick pans. However, as she navigated the website and attempted to complete her purchase, she encountered several accessibility barriers that prevented her from proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Lagom Kitchen'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. Lagom Kitchen Company operates the website that offers cookware, bakeware, appliances, tableware and kitchen tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: achan@ealg.law LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Disseminates False Material Info, Margolis Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ STANLEY MARGOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANTHEUS HOLDINGS, INC., PAUL M. BLANCHFIELD, BRIAN A. MARKISON, ROBERT J. MARSHALL, and AMANDA MORGAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07491 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Lantheus securities between February 26, 2025, to August 5, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Lantheus' expected revenue for the fiscal year 2025. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, assurances in Pylarify's growth potential and overall ability to meet guided revenue based on the company's confident understanding of the pricing and competitive dynamics in Pylarify's market. The Defendants routinely instilled confidence in their Lantheus' investors by repeatedly claiming PLAYRIFY's alleged market leadership and premium price point would allow the company to achieve its guided growth, despite competitive pressures. The complaint alleges that the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Pylarify's competitive position; notably, that Lantheus was not equipped to properly assess the pricing and competitive dynamics for Pylarify; the Company failed to properly disclose that its early 2025 price increase, issued despite price erosion the year prior, created an opportunity for competitive pricing to flourish, risking Pylarify's price point, revenue, and overall growth potential. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Lantheus' securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. Investors and analysts again reacted promptly to Lantheus' revelations. The price of Lantheus' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $72.83 per share on August 5, 2025, Lantheus' stock price fell to $51.87 per share on August 6, 2025, a decline of about 28.8% in the span of one day, the suit alleges. Lantheus Holdings, Inc. is a global company that develops, manufactures, sells, and distributes certain diagnostic and therapeutic products in three categories: Radiopharmaceutical Oncology, Precision Diagnostics, and Strategic Partnerships and Other Revenue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whatley Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ LEAH WHATLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01468 (E.D. Va., Sept. 4, 2025) is an action arising out of the public exposure of the confidential, private information of Defendant's current and former employees, personally identifying information and protected health information which was in the possession of Defendant in a cyberattack on its systems, between April 13 and April 15, 2025, caused by Defendant's failures to adequately safeguard that information ("the Data Breach"). According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. Although Defendant purportedly discovered the Data Breach in April of 2025, the Defendant failed to immediately notify and warn current and former employees, with Defendant waiting until August 27, 2025, to provide written notice to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failures to protect current and former employees' sensitive personal information and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis, says the suit. Lasership, Inc. operates as a courier services. The Company offers pickup, delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Evans Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT N. EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP, INC. dba ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01493 (E.D. Va., Sept. 8, 2025) is a class action arising out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to the Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive and personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information"). As a result of this Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information of remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both, says the suit. Lasership, Inc. operates as a courier services. The Company offers pickup, delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com LATINO FARM: Court Denies Bid to Remand Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Nicandro Cruz, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Luis Antonio Gonzalez dba Latino Farm Labor Service, an individual; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00037-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and related request for limited jurisdictional discovery. The court found that between Cruz's rest period claim, wage statement claim, and available attorney's fees related to those claims, without consideration of Cruz's other claims, it was more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, satisfying CAFA's jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, Cruz failed to demonstrate that the home state exception applied. The court denied Cruz's motion to remand this putative class action to state court, finding that federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was properly established. Cruz, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, brought this wage and hour class action against defendant Gonzalez alleging various state law violations. The defendant successfully removed the case to federal court, and the plaintiff's subsequent motion to remand was denied. On November 1, 2022, Cruz filed a putative class action complaint against Gonzalez in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Tulare. The complaint alleged eight causes of action: (1) Minimum Wage Violations (Cal. Lab. Code Section 1182.12, 1994, 1194.2, and 1197); (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages (Cal. Lab. Code Section 204, 510, 558, 1194 and 1198); (3) Rest Period Violations (Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7, 516); (4) Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code Section 201-203); (5) Wage Statement Violations (Cal. Lab. Code Section 226 et seq.); (6) Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.); (7) Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenses (Cal. Lab. Code Section 2802); and (8) Unlawful Deduction of Wages (Cal. Lab. Code Section 221). Cruz sought to certify six classes based on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh claims. On January 6, 2023, Gonzalez filed a notice of removal alleging that this court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). On February 8, 2023, Cruz filed the motion to remand the action to state court, challenging Gonzalez's contention that the $5,000,000 amount in controversy was met and asserting that the home state exception to CAFA applied. Cruz alleged he began his employment with Gonzalez as a non-exempt employee around 2014 and was employed by defendant during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. He alleged that he generally worked six days a week and worked at least eight hours per shift. He was generally scheduled to work from 6:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. but he and other non-exempt employees often worked considerably more hours. However, Gonzalez did not pay Cruz and others affected for those extra hours; defendant instead opted to compensate Cruz and other non-exempt employees based on their pre-scheduled hours. Cruz also alleged that he and other non-exempt employees would be required to wait in lines to collect their wages and were not compensated for the time spent in line and that they were required to report to the worksite each day, regardless of weather conditions, but were not paid for such reporting time when they were unable to work. He and other non-exempt employees also routinely worked overtime hours for which Gonzalez failed to pay overtime wages. He also alleged that he and other non-exempt employees were not authorized to take all legally required rest periods. Rather, they rarely, if ever, were provided to exercise the use of rest periods and instead would be made to work through the entirety of their shifts (outside of the time they were allotted for meal periods). To the extent that rest periods were ever provided, defendants did not provide Cruz and other non-exempt employees with any legally compliant rest periods free of employer control and in the shade of the sun during the entirety of Cruz's employment with defendant. The court found that Cruz mounted a factual challenge to Gonzalez's asserted amount in controversy, therefore the burden rested with Gonzalez to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. To establish that more than $5 million was in controversy, Gonzalez permissibly relied on his February 22, 2023 declaration and the language of the complaint. In his declaration, Gonzalez stated that he began Latino Farm Labor Service in 2005, that he was involved in its day-to-day operations including the hiring, management and payment of the employees, and that he reviewed the employee records from 2018 through the date of the declaration to make the declaration. He further declared that Latino Farm Labor Service did not have any part time employees during the years of 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. He also stated that, though Latino Farm Labor Service provided farm labor services year-round, its peak hiring and employment season was from May 1 through October 31, and that during that time, Latino Farm Labor Service had more than 500 workers working full time, which consisted of working five or six days per week and eight hours per day. For the rest period violations claim, Gonzalez assumed each of the (at least) 500 employees during the peak season from May 1 to October 31 was not provided two rest periods per day, five days per week, for the four-year statute of limitations for the claim. The court found both assumptions were reasonable based on Cruz's allegations that he and other non-exempt employees rarely, if ever, were provided to exercise the use of rest periods and instead would be made to work through the entirety of their shifts. However, the court modified Gonzalez's calculation noting that courts have interpreted section 226.7(c) to provide that regardless of how many rest period violations occur in a single work day, only one hour of wages may be recovered per workday. Additionally, the court corrected Gonzalez's use of $14 per hour as the penalty wage, noting that minimum wage in California was $12 per hour in 2019, $13 in 2020, $14 in 2021, and $15 in 2022. Therefore, the minimum amount in controversy for the rest period claim was calculated as follows: 2019: $780,000; 2020: $845,000; 2021: $910,000; 2022: $975,000, for a total of $3,510,000. Given that Cruz's wage statements claim was based, in part, on the alleged failure to provide rest periods, it was reasonable for Gonzalez to assume that each of the 500 peak employees was not furnished an accurate wage statement during each week of the peak period for the one-year period within the statute of limitations for this claim. However, the court modified Gonzalez's assumption noting that section 226(e)(1) provides that the penalty for an initial violation is $50 and the penalty for any subsequent violations is $100. The court calculated the amount in controversy for this claim as: 500 (employees) x 1 (week) x $50 (first violation penalty) = $25,000; plus 500 (employees) x 25 (weeks) x $100 (subsequent violation penalty) = $1,250,000, for a total of $1,275,000. The court found that the California Labor Code entitled a prevailing plaintiff to attorney's fees for wage statement violations. However, it did not entitle a prevailing plaintiff to attorney's fees for rest period violations. The court noted that one year of Cruz's claims regarding rest period violations appeared to be brought pursuant to the UCL, rather than the California Labor Code, and that Cruz had put attorney's fees for his UCL claim premised on rest violations at stake in the litigation. The total amount in controversy for Cruz's rest period and wage statement violations was $4,785,000. Thus, the attorney's fees in controversy needed only to be greater than $215,000 for the total amount in controversy to exceed CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional requirement. The court found it reasonable, and likely conservative, to assume that attorney's fees would exceed 10.5% of Cruz's potential recovery. Cruz moved to remand on the grounds that CAFA's home state exception applied. CAFA provides that the district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. To attempt to meet his burden, Cruz contended that it was more likely than not that more than two-thirds of the putative class were citizens of California given that he only sought to represent classes of non-exempt employees who worked in California. As evidence, Cruz submitted his own declaration attesting that based on different conversations he had with other farm laborers on his crew, he was aware that almost all of the other farm laborers on his crew lived year-round in California, and that he was not aware of any other farm laborers who worked for defendant who lived outside of the United States and who were working for defendant in California on a work visa. In response, Gonzalez attested under penalty of perjury in his February 22, 2023 declaration that, based on his review of the hiring records of his employees, more than 70% of his employees in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 were not citizens of the United States (and therefore not California citizens) but were otherwise authorized to work in the United States. According to the Court "When considering the entire record, including Gonzalez's sworn declaration based on a review of the employees' records, Cruz's evidence failed to carry his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that two-thirds or more of the employees were California citizens. Rather, it appeared more likely than not that more than two-thirds of the members of the class were not California citizens." Cruz requested that, if the court did not find his evidence sufficient to demonstrate the applicability of the home state exception, he be permitted to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to ascertain the citizenship of the members of the classes. The court denied this request, finding that the pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction concerning the citizenship of the members of the proposed classes were not realistically controverted. The court noted that Cruz's sworn declaration that he was not aware of any person having a work visa did not create a genuine controversy regarding the citizenship status of the members of the class as a whole. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MT4Wetfrom PacerMonitor.com LINCOLN MEMORIAL: Denies Student Accommodations, Harris Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00440 (E.D. Tenn., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, quasi contract or contract implied by law, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff and similarly situated students by denying them reasonable accommodations given to other students and did not provide the accommodations consistently that it promised or granted. The Defendant failed to give the Plaintiff and the Class the benefit of its policy or procedure as it had represented. As a result of the breach, the Plaintiff and the Class sustained direct and other consequential or incidental damages, including monetary losses, physical injuries, and practically the inability to enroll in another dental school. Lincoln Memorial University is a university with its College of Dental Medicine, located in Knoxville, Knox County, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry A. Craft, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PERRY A. CRAFT, PLLC 402 BNA Drive, Suite 402 Nashville, TN 37217 Telephone: (615) 953-3808 Facsimile: (615) 739-6292 Email: perrycraft@craftlegal.com LOANCARE LLC: $5.9M Settlement in "Curry" Has Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Kevin Curry, Gregory Arrowsmith, Namuun Bat, Joshua Dryden, Richard Freire, Andrew Gharibian, Christopher Human, Cody Kettlewood, April Manar, Eisin Jahwer Martinez, Douglas Newell, Jose Peralta, and Ryan Turizo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and LoanCare, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-01508-CRK-MCR (M.D. Fla.), Judge Claire R. Kelly of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and granted in part Plaintiffs' Unopposed Renewed Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Court approved a $5,900,000 settlement fund to resolve claims arising from a cybersecurity incident that occurred on or about November 19, 2023. The Settlement Class is defined as "all persons residing in the United States who received written notice from Defendants that their Personal Information may have been compromised in the Cybersecurity Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are employees, directors, officers, and agents of LoanCare and FNF, governmental entities, and the Judge, the Judge's immediate family, and Court staff. According to the Settlement "Settlement Class Members who do not opt-out may submit claims to receive either (a) cash for ordinary losses up to $1,500 and/or for extraordinary losses up to $5,000 with supporting documentation, or (b) cash payment of $100." In addition to the Cash Payments, Settlement Class Members may submit claims for Identity Monitoring services. The Court noted that Settlement Class Members' Cash Payments may be pro rata adjusted up or down based on the total dollar amount of the Valid Claims. Plaintiffs initiated this action on December 27, 2023, with an amended complaint filed on March 19, 2024. The parties reached an agreement on the material terms of a class-wide settlement on July 25, 2024, after mediation with Rodney A. Max, an experienced class action mediator. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on March 24, 2025, and held a Fairness Hearing on September 4, 2025. The Settlement Administrator successfully disseminated notice to 99.97% of potential Settlement Class Members. Of the 1,313,178 potential Settlement Class Members who received notice, only 44 individuals elected to opt-out of the settlement, and only two written objections were filed. The Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied Article III standing requirements. Plaintiff Christopher Human alleged concrete harm including misuse of personal information accessed during the data breach, specifically his Social Security number. The Court stated that after the data breach someone opened bank accounts in his name at multiple banks by using his Social Security number, $10,000 was stolen from one of his bank accounts, and, in March 2024, an unauthorized individual attempted to access the only bank account that he did not freeze after this fraudulent activity. According to the Court "Plaintiff Human's allegations of identity theft constitute both actual injury for himself and a certainly impending or substantial risk of future harm for the rest of the class whose information was accessed in the same data breach." The Court noted that the class members may satisfy standing even though they have not suffered actual misuse of their personally identifiable information, if they establish 'certainly impending' or 'substantial' harm from the data breach. The Court found all requirements of Rule 23(a) satisfied: (1) Numerosity: With over 1.3 million Settlement Class members geographically dispersed, joinder of over a million Settlement Class members would be impracticable. (2) Commonality: The Court determined that all Settlement Class members were affected by the same data breach and that common questions of fact and law exist regarding whether Defendants adequately secured their information technology network. (3) Typicality: Plaintiffs share the same claims of either actual identity theft or certainly impending or substantial risk of identity theft as other Settlement Class members, arising from the same cybersecurity event. (4) Adequacy: The Court found that Class Representatives and Class Counsel adequately represent the class interests as Court found that the Class is represented by adequate counsel and that the settlement was achieved through arm's length negotiations. For Rule 23(b)(3), the Court found that common questions predominate over individual questions because they center around Defendants' alleged failure to secure their information technology network. The Court evaluated the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2)'s four core concerns: Adequacy of Representation and Arms-Length Negotiations: The Court found that the settlement was achieved through arm's-length negotiations" with involvement of a qualified neutral mediator, and that the Class Counsel had an adequate information base upon which to conduct negotiations. Adequacy of Relief: The Court determined that the settlement adequately compensates Settlement Class Members, providing both cash payments and Identity Monitoring services. The Court acknowledged litigation risks, noting that data breach class actions face hurdles in obtaining class certification and that full recovery at trial was not assured. Equitable Treatment: The Court found that "Settlement Class Members may submit a claim for different Cash Payments based on the nature and extent of their injury" and that "the settlement properly accounts for differences among individual Class Members." Opposition to Settlement: With only two objections from over 1.3 million potential class members and 44 opt-outs, the Court found that the lack of any substantial opposition to the proposed Settlement indicates that it is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court addressed Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees of 33.33% of the Settlement Fund (approximately $1,966,470.66). After analyzing the Camden factors, the Court awarded 22% of the total settlement fund, specifically $1,298,000. The Court reasoned that in light of the short amount of time Class Counsel spent actively litigating this case" and considering that the case moved very rapidly to settlement with limited motion practice and avoided formal discovery, a 22% fee was reasonable. The Court conducted a lodestar cross-check analysis, noting that Class Counsel claimed approximately 1,347.45 hours and $966,866.51 in lodestar. The Court found that awarding 22% would result in a multiplier of approximately 1.342, which is right at the median articulated in the Fitzpatrick Article. The Court considered that Class Counsel took the case on a contingent basis but noted that the case proceeded relatively quickly to a settlement and a fair amount of the time spent on this case was devoted to finalizing the settlement and seeking both preliminary and final approval of the settlement, where the risk to Class Counsel of not receiving compensation for their time was greatly diminished. The Court overruled both written objections. Mr. Clayton Craft objected that the settlement fails to adequately address the fundamental issues at stake in this data security breach and argued for systemic change within Defendants' business operations. The Court found that arguing for systemic change is not a valid basis to object to this settlement, as the settlement adequately addresses the harm done to the individual class members and provides a remedy for the injuries. Ms. Jennifer Choi objected to the attorneys' $2M fees as exorbitant, but the Court overruled her objection as moot after determining that a 22% attorneys' fee award was appropriate. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, finding the Settlement Agreement and Superseding Amendment fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant final approval. The Court also granted in part Plaintiffs' Unopposed Renewed Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, awarding $1,298,000 in attorneys' fees (22% of the settlement fund) rather than the requested $1,966,470.66 (33.33% of the settlement fund). A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Ycmqj from PacerMonitor.com LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss "Alms" Securities Class Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Alms, Plaintiff, v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., and Mike McAuliffe, Defendants, Case No: 6:23-cv-982-JSS-LHP, Judge Julie Sneed of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third amended class action complaint with prejudice and that Defendants shall answer the third amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A. Defendant Luminar Technologies, Inc. is a publicly traded company that develops technology used in autonomous vehicles, including light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensors. On February 28, 2023, Luminar hosted Luminar Investor Day, promising to unveil its long-term product and technology roadmap. During the presentation, Luminar displayed a slide with a picture of a competitor's PIC chip. Prior to March 17, 2023, this image was available only on competitor Lidwave's website, where it was referred to as Finite Coherent Ranging architecture.. Defendant Michael McAuliffe, Chief Executive Officer of Luminar Semiconductor, presented the slide with the challenged image while discussing the company's broader ambition to be a photonics player in the wider market. With analysts expressing optimism, Luminar's stock price rose, peaking at $9.89 on March 3, 2023. However, on March 17, 2023, Forbes released an article headlined "Lidar Maker Luminar Accused of Using Image of Rival's Chip in Investor Conference." Lidwave identified the challenged image as its own graphic and reported sending a cease-and-desist letter to Luminar threatening legal action for copyright infringement and a complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission about Luminar's misuse of Lidwave's product image to falsely promote Luminar's abilities and securities to investors. Luminar's stock began to drop that day, falling 9.09% over the next two trading days, closing at $7.80 on March 20, 2023. In May 2023, a shareholder filed this class action against Defendants on behalf of purchasers of Luminar's stock during the class period from February 28 to March 17, 2023, alleging violations of securities laws. The Court previously dismissed two prior complaints for failure to adequately plead materiality and scienter. The third amended complaint contains two counts: violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against both Defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) against McAuliffe. The third amended complaint includes additional factual support from confidential witness CW 1, a former Senior Executive Assistant at Luminar who participated in the Luminar Day presentation, and information from Michael Lebby, PhD, an expert in electronics and photonics. Court's Analysis on McAuliffe as Statement Maker Defendants argued that the Rule 10b-5 claim must be dismissed as to McAuliffe because Plaintiff does not allege that McAuliffe was the maker of the challenged image. Under Rule 10b–5, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly,to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The Court found that pictures can qualify as statements, especially where the challenged image appears alongside other images and arrows that indicate progress towards the last photo in the series. The Court determined that the series of images and arrows constituted an affirmative assertion, and the omission of the source of the challenged image was a half-truth that required other facts to make the statement not misleading. With factual support from CW 1, the Court found that McAuliffe had ultimate authority over the entire presentation. According to CW 1, McAuliffe was charged with selling Luminar to investors and PowerPoint slides were generally reviewed and changed by McAuliffe so that his speech could correspond with the slides he presented. The Court concluded that giving a presentation that includes the challenged image qualifies as a statement where the challenged image was meant as an assertion about the company's progress. As a result, the inclusion of the challenged image on the slide qualifies as a statement. A misrepresentation or omission is material if it would be considered significant to the trading decision of a reasonable investor. The Court previously found that Plaintiff failed to explain what sophistication or function the graphic conveyed that Luminar's chip lacks. In the third amended complaint, Dr. Lebby explains that the challenged image shows an electronic ASIC chip connected via sixteen parallel fiber optic cables to an optics chip, representing a silicon photonics PIC chip that shows a high degree of sophistication and integration that could greatly lower the cost of manufacturing and performance. By contrast, Luminar's chip has 28 electrical wire bonds and looks like a tunable laser chip fabricated on an InP wafer, which is not as scalable in cost. The Court found that based on Plaintiff's complaint, it is well-known in the industry that scaling production depends on the development of PIC chips. Accordingly, the function and sophistication of Luminar's PIC chips would have been material to a reasonable investor. Scienter requires an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud or severe recklessness. The Court previously found that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants were severely reckless because the second amended complaint lacked allegations as to who was responsible for assembling and editing the presentation. The Court found that the innocent explanation that a lower-level employee included the challenged image was more compelling. However, with additional information from CW 1, the Court found that Plaintiff's factual allegations support an inference of scienter at least as compelling as the innocent explanation. According to CW 1, McAuliffe was involved in creating the Luminar Day presentation, had access to the folder with the presentation, and needed to review it beforehand to prepare. McAuliffe allegedly had access to information indicating that the challenged image was misappropriated from Lidwave, including access to the 2019 Freedom Photonics document where all the images that belonged to Luminar originated. The Court found it unlikely that McAuliffe, the CEO of Luminar Semiconductor, would not know the difference between a silicon PIC chip belonging to a direct competitor and Luminar's non-PIC, InP chip. Additionally, it would be improbable that McAuliffe would have thought that displaying a competitor's chip could not present a danger of misleading investors at an event where Luminar advertised that it would unveil its long-term product. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that unlike the previous complaints, the third amended complaint raises an inference of scienter at least as compelling as any opposing, non-fraudulent inference. The Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to plead scienter as to McAuliffe to survive dismissal. As to Luminar, the scienter of their agents must be imputed to them, so Plaintiff's claims as to Luminar also survive dismissal. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IpsGSI from PacerMonitor.com LUNA NORTE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Echols Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUNA NORTE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10949 (N.D. Ill., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 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://lunanorte.co, 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 accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate landmark structure, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. 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. Luna Norte, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law MAERSK INC: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Reeves Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ SHANNON REEVES, THURUPARAN MANOHARAN, ANTHONY GARCIA, and MATTHEW HOWARD, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Maersk Inc. Savings Plan, Plaintiffs v. MAERSK INC.; MAERSK AGENCY USA INC.; MAERSK INC. PENSION COMMITTEE; MERCER INVESTMENTS LLC; and JOHN HANCOCK TRUST COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12422 (D. Mass., Sept. 2, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated and continue to violate ERISA, by causing the Plan to engage in and maintain a transaction they knew or should have known constitutes a direct furnishing of services between the Plan and a party in interest -- namely, the investment contract with John Hancock, a Plan fiduciary and party in interest that has served as the Plan's Trustee, Recordkeeper, and Investment Manager. The Defendants' failure to remove and replace the Plan's consistently underperforming Hancock fixed annuity investment option and mismanagement of the Plan resulted in substantial losses to the Plan recoverable from Defendants under ERISA, says the suit. Maersk Inc. provides transportation and logistics services. The Company offers services such as freight consolidation and logistics, domestic transportation, trucking, terminal and warehousing operations, data services, and port and inland terminal management. Maersk serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Rich, Esq. TODD & WELD LLP One Federal Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2626 Email: Drich@toddweld.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Michael Lenett, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M Street, N.W., Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Email: Mlenett@cuneolaw.com Brendant@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4235 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (202) 844-3647 Email: Cbarrett@cuneolaw.com MDL 2873: Brayboy Sues Over Harmful Aqueous Film Forming Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE BRAYBOY, v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08218-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products that contain per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs. However, 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, says the suit. The Brayboy case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Chaplinski Seeks Damages Over PFAS-Related Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------- JULI CHAPLINSKI v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08219-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Accordingly, the 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water. The Chaplinski case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Cole Sues Over Unsafe Aqueous Film Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS COLE v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08220-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Accordingly, the 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water. The Cole case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Ecanosti Sues AFFF Manufacturers Over PFAS Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY ECANOSTI, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08221-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at various locations where they drank contaminated water. 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 PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, says the suit. The Ecanosti case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Faces Born Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BORN v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08215-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications. Accordingly, Plaintiff now 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water, says the suit. The Born case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Ferrero Sues Over Exposure to Harmful, Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY FERRERO v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No.2:25-cv-08222-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications. Accordingly, the 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water. The Ferrero case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Niblack Sues Over Unsafe, Hazardous Substances -------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY NIBLACK v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08226-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' Aqueous Film Forming Foam containing per and polyfluoroalkyl substances products at various locations where they drank contaminated water. 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 PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. The Niblack case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Otero Sues Over PFAS-Related Personal Injuries -------------------------------------------------------- ELEAZAR J. OTERO v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-08230-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications. Accordingly, the 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water. The Otero case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Pope Seeks Damages Over Toxic Chemicals' Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY POPE v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08233-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Accordingly, the 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water. The Pope case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Populo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Substances ------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES R. POPULO III v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08237-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products that contain per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs. However, 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, says the suit. The Populo case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Rover Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN ROVER v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08246-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications. Accordingly, Plaintiff now 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water. The Rover case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Taylor Seeks Damages Over Toxic Chemicals' Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID TAYLOR v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-08251-RMG (D.S.C., July 23, 2025), is a class action seeking to recover damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS. As a result of Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF products, Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications. Accordingly, Plaintiff now 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 containing PFAS products at various locations where they drank contaminated water, says the suit. The Taylor case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MERCY SURGICAL: Bloom Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled DONALD BLOOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercy Surgical Dressing Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. GD-25-06000, was removed from the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania on July 23, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01105-CCW to the proceeding. The case arises from Plaintiff's personal injury that was allegedly caused by Defendant's medical device. Mercy Surgical Dressing Group, Inc. supplies surgical and other medical instruments, apparatus, and equipment. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: David J. Shannon, Esq. Marshall Dennehey, Esq. 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2615 Facsimile: (215) 575-0856 E-mail: djshannon@mdwcg.com MITSUBISHI HEAVY: Goodell Jr. Sues Over Defective Engines --------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE EDWARD GOODELL, JR., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.; MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES AMERICA, INC.; MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES ENGINE & TURBOCHARGER, LTD.; MITSUBISHI TURBOCHARGER & ENGINE AMERICA; HATTON MARINE & INDUSTRIAL REPAIR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01728 (D. Wash., Sept. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants repeatedly lied to and misled consumers as part of a scheme to import and sell its replacement marine engines (the "Class Engines") that it falsely said complied with U.S. law and, on information and belief, also emit illegal levels of pollution. The Defendants represented to the Plaintiff and the Class Members that the engines they purchased had been sold because, after using good engineering judgment, no other engine could be used. The claims were false. Plaintiff and the Class Members now have engines that are not compliant with federal law, pollute more, consume more fuel, and are worth less, says the suit. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. is a comprehensive heavy machinery maker. The Company manufactures machinery, ships, turbines and engines, prime movers, aircrafts, and machine parts for military and commercial use. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries also researches and develops nuclear power plants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. Jacob M. Podell, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 200 West Madison Street Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 Facsimile: (312) 275-8174 Email: eaw@wallacemiller.com mrm@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com jpodell@wallacemiller.com - and - Lindsay L. Halm, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 Facsimile: (206) 682-2305 Email: halm@sgb-law.com - and - Carson Phillips-Spotts, Esq. CARSON PHILLIPS-SPOTTS, WSBA 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101202 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 Email: spotts@sgb-law.com MONTEREY MECHANICAL: "Carrillo" Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Vincent Carrillo, Plaintiff, v. Monterey Mechanical Co., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-09202-LJC (N.D. Cal.), United States Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. The Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims for late payment under Labor Code Section 204, finding them preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss all other claims and remanded the case to state court, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiff Vincent Carrillo filed his complaint in California Superior Court for Santa Clara County on September 20, 2024, asserting nine wage-and-hour claims against Defendant Monterey Mechanical Co. on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated employees. The claims included: (1) failure to pay minimum wage and compensation for all hours worked as required by sections 204 and 1194 of the California Labor Code; (2) failure to pay overtime as required by sections 204, 510, 1194, and 1198 of the Labor Code; (3) failure to provide meal periods as required by sections 226.7 and 512 of the Labor Code; (4) failure to allow rest periods as required by section 512 of the Labor Code; (5) failure to pay timely wages to discharged employees as required by sections 201 and 202 of the Labor Code; (6) failure to maintain and provide accurate and compliant wage statements as required by section 226(a) of the Labor Code; (7) failure to reimburse employees' expenses as required by section 2802 of the Labor Code; (8) failure to provide employment records as required by sections 226 and 1198.5(a) of the Labor Code; and (9) violation of section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code by virtue of the violations alleged above. Carrillo filed his Complaint in state court on September 20, 2024.Defendant removed the case to federal court on December 18, 2024, asserting that many of Plaintiff's claims are preempted by section 301 of the LMRA because any right to relief he might have on those claims is governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Court previously denied Plaintiff's motion to remand, concluding that Plaintiff's derivative claims for late payment in violation of section 204 of the Labor Code are preempted, which was sufficient to establish supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims, the Court did not reach the parties’ arguments regarding preemption of other claims. The Court applied the two-step test established in Curtis v. Irwin Industries to determine whether claims are preempted by the LMRA. First, the Court asks whether the asserted cause of action involves a right that exists solely as a result of the CBA. If so, then the claim is preempted. If not, the Court proceeds to the second step and asks whether a plaintiff's state law right is substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA, which turns on whether the claim cannot be resolved by simply looking to versus interpreting the CBA. The Court also considered the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers, Inc., which provided guidance on LMRA preemption analysis and held that district courts may properly exercise their discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over non-preempted claims and remand them to state court. Late Payment Claims (Section 204): The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss these claims with prejudice. The Court had previously found that Plaintiff's derivative claims for late payment in violation of section 204 of the Labor Code are preempted because Labor Code section 204(c) provides an exemption for employees covered by CBAs that provide different pay arrangements. Since Plaintiff failed to allege exhaustion of the grievance process required by the CBA and indicated no desire to amend these claims, the Court dismissed them with prejudice. Overtime Claims (Section 510): The Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims. Defendant argued that the claims were preempted because the CBA met the criteria for an exemption under section 514 of the Labor Code, which requires that the agreement provide premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage. The Court found that Defendant failed to meet its burden to establish this exemption because the CBA contained only asterisks for travel rates in certain years without explanation, and the subsequent 2024 Memorandum of Understanding was not retroactive to cover Plaintiff's employment period from 2020 to 2022. Meal Break Claims (Section 512): The Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims. Defendant's argument for preemption was substantially similar to its arguments regarding the overtime claim. For the same reasons, the Court found that the exemption under section 512(e) was inapplicable because the CBA did not provide for regular pay of at least 30 percent more than the minimum wage for all employees at all relevant times. Rest Break Claims (Wage Order 16): The Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims. The Court found that the CBA did not provide equivalent protection to Wage Order 16's requirement of a rest break for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. While Wage Order 16 requires a rest break for any period of work exceeding two hours (a major fraction of four hours), the CBA only provided for breaks during each four hour segment of an assigned work shift. The Court concluded that an employee who worked six hours and five minutes would be entitled to two rest breaks under the Wage Order but only one under the CBA, making the protections non-equivalent. Minimum Wage and Straight Time Claims: The Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims. The Court determined that California's minimum wage laws are non-waivable under Labor Code section 1194(a), and that Defendant had not shown there was an active dispute over the meaning of contract terms as required for preemption under Step 2 of the analysis. Expense Reimbursement Claims (Section 2802): The Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims. The Court found that section 2802's protection is non-waivable under California law, and that the fact that a CBA may provide a remedy for conduct that coincidentally violates state law does not make the existence or contours of the state law violation dependent upon the terms of the private contract. Additional Claims: The Court denied the motion to dismiss the remaining claims for failure to pay wages upon termination, failure to maintain and provide accurate records, violation of section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, and failure to produce employment records. The Court found these claims were either derivative of non-preempted underlying claims or, in the case of the employment records claim, not addressed by Defendant's arguments. Defendant argued that all claims were preempted because they required interpretation of the CBA's grievance and arbitration provision. The Court rejected this argument, citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Renteria-Hinojosa, which held that a defendant cannot create removal jurisdiction under section 301 by invoking a collective bargaining agreement as a defense, as this would be foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams. After dismissing only the preempted late payment claims, the Court was left with a case consisting solely of claims under California law. The Court exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Court noted that ordinarily, when federal law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction. The Court found no reason to depart from this approach since Plaintiff sought to assert claims only under state law and only found himself in federal court because a small portion of those claims was preempted by the LMRA. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for untimely payments with prejudice and denied the motion to the extent it sought dismissal of any other claim based on preemption. Finding no other claims preempted, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court without reaching any other argument for dismissal or to compel arbitration. The Court noted that Defendant remains free to argue to the state superior court that the CBA's grievance provision requires dismissal or arbitration of any of the remaining claims. The Clerk was instructed to remand the case to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, where it was assigned case number 24CV093407, and to close the case on the federal court's docket. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q1NtSP from PacerMonitor.com NETFLIX INC: Reality TV Contestant Sues Over Working Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------- Winston Cho reports that a former contestant on Love Is Blind has sued the makers of the Netflix dating series for a series of alleged labor violations, marking another lawsuit challenging working conditions and pay in reality TV. In a proposed class action filed in California state court on Monday, September 15, Stephen Richardson says he and the show's other contestants should've been classified as employees, which would've entitled them to certain protections relating to minimum wage, overtime and illegal contractual terms over confidentiality. The filing comes after the National Labor Relations Board last year issued a complaint against the production in which it said that castmembers were misclassified as independent contractors, opening the door to possible unionization. For years, contestants on Love Is Blind and other reality TV shows have complained of unsafe working conditions. Many, including those on Bravo's Real Housewives and Vanderpump Rules, have sued. One castmember, Renee Poche, filed a lawsuit last year against the production companies behind Love Is Blind, which include Kinetic Content and Delirium TV, accusing them of labor violations. Arbitration proceedings seeking $4 million were later initiated against her for allegedly violating her nondisclosure agreement. Like Poche, Richardson, who appeared on season seven of the series, says he was forced to sign a similar contract. It requires him to pay roughly $97,000 for breaches of the agreement, which includes terms relating to confidentiality and a noncompete. The reality TV industry has long shielded itself from litigation by leveraging contracts with nondisclosure agreements and provisions requiring legal action to be taken in arbitration. Any by classifying contestants as independent contractors rather than employees, the productions can avoid minimum wage and overtime obligations, among other things. One of the factors used by courts to decide the classification question is whether the employer, in this case Kinetic and Delirium, exercised a certain degree of control over their workers. On this issue, the lawsuit claims that the production oversaw "every aspect of the lives of their show's cast," including their communications and eating and sleeping schedules. At the hotel where castmembers resided during shooting, the production directed staff not to provide food, according to the complaint. Contestants' IDs, wallets, phones and credits were taken away, "thus eliminating [their] ability to leave the hotel living quarters or production set," the lawsuit says. When Jeremy Hartwell, a castmember on the second season of Love Is Blind, sued the production in 2022, it was revealed that contestants were paid $1,000 per week -- an effective wage of roughly $7 per hour for working 20 hours a day and seven days a week. Richardson's lawsuit doesn't disclose if the stipend has increased since then, though he also alleges he should've at least been paid minimum wage and overtime. The lawsuit -- which names Netflix, KKinetic Content and Delirium TV -- seeks unspecified damages and brings claims for multiple labor violations. It seeks to represent people who applied for or participated in reality TV productions produced in California by the production companies, which didn't respond to requests for comment, since 2021. [GN] NEW YORK: Denies GPD Program Services to Veterans, Pena Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES; INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY LIVING; KAREN FULLER, Former Manhattan Veterans Affairs Director of Homeless Services, in her official and individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07506-UA (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program Criteria, False Claims Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the First Amendment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide veterans, including the Plaintiff, nutrition, case management, substance abuse treatment, transportation to Veterans Affairs medical and mental health appointments, community engagement activities, privacy, and adequate sanitation under the GPD program. According to the complaint, this denial of services interfered with the Plaintiff's and Class members' continuity of treatment for service-connected disabilities and placed their health and safety at further risk. New York City Department of Homeless Services ("DHS") is a municipal agency headquartered in New York, New York. Institute for Community Living ("ICL") is a nonprofit corporation headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NICKEL GROUP CA: Clark Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nickel Group CA, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Clark, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Nickel Group CA, Inc., Case No. 25STCV26761 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Sept. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Nickel Group -- https://nickelgroup.io/ -- is a bespoke security and risk management firm offering a range of specialized services to address the unique needs of its exclusive client base.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PEACH SKIN: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peach Skin Sheets, L.L.C, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10824 (N.D. Ill., September 9, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.peachskinsheets.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. Plaintiff Walker has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Peachskinsheets.com on March 28, 2025 after conducting a Google search for soft bedding linens. However, due to multiple accessibility barriers on the website, she was unable to complete her purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Peach Skin Sheets' 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. Peach Skin Sheets, L.L.C. operates the website which offers bedding products, including sheet sets, duvet covers, pillowcases, robes, comforter sets, and fitted sheets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: achan@ealg.law PENNYMAC LOAN: Yurowitz Sues Over Improper Property Tax Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- AARON YUROWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08290 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2025) is an action alleging the Defendant's failure to provide adequate notice to borrowers of a material change in its property tax payment policy that adversely affected customers' federal income tax liabilities. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC provides home mortgage loans to borrowers and investors. The Company offers various activities of loan administration, call center, and web-based customer service, and payment processing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. Serach B. Shafa, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 805-8373 E-mail: ji@jasoningber.com PETERSON'S OIL: 1st Cir. Affirms Insurance Coverage Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as United States Fire Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Peterson's Oil Service, Inc., d/b/a Cleghorn Oil by Peterson and d/b/a Peterson Oil; Howard Wood Peterson, Jr., Kristen Peterson Halus; Sharon Peterson; Sheena Marandino; Sean Marandino; Nancy Carrigan; Claire Freda; Kelley Freda; Alice Hart; Robert F. Hart; Torre Mastroianni; and Congregation Beth Israel of Worcester, Defendants, Appellees, Case No. 24-1671 (1st Cir.), Circuit Judge Aframe of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment ruling requiring the insurance companies to continue defending Peterson's Oil Service in an underlying class action lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's determination that the insurers must maintain their defense obligations despite arguing that Peterson's intentional conduct in blending biodiesel with heating oil removed coverage under the policies. Circuit Judge Aframe, writing for the three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Montecalvo and Lipez, ruled that the underlying negligence claims constituted covered occurrences under the insurance policies. The coverage dispute arose from a Massachusetts state court class action brought by customers against Peterson's Oil Service and three of its officers (collectively, "Peterson's). The customer-plaintiffs alleged that Peterson's supplied them with biodiesel-blended fuel that was incompatible with conventional heating systems and less efficient than ordinary heating oil that they believed they had purchased. According to the operative complaint, every gallon of fuel that Peterson's supplied between 2012 and 2019 consisted of more than five percent biodiesel, exceeding the maximum amount allowed while still qualifying as ordinary heating oil under industry standards. The fuel contained an average of 35 percent biodiesel between 2015 and 2018. The customer-plaintiffs asserted that Peterson's continued distributing blended fuel even after receiving numerous complaints from customers reporting heating system failures in 2018. Peterson's only began disclosing the high level of biodiesel in its products in early 2019. As a result, the customers claimed they paid more for Peterson's fuel than it was worth, suffered repeated losses of heat, and incurred permanent damage to their heating systems. The customer-plaintiffs brought five claims under Massachusetts law: breach of contract for Peterson's failure to supply ordinary heating oil as agreed, fraud for misrepresentations about fuel quality and suitability, and negligence based on Peterson's failure to exercise reasonable care in delivering heating oil that would efficiently heat homes without damaging equipment. Between July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2016, Peterson's maintained five successive one-year commercial general liability policies issued by the insurers. Each primary policy provided coverage for sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of property damage, provided the damage was caused by an occurrence during the policy period. The primary policies defined occurrence as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. Property damage meant physical injury to tangible property, including resulting loss of use, or loss of use of tangible property not physically injured. Each primary policy contained a one million dollar per occurrence limit and a two million dollar general aggregate limit. The policies included a Failure to Supply endorsement limiting coverage for property damage arising out of the failure to adequately supply gas, oil, water, electricity or steam to $250,000 in each policy year. Peterson's was also covered under five corresponding umbrella liability policies providing coverage of $15,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate. The insurers initially defended Peterson's in the underlying litigation subject to a reservation of rights. After substantial discovery, the insurers filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that they had no defense or indemnity obligations under the policies. The insurers moved for summary judgment on three counts, arguing that damages were not caused by an occurrence under the policies, or arose from Peterson's failure to adequately supply customers, thereby triggering coverage limitations. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment. On the occurrence issue, the court found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Peterson's knew its blended fuel would damage customer heating equipment during the relevant policy periods. The court concluded that Peterson's lack of knowledge could mean the injuries arose from an accident within the policy meaning. Therefore, the insurers must continue to defend the entire underlying action because it remained possible that customers could prevail on their negligence claim. On the failure-to-supply provisions, the district court found the provisions were susceptible to multiple interpretations and resolved the ambiguity in Peterson's favor. The court held the limitations inapplicable and granted Peterson's summary judgment on those counts. Circuit Judge Aframe addressed the insurers' primary argument that they should be absolved of any duty to defend because the customer claims were not based on a covered occurrence. The insurers argued that Peterson's intentional decision to alter the chemical composition of its heating oil removed the litigation from coverage scope. The Court of Appeals examined Massachusetts law regarding the duty to defend. In Massachusetts, a general liability insurer owes a broad duty to defend against any claims that create potential for indemnity. The duty to defend is antecedent to and independent of the duty to indemnify, and is more expansive than the duty to indemnify. The nature of the claim, not the ultimate judgment, triggers the duty to defend. The court noted that Massachusetts operates under an in for one, in for all rule, meaning an insurer must defend the entire lawsuit if it has a duty to defend any underlying counts in the complaint. Massachusetts law recognizes only two narrow exceptions to the duty to defend: when undisputed, readily knowable, and publicly available information demonstrates no duty to defend, or when an undisputed extrinsic fact takes the case outside coverage. Examining the underlying complaint, the Court of Appeals found it did not expressly allege that Peterson's either intended or was substantially certain that its blended fuel would cause injury to customer heating systems. The allegations relating to Peterson's knowledge of biodiesel risks amounted to assertions that Peterson's acted recklessly in supplying high-biodiesel fuel. Under Massachusetts law, injuries resulting from reckless conduct do not fall into the category of "expected or intended" injuries, but are considered "accidental" and thus covered under insurance policies. The court stated that an injury is nonaccidental only where the result was actually, not constructively, intended - more than recklessness." The court observed that the complaint did not allege Peterson's knew about equipment damage patterns during the relevant policy periods between July 2011 and July 2016. The earliest customer report of equipment damage occurred in 2018. There were no specific allegations showing Peterson's received early and repeated damage reports or understood the nature and extent of emerging heating system issues. The Court of Appeals rejected the insurers' argument that Peterson's intent to cause harm could be inferred from its decision to intentionally deviate from industry standards. The court noted that Peterson's must have intended or been substantially certain of the type of harm inflicted for injuries to be deemed nonaccidental. Because the court could not infer that Peterson's intended or expected with substantial certainty to damage customer heating systems, the breach of contract allegation did not eliminate the duty to defend the underlying litigation. The negligence count alleged that Peterson's knew or should have known that biodiesel content would not efficiently heat houses and could harm furnaces. The complaint included a negligence theory that Peterson's violated its duty to deliver heating oil that would not damage customer equipment. These allegations were consistent with conventional negligence theories that Massachusetts courts have found to fall within covered accidental conduct. The Court of Appeals addressed the insurers' alternative argument that failure-to-supply provisions applied to limit coverage to $250,000 per year under the primary policies. The parties disputed the meaning of adequately supply or adequate supply. Peterson's argued the quoted words modified supply rather than the specific products listed, addressing adequacy of the amount rather than adequacy of the products themselves. The insurers contended the provisions covered both failure to provide enough fuel and failure to supply fuel of sufficient quality. Under Massachusetts law, insurance policies are construed under general contract interpretation rules, beginning with actual policy language given its plain and ordinary meaning. A term is ambiguous when susceptible of more than one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to the proper meaning. Any ambiguity is strictly construed against the insurer, applying with particular force to exclusionary provisions. The Court of Appeals found that adequately could be plausibly construed as connoting both quality and quantity, but could also be interpreted to cover either quantity or quality. The failure-to-supply provisions offered no clarity, and adequately preceded supply, presumed to modify that verb rather than listed products that followed. The provision appeared to focus principally on adequacy of the supply - Peterson's distribution of listed products - rather than adequacy of goods being supplied. Had the insurers intended otherwise, they could have incorporated adequate into an adjectival phrase describing enumerated products by rephrasing the provision to cover failure to supply adequate gas, oil, electricity. The court concluded that adequate and adequately could mean only enough product or both enough product and product that was up to standard. The words were susceptible of more than one meaning, making the provisions ambiguous. The ambiguity must be resolved against the insurers. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Peterson's and denial of summary judgment for the insurers. The court ruled that the insurers have a continuing duty to defend Peterson's in the underlying litigation and that the failure-to-supply provisions do not apply to limit coverage for the underlying litigation. A copy of the First Circuit's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fkm6e2from PacerMonitor.com PPG EMPLOYEE: Bellon Appeals Court Order in ERISA Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES W. BELLON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Charles W. Bellon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The PPG Employee Life and Other Benefits Plan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00114-GMG-RWT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit sought to restore and recover contractually vested retiree life insurance coverage and associated benefits under the PPG Employee Life and Other Benefits Plan, including its predecessor plans. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were retired former salaried employees of the Defendants, and the surviving spouses and beneficiaries of the retired former employees who had worked in the Defendants' commodity chemicals business and who were, at retirement, eligible for and began receiving healthcare and life insurance as participants of the PPG Plan. On January 28, 2013, PPG Industries, Inc. merged its commodity chemicals business to form Axiall Corporation. As part of the merger, the Defendants unilaterally removed the Plaintiffs from the Plan in violation of the Plan terms, and transferred to Axiall the obligation to provide the Plaintiffs with retiree healthcare and life insurance coverage under the Plan. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when the Defendants unilaterally removed the Plaintiffs as plan participants on January 28, 2013 and transferring them to Axiall's Plan. On June 28, 2021, the Court denied the motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) and granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate case is entitled Charles Bellon v. The PPG Employee Life and Other Benefits Plan, Case No. 25-2066, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARLES W. BELLON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James Theodore Carney, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES T. CARNEY 845 Northridge Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 657-0992 - and - Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq. John Edward Stember, Esq. STEMBER COHN & DAVIDSON-WELLING, LLC 425 1st Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 338-1445 - and - Stephen Gibson Skinner, Esq. SKINNER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 487 Charles Town, WV 25414 Telephone: (304) 725-7029 Defendants-Appellees THE PPG EMPLOYEE LIFE AND OTHER BENEFITS PLAN, et al. are represented by: Alexis E. Bates, Esq. Katherine Marcel Funderburg, Esq. Hope H. Tone-O'Keefe, Esq. Joseph J. Torres, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 840-7577 (312) 840-7398 (312) 840-7286 (312) 840-8685 - and - Jasmine A.D. Fannell, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 - and - Kameron Miller, Esq. Kaitlyn Brooke Samuelson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 707 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 599-4600 - and - Theodore A. Schroeder, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 1 PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 201-7624 QUMPUS INC: Valerio Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qumpus, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Valerio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Qumpus, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05197-ELR (N.D. Ga., Sept. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Qumpus, Inc., doing business as Better World Books -- https://www.betterworldbooks.com/ -- is an American online bookseller of used and new books, founded in 2002 by students of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. 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 R & L CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Workers, Lojano Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS HUMBERTO PUCHI LOJANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R & L CONSTRUCTION AND PAINTING SERVICE INC. and SHUYAN LIN and JINMEI RUAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05070 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 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 pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages on a weekly basis, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a construction worker and laborer from in or around September 2012 until in or around August 2025. R & L Construction and Painting Service Inc. is a construction company located in Queens Village, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 RED ROBIN: Faces Lemasters Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------- CASEY LEMASTERS, DAMON SNYDER, and JAMES PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01762 (S.D. Ill., September 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiffs Lemasters, Snyder, and Price were employed by the Defendant as salaried managers in Illinois from September 2018 until September 2020, from February 2022 until October 2024, and from September 2022 until April 2024, respectively. Red Robin International, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Diana E. Wise, Esq. WISE LAW LLC 637 W. Highway 50, #601 O'Fallon, IL 62269 Telephone: (217) 556-8036 Email: dwise@wiseconsumerlaw.com RESTAURANT BRANDS: Judge Refuses Arbitration in Privacy Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions report that a California federal judge has refused to send a proposed class action lawsuit against Burger King's parent company to arbitration. Why: The plaintiff claims the company illegally tracked website visitors who opted out of the practice. Where: The Burger King class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A California federal judge has refused arbitration on a proposed class action lawsuit accusing Burger King's parent company of illegally tracking website visitors who had opted out of the practice. In a Sept. 5 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied a motion filed by Restaurant Brands International Inc. and its subsidiary Restaurant Brands International U.S. Services LLC to compel arbitration of the class action allegation. Plaintiff Daniel Pemberton accused the companies of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act and committing invasion of privacy and fraud by placing third-party cookies on the devices of website visitors who had opted out of the sale or sharing of their personal data. The Burger King class action lawsuit defendants argued that Pemberton's claims were subject to arbitration through the website's terms of service. However, Judge Corley found there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff had "actual or constructive notice" of the terms containing the arbitration agreement or had taken any action to "manifest his assent" to this contract offer. Burger King website did not provide adequate notice of arbitration agreement, judge says According to Judge Corley, the way that the terms were presented on the Burger King website was not enough to provide adequate notice. Pemberton, who claimed to have never ordered from Burger King, downloaded the fast food chain's mobile app or signed up for its rewards program. The plaintiff claims the disputed terms of service did not appear on the website's home page but rather was only accessible if a user clicked on "the small 'menu' link" in the corner of the home page and chose the "terms of service" link that appears among "a list of many other hyperlinks." Judge Corley concluded that the "browsewrap agreement" was insufficient to provide the plaintiff with constructive notice. "The website did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the Terms of Service; indeed, Defendants do not contend it did," the judge found. Currently, Adobe is facing a class action lawsuit accusing the company of secretly tracking and monetizing consumers' online data without their knowledge or consent. [GN] Pemberton is represented by Seth A. Safier, Marie A. McCrary, Todd Kennedy, Patrick Branson and Kali R. Backer of Gutride Safier LLP. The Burger King class action lawsuit is Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03647, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] RETINA VITREOUS: Horning Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retina Vitreous Consultants LLP. The case is styled as Gary Horning, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retina Vitreous Consultants LLP doing business as Retina Group of Florida, Case No. CACE22013831 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 11, 2025), The case type is stated as "Negligence." Retina Vitreous Consultants LLP doing business as Retina Group of Florida -- https://www.retinagroupflorida.com/ -- is a leading retina-only ophthalmology practice.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com RETROFITNESS LLC: Court OKs Bid to Dismiss "Herrera" w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Retrofitness, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 23-cv-14801 (JXN)(AME) (D.N.J.), Judge Julien Xavier Nea of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted leave to file a third amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies outlined in this Opinion and properly establish standing. Plaintiff Carlos Herrera, a resident of North Bergen, New Jersey, is visually impaired and legally blind. Defendant Retrofitness, LLC maintains four physical locations within 10 miles of Plaintiff's residence: Fort Lee, Jersey City, North Arlington, and Wallington. Defendant's website is utilized in conjunction with its physical locations by providing information concerning what is offered by Defendant at the physical locations including membership fees, personal training, and group workouts, the location of the physical gyms, the opportunity to make payments and purchase services online including joining the gym and other online deals, and providing information and access to online sales and offers. On or around February 2023, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website using a screen reading software called Voice Over, to compare prices of his current gym, to that of their competitors, in close proximity to Plaintiff. However, the website's lack of features and accommodations effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's public accommodation. Plaintiff alleges barriers on the website left him unable to find out the locations of the nearest gym to him because the screen reading technology was unable to read him the locations or see the membership fees because the website limited Plaintiff's zoom capability. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff initially commenced this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, which Defendant subsequently removed. On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint raising two causes of action: (1) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181, et seq.; and (2) declaratory relief under the ADA. Plaintiff claims that Defendant's website is a public accommodation under the ADA, and it has unlawfully discriminated against him and other similarly situated visually impaired or blind people by failing to make its website accessible. He seeks to certify the following class: "All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant's Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services during the relevant statutory period." Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs, a preliminary and permanent injunction that requires Defendant to make and keep its website accessible to and usable by blind people, and a declaration that Defendant's current website violates the ADA. The Court applied the four-factor test used in this District to determine whether a threat of future injury is real and immediate in the ADA context: (1) the plaintiff's proximity to the place of public accommodation; (2) the plaintiff's past patronage; (3) definitiveness of the plaintiff's plan to return; and (4) the plaintiff's frequency of nearby travel. Factor One - Proximity: The Court found factor one weighs in Plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff, a North Bergen resident, alleges Defendant maintains four physical locations within 10 miles. Factors Two and Four - Past Patronage and Travel: The Court found factors two and four to be neutral. Plaintiff does not allege that he patronized Defendant's website or physical locations, beyond visiting the website on or around February 2023 to compare prices of his current gym, to that of their competitors, in close proximity to Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff does not allege any nearby travel; rather, Plaintiff only alleges he regularly goes to the gym in order to maintain his physical fitness. Factor Three - Definitive Plans to Return: The Court found the factor that holds the most weight is whether the Plaintiff has definite plans to return to the Defendant's place of public accommodation, and this factor is determinative in the present case. Some day intentions without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be do not support a finding of the actual or imminent injury that cases require. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges: "The fact that Defendant's website proved inaccessible to Plaintiff does not mean that Plaintiff will never return. Plaintiff regularly uses equipment that is common to all gyms. Like most all of Plaintiff's expenses, every few months, Plaintiff looks to see whether he can cut down his expenses by looking for other goods or services that he can obtain for a better price or product. However, Plaintiff only plans to do so with the personal assistance of a sighted individual, so he can fully understand Defendant's offerings until the site becomes completely accessible such that he will be able to utilize the website at any time he wishes, regardless of whether he has access to a fully sighted person." The Court found Plaintiff fails to provide any allegations of his definitive plans to return to Defendant's website. The Court finds the allegations lack the requisite specificity to turn his some day intentions into concrete plans. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of future injury sufficient to establish Article III standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief. While Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, as currently pled, fails to establish standing, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff may still be capable of putting forth sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate that he has standing to seek injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EZHW9rfrom PacerMonitor.com RITHM CAPITAL: Faces Cortez Suit Over 401(k) Plan Losses -------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA CORTEZ, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Rithm Capital Family of Companies 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. RITHM CAPITAL LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02462-K (N.D. Tex., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated ERISA by failing to comply with the terms of the Rithm Capital Family of Companies 401(k) Plan, breaching fiduciary duties, and violating prohibited transaction rules and anti-inurement provision. The Defendants chose to use Plan assets to overwhelmingly benefit Rithm, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by using over $8.3 million of Plan assets to offset Rithm's contractual obligations to make declared matching contributions to the Plan, while using less than $1.5 million to offset Plan expenses and requiring Plan Participants to pay over $1.8 million in Plan expenses to the Plan's third-party service providers, both directly and indirectly, that should never have come out of (or reduced the value of) their accounts. As a result of the Defendants' action, the Plan suffered losses, says the suit. Rithm Capital LLC is an investment management company headquartered in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste. 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 Email: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Seth J. Bloom, Esq. BLOOM LEGAL LLC 825 Girod Street, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 599-9997 Email: sjb@bloomlegal.com RIVERSIDE RESORT: Wins Partial Dismissal of Data Breach Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jeremiah Archambault, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Riverside Resort & Casino, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01691-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in a class action data breach lawsuit. Background Facts On July 25, 2024, Defendant performed an internal investigation on the data breach. It reported that the data breach exposed the PII of 55,155 current and former employees and customers. The PII included, but was not limited to, names and social security numbers. About six weeks after the data breach was discovered, Defendant began notifying Plaintiffs and class members that their names and social security numbers were involved in the breach. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant willfully or negligently failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard their PII, follow appropriate policies and procedures regarding the encryption of their data, and adequately notify them of the breach. Some of the named plaintiffs have already had their information misused in the form of unauthorized transactions, suspicious spam calls, and information from credit reporting agencies that their PII has been found on the dark web. Plaintiffs bring causes of action for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, California Unfair Competition law, Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and for declaratory judgment The court found that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact to confer standing. Plaintiffs allege that their PII, including their full names and social security numbers, was stolen in the cyberattack. Some plaintiffs have reported unauthorized transactions and have been notified that their information was found on the dark web, while others have not yet noticed a misuse of their PII but fear future identity theft. The Ninth Circuit has found that the threat of identity theft, including the theft of social security numbers, can constitute an injury-in-fact, even if there is no indication that the PII had been misused. However, the court found that plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is dismissed with leave to amend because they must include allegations allowing the court to conclude that the threat of future injury is certainly impending. The court agreed with plaintiffs that Defendant owes them a duty to exercise reasonable care in the storage of their personal information. Nevada Revised Statutes Section 603.030 requires data security measures to protect personal information records from unauthorized access, acquisition, destruction, use, modification or disclosure. Defendant, as a corporation, financial institution, or retail operator, is a data collector. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant breached its duty by failing to encrypt their PII, storing their PII longer than necessary, inadequately testing and training its employees, deviating from industry standards such as those established by the Federal Trade Commission and National Institute of Standards and Technology, failing to implement processes such as multi-layer firewalls and endpoint detection, and notifying them of the breach promptly, among other things. The court found that plaintiffs have adequately pled facts supporting the breach element. The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the negligence claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine. Plaintiffs' negligence claim is sufficiently pled. The court found that the plaintiffs have adequately pled that an implied contract existed. Like the Smallman plaintiffs, the plaintiffs here were required to provide their PII to receive employment or hospitality services. They allege that a meeting of the minds occurred when the plaintiffs provided their PII to Defendant with the understanding that it would be adequately protected, and that Defendant's implied duty to protect their PII was included in Defendant's own Privacy Policy. The court disagreed with Defendant's argument that plaintiffs failed to claim a breach of any particular term because plaintiffs included specific allegations as to how Defendant failed to comply with applicable standards, such as by failing to encrypt their data, train its employees on cybersecurity protocols, follow FTC guidelines, or notify plaintiffs of the breach in a timely manner. The Employee Plaintiffs allege that they conferred a benefit on Defendant by providing their labor and PII with the understanding that Defendant would pay the costs for reasonable data privacy and security. The Customer Plaintiffs allege that they conferred a benefit to Defendant in the form of payment for services, and that at least some of the money paid was supposed to be used for data security. They assert that Riverside enriched itself and increased its own profits by saving the money that it reasonably should have spent to protect Plaintiffs’ PII Plaintiffs allege that their claim is brought in the alternative to all other claims and remedies at law, and they seek relief in the form of restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains. The court found plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim to be adequately pled. Plaintiff Laudonio and the California subclass assert that Defendant violated the California Consumer Privacy Act when it failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures to protect Plaintiffs' PII. Plaintiff Laudonio responded that she followed the CCPA's requirements because her initial complaint sought only actual damages and injunctive relief, not statutory damages. She then waited more than 30 days before filing the First Amended Complaint seeking statutory damages. The court agreed with Plaintiff and denied Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim based on pre-suit notice. The First Amended Complaint states that Plaintiff Laudonio and California Subclass Members paid Defendant money in exchange for goods or services and paid more than they would have based on the belief that Defendant would implement reasonable data security practices. This allegation is sufficient for standing. The court found that the determination of whether Defendant's public policy violation is outweighed by the utility of their conduct under the balancing test is a question more appropriately resolved at a later stage of this litigation. Because the court has found that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of the CCPA, as well as a violation of the unfair prong of the UCL, she has therefore alleged unlawful conduct that can serve as a basis for a claim under the UCL's unlawful prong. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated this provision by failing to disclose the material fact that its data security measures were inadequate and by violating statutes requiring data collectors to implement and maintain reasonably security measures to protect PII. The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss on most grounds. However, plaintiffs did not respond to Defendant's argument that their FTC violations were vague and conclusory. Thus, to the extent plaintiffs' NDTPA claim is premised on FTC violations, it is dismissed. To the extent that plaintiffs seek the court to declare that Defendant owed a duty, breached it, and caused injury, the claim is dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is dismissed with leave to amend due to a lack of factual allegations to demonstrate that future injury is certainly impending. The court ordered that the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiffs' negligence and contract claims are dismissed to the extent they rely on loss of time damages. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4h1Q3m from PacerMonitor.com ROUSE SERVICES: Mack's Junk Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mack's Junk Removal, LLC, Haxton Masonry, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rouse Services LLC, H&E Equipment Services Inc., HERC Holdings Inc., Herc Rentals Inc., Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, United Rentals Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Equipmentshare.com Inc., The Home Depot Inc., RB Global Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03565 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10276 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Rouse -- https://www.rouseservices.com/ -- is the industry's gold standard for appraisal valuations, used equipment sales support, and rental metrics benchmarking.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP Two City Place Drive Second Floor Saint Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 226-1015 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Cody McCracken, Esq. Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. Evelyn Riley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT AND LADUCA, LLP 2445 M St. NW Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Email: cmccracken@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (314) 662-2836 Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 854-3400 Email: cercone@rupppfalzgraf.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael W. Scarborough, Esq. VINSON AND ELKINS LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 979-6935 Email: mscarborough@velaw.com SABAI DESIGN: Evans Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SABAI DESIGN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10966 (N.D. Ill., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 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://sabai.design, 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 accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. 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. Sabai Design, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SALESFORCE INC: Failed to Protect Private Info, Tatum Says ---------------------------------------------------------- PEGGY TATUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC., and TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07688 (N.D. Cal., September 9, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other individuals who had their sensitive personal information, including, at minimum, names, dates of birth, and/or Social Security numbers, collectively, "personal information," disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising Defendants in or around May 2025. On August 26, 2025, TransUnion, one of Salesforce's clients, notified Plaintiff and other affected individuals about the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendants' failure to ensure that their servers and systems were adequately secure fell far short of their obligations and Plaintiff's and Class members' reasonable expectations for data privacy jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class member's personal information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting data breach, Plaintiff and Class members' privacy has been invaded, their personal information is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered fraud or identity theft, or face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff provided personal information in connection with seeking credit reporting services from, and transacting with, TransUnion. Salesforce, Inc. is a cloud-based software company providing its services to various corporate clients throughout the U.S. in sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development.[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 - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Whicker Sues Over Defective Refrigerators -------------------------------------------------------------- BIRJETTE WHICKER; ROMONDO JESSUP; RICHARD HILBURN; KEELY BOONE; and KELLY DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-15253 (D.N.J., Sept. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells defective consumer appliances throughout the United States, including certain refrigerators purchased by Plaintiffs and Class members. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Refrigerators suffer from a defect whereby the automatic ice maker tray cracks, causing water to drip into the ice bin and freeze, rendering the ice maker and dispenser unusable. Specifically, the ice maker is designed to fill an ice cube tray with water, allow the water to freeze into ice, invert the tray, twist and deform the tray to loosen the ice, and allow the ice to fall into a container from which it can be dispensed. However, the tray is made of a brittle plastic that cracks when it is twisted and deformed, which allows water to drip through the tray and into the container, says the suit. The Defendant does not offer individual ice trays to replace broken ice trays. Rather, if an ice tray cracks, the entire ice maker assembly must be replaced, which costs hundreds of dollars, the suit added. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products. The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel C. Edelman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montave, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 Email: dedelman@kgglaw.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Steet, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara Watkins, Esq. ROBRT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (844) 383-0565 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Bruno Ortega-Toledo, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com bortega@classlawdc.com SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- DUANE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MAMANGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02846 (W. Tenn., Sept. 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Yount was employed by the Defendant as a remote associate. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. provides claims and productivity management services. The Company offers claims administration, managed care, program management, workers compensation, liability, and other services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue N Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615-244-2202 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 415-3206 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Must Face Pay-to-Pay Fee Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as C. Sukari Hardnett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-01534 (AHA) (D.D.C.), Judge Amir H. Ali of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a putative class action challenging pay-to-pay fees. The Court denied Select Portfolio's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the homeowners sufficiently alleged claims under both the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and the D.C. Mortgage Lender and Broker Act (MLBA). Two D.C. homeowners sued Select Portfolio on behalf of a putative class, alleging the company charges unlawful pay-to-pay fees when borrowers make mortgage payments online or by phone. Select Portfolio is a residential mortgage servicer. Lenders and note holders pay Select Portfolio to act as their agent and exercise their rights and responsibilities. Select Portfolio provides borrowers the option of paying online or by phone, but it attaches a fee of up to $15 for such payments, often called a pay-to-pay fee. According to the amended complaint, processing a phone or online payment costs Select Portfolio less than 50 cents per transaction, and Select Portfolio profits from the difference. C. Sukari Hardnett and Lisa Dennis own property in D.C. with a mortgage that is serviced by Select Portfolio. They make their mortgage payments by phone or online, and Select Portfolio has accordingly charged them a pay-to-pay fee to do so. The homeowners brought this putative class action alleging Select Portfolio's practice of charging pay-to-pay fees violates the CPPA and the MLBA. Select Portfolio raised threshold issues as to each named plaintiff, arguing that Hardnett's claims are time-barred and that Dennis's claims are barred for failing to provide adequate pre-suit notice. The Court found neither argument convincing. Regarding timeliness, the Court explained that courts should hesitate to dismiss a complaint on statute of limitations grounds based solely on the face of the complaint. The amended complaint does not conclusively show that Hardnett's claims are time-barred. The complaint's language indicates these charges have been ongoing, stating that Hardnett makes payments over the phone and each time she does so, Select Portfolio charges her a pay-to-pay fee. Hardnett was not required to plead facts in anticipation of Select Portfolio's affirmative statute of limitations defense. Concerning pre-suit notice requirements, the Court noted that some courts have held that such notice provisions apply only to breach of contract claims, and not to statutory claims like Dennis brings. Even if Select Portfolio is correct that the notice provision applies here, the amended complaint specifically alleges Dennis made a written pre-suit demand on Select Portfolio informing it that the fees were unfair and requesting a refund. Select Portfolio again relies on documents outside the amended complaint, citing a pre-suit letter that Dennis sent. Select Portfolio argued the homeowners' CPPA claims fail because the company cannot be sued under the statute and the amended complaint does not allege conduct violating the statute. The Court disagreed on both points. The Court found that Select Portfolio acts as a merchant under the CPPA because it provides consumer services that are parts of the economic output of society. The homeowners allege that Select Portfolio performs services in connection with the property they own, including customer service obligations and other obligations assumed by the lenders. The amended complaint plausibly alleges that Select Portfolio provides services to borrowers and thus is a merchant within the meaning of the CPPA. Regarding violations, the Court explained that a merchant's conduct is a violation of the CPPA if the merchant misrepresented or failed to state a material fact. The homeowners have sufficiently alleged that Select Portfolio's practice of charging pay-to-pay fees is unfair and deceptive. The allegations include that Select Portfolio misleads borrowers by charging a fee of up to $15 for processing a payment when the cost of processing is, in fact, little to nothing, and there is no benefit to consumers in return. The Court rejected Select Portfolio's argument that the pay-to-pay fees cannot be unfair or deceptive as a matter of law because they are authorized by the mortgage agreements and a consent decree in another federal case. The quoted language in the agreements does not authorize pay-to-pay fees. The agreements' language expressly authorizes certain fees, but not pay-to-pay fees. Similarly, the provision addressing governing law says nothing to indicate pay-to-pay fees are authorized. Select Portfolio argued that the homeowners' MLBA claims fail because the statute does not provide a private cause of action and the homeowners do not allege conduct that violates the MLBA. The Court disagreed on both arguments. The Court concluded that the MLBA allows a private cause of action. Under District law, courts consider three factors to determine whether a statute creates a private right of action: (1) Whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether there is any indication of legislative intent to create such a remedy or deny one; and (3) Whether it is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy. All three factors are satisfied here. First, the homeowners are within the class for whose benefit the MLBA was enacted as borrowers of mortgage loans. Second, Section 26-1118(e) of the MLBA provides that nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preclude any individual or entity who suffers loss as a result of any violation of this chapter from maintaining an action to recover damages or restitution. Third, an implied cause of action is consistent with the purposes of the statutory scheme, which aims to protect mortgage borrowers from unfair and deceptive practices. Regarding the merits, the homeowners have sufficiently asserted violations of the MLBA. The homeowners allege Select Portfolio misled borrowers by charging fees that were not authorized by the mortgage agreements and engaged in a deceptive practice by failing to disclose that its costs to process payments are well below the amount of fees it charges. The homeowners also allege Select Portfolio's fees are not reasonable under the MLBA, claiming the company violated regulations by charging unreasonable fees that do not correlate with an actual service rendered by Select Portfolio. The Court denied Select Portfolio's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties are directed to meet, confer, and file a joint status report by September 24, 2025, proposing a schedule for next steps in this matter. The Court stayed discovery pending resolution of the motion. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dVuU4Jfrom PacerMonitor.com SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Giana Sues Over Production of Copyrighted Works ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN GIANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORP.; ROADGET BUSINESS PTE., LTD. d/b/a SHEIN; SHEIN TECHNOLOGY, LLC; SHEIN US SERVICES, LLC; AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08637 (C.D. Cal., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for copyright infringement and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case arises from Shein's use of sophisticated algorithmic systems or other standardized methods to transmit identical copies of copyrighted works to Shein's factories for mass production. Through Shein's pervasive infringement, surveillance, and misappropriation scheme, including, without limitation, the reproduction, distribution, display, and sale of products using the infringed or misappropriated images and designs, Shein has systematically infringed and continues to infringe copyrights owned by the Plaintiff and tens of thousands (if not more) of other persons similarly situated across the United States. Shein Distribution Corporation is a fashion and lifestyle online retailer, with a principal address located in Los Angeles, California. Roadget Business Pte., Ltd., doing business as Shein, is the parent company of Shein, headquartered in Singapore. Shein Technology, LLC is a fashion and lifestyle online retailer, with a principal address located in Los Angeles, California. Shein US Services, LLC is a fashion and lifestyle online retailer, with a principal address located in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 Email: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com - and - Derrick F. Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW PLLC 1140 3rd St. NE, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 289-7963 Email: derrick@mooreatty.com SKY ORGANICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKY ORGANICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07509 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 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://skyorganics.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 accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. 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. Sky Organics, LLC 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 SPECIALIZED LOAN: Must Face "Butler" FLSA Claims ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Tyzhima Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiff, v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-cv-01087-PAB-SBP (D.Colo.), Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Deny Class Certification. Plaintiff brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., the ArizonaWage Act, Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 23-350, et seq., on behalf of the Arizona Class, state common law breach of contract regarding the Nationwide Class, and common law unjust enrichment, pled in the alternative as to claim three, on behalf of the Nationwide Class. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and behalf of the FLSA Collective Class, comprised of all current and former hourly call center agents who worked for Defendant at any time during the past three years. Plaintiff also purports to represent all current and former hourly call center agents who worked for Defendant at any time in the State of Arizona during the applicable statutory period, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). In addition, she purports to represent a Rule 23 Nationwide Class comprised of all current and former hourly call center agents who worked for Defendant at any time during the applicable statutory period. Defendant's Business Operations Specialized Loan Servicing employs hundreds of Agents who work remotely in their homes to field inbound calls and perform a wide range of support services to those callers with questions and to provide customer, sales, and mortgage information. The company compensates Agents on an hourly basis and classifies them as non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specialized Loan Servicing requires Agents to work a minimum of eight hours per day, with an unpaid thirty-minute meal period, five days per week, for a minimum of forty hours per week. However, during some weeks, Agents work less than 40 hours per week. Alleged Violations Specialized Loan Servicing requires that Agents be phone-ready the moment their scheduled shift begins.This means that, before Agents' scheduled shift begins, Agents must load all of their essential work-related computer programs and applications so they can be prepared to take calls the moment their shift begins. This process can take fifteen to twenty minutes. If Agents fail to be phone-ready, Specialized Loan Servicing can subject them to poor performance evaluations, warnings, discipline, and possibly termination. The company instructs Agents to not clock in for their shifts until they are phone-ready or until they are nearly phone-ready. Specialized Loan Servicing requires that Agents follow the same procedure when they are clocking in and out of their lunch breaks. As a result, Agents return from their 30 minute meal period approximately three to five minutes early to log back in to Defendant's programs and software prior to resuming their shifts. Due to Agents performing pre- and mid-shift work off-the-clock, Specialized Loan Servicing's timekeeping systems do not accurately represent the time that Agents worked. The company fails to pay Agents for their off-the-clock work due to Agents being unpaid for the time that they spend in connection with the pre- and mid-shift boot-up, login, and log-out processes. Therefore, Plaintiff and similarly situated Agents regularly worked overtime and non-overtime hours for which they were not paid. Payment Structure Issues Specialized Loan Servicing's payment structure includes a base rate of pay as well as various routine and non-discretionary bonuses. Non-discretionary bonuses include attendance bonuses, quality assurance bonuses, and other incentive-based bonus payments. The company does not include the non-discretionary bonuses in Agents' regular rate of pay and resulting overtime rate premium. As a result, Specialized Loan Servicing did not pay the proper overtime rate under the FLSA. Court's Legal Analysis The Court noted that a motion to strike is a drastic remedy and is disfavored by the courts. A motion to strike class allegations under Rule 12(f) is even more disfavored because it requires a reviewing court to preemptively terminate the class aspects of litigation, solely on the basis of what is alleged in the complaint, and before plaintiffs are permitted to complete the discovery to which they would otherwise be entitled on questions relevant to class certification. Defendant's Arguments Specialized Loan Servicing moved to strike the class action allegations for the following reasons: (1) the Nationwide Class and Arizona Class are not ascertainable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); (2) common questions of law and fact do not predominate and the class action is not superior to other methods of adjudication pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3); (3) plaintiff does not have standing to bring claims on behalf of the Nationwide Class because she can only bring claims under Arizona law; and (4) plaintiff cannot maintain a Rule 23(b)(2) class because she seeks declaratory relief that the company's actions were unlawful and plaintiff cannot seek monetary damages. Ascertainability Ruling The Court found that Specialized Loan Servicing has not conclusively shown that plaintiff will be unable to establish facts that would make class treatment appropriate. Specifically, the company has not shown that it is impossible that the Nationwide and Arizona Classes are ascertainable. Plaintiff does identify objective criteria by which members of the class can be ascertained. For instance, plaintiff alleges that all call center agents: (1) are paid on an hourly basis; (2) classified as non-exempt employees; (3) use the same timekeeping system; (4) use the same computer programs; (5) are subject to the timekeeping and attendance policies that resulted in not being paid overtime compensation; and (6) have the primary job duty of providing assistance to the company's customers. Predominance and Superiority Analysis Regarding predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), the Court found it is not clear which states' laws would apply to the Nationwide Class claims, and the complaint does not identify which states' laws the claims are brought under. The parties do not discuss choice-of-law as it relates to the Nationwide Class claims; thus, the Court cannot determine whether variations in state law may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance. The Court found it appropriate to analyze predominance and superiority at the class certification stage, where plaintiff will be required to provide an extensive analysis of state law variations to reveal whether these pose insuperable obstacles. Even if the Nationwide Class claims did arise under the laws of several states, Specialized Loan Servicing fails to show that it is impossible that the proposed classes satisfy predominance and superiority requirements. Standing to Represent Nationwide Class The Court addressed the company's argument that plaintiff, who worked only in Arizona, does not have standing to represent a class that brings claims under the laws of states other than Arizona. The Court agreed with the holdings of circuit courts that have held that this argument is one that should be addressed at the Rule 23 class certification stage rather than as an Article III standing issue. Rule 23(b)(2) Certification Denial The Court granted the company's motion regarding Rule 23(b)(2) certification. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief declaring that Defendant violated the FLSA, Arizona Wage Act, breached contracts, and was unjustly enriched. The Court found that declaratory relief that merely requests that the defendant's conduct be declared unlawful is not proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). Because plaintiff's request for declaratory relief merely requests a declaration that defendant violated the law, it cannot support plaintiff's proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Court noted that plaintiff primarily seeks monetary damages, specifically, the full amount of damages and liquidated damages available by law, which cannot support a Rule 23(b)(2) class. Because plaintiff does not seek relief that can support a Rule 23(b)(2) class, the Court found that it is impossible to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class. Final Ruling Therefore, the Court ordered that Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Deny Class Certification is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denied the motion to strike regarding ascertainability, predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), and standing to represent a nationwide class. However, the Court granted the motion to strike plaintiff's class action allegations that seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2). A copy of the Court's decision is available athttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=5zA6EZ from PacerMonitor.com T20 WORLD: Wins Motion to Compel Arbitration in Flag Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Ahmad Ismael Ibrahim and Mohammed Tahir, Plaintiffs, v. Nassau County, T20 World Cup USA Inc., Gardaworld Security Services Management Company, Inc., John Doe 1-4, Jane Doe, and George Doe 1-3, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-CV-4888(EK)(SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke granted Defendant T20 World Cup USA Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration. The case arises from events during the summer 2024 International Cricket Council T20 Tournament held in Nassau County, New York. Plaintiff Ibrahim attended a match between Bangladesh and South Africa on June 10, 2024, where security confiscated a Palestinian flag he brought to display. He entered the venue and began a "call-and-response" chant stating "free Palestine," to which other patrons responded, resulting in his arrest for trespass and disorderly conduct. Plaintiff Tahir attended a match between Pakistan and Canada on June 11, 2024, and attempted to assist fellow patrons in displaying a Palestinian flag from their seats but was prevented from doing so by a Gardaworld security officer. Tahir was not ejected, arrested, or otherwise addressed by security. Although Plaintiffs state that large banners and flags were prohibited, they allege that only large Palestinian flags were barred” and that the flags of scores of other nations were proudly displayed by attendees and permitted by police, security officers, and the T20 Both plaintiffs used mobile tickets to enter the T20 Tournament matches they attended. T20's mobile app was the only way to enter the Event with a mobile ticket. Ticket purchasers were required to check a box affirming that they had read and agreed to the ticket terms and it was impossible to purchase tickets without affirmatively assenting to the Terms and Conditions. The Terms and Conditions contained an arbitration agreement that stated in bold, capitalized font: "THIS PURCHASE POLICY INCLUDES AN AGREEMENT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU AGREE TO SUBMIT ANY DISPUTE RELATED TO THE PURCHASE POLICY TO BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION RATHER THAN PROCEEDING IN COURT. IF YOU WANT TO OPT-OUT OF THIS MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION/ARBITRATION PROVISION BELOW DESCRIBES THE PROCEDURES YOU MUST FOLLOW TO DO SO. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION/ARBITRATION PROVISION ALSO INCLUDES A CLASS ACTION WAIVER, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU AGREE TO PROCEED WITH ANY DISPUTE INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION. THIS AGREEMENT ALSO INCLUDES A JURY WAIVER." Neither Ibrahim nor Tahir purchased his own ticket to the T20 Tournament. Ibrahim's brother, Ishaq, purchased tickets for himself and Ibrahim and used his phone to present the tickets to gain entry. Tahir was gifted a ticket by a player and accessed the ticket and gained entry to the Event via the App. Both plaintiffs denied ever actually possessing their tickets or reading the Terms and Conditions. On July 15, 2024, plaintiffs commenced this action against all defendants. On October 18, 2024, they filed an Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for violation of their First Amendment rights and New York State Constitutional Tort. Ibrahim asserted additional causes of action for false arrest in violation of both federal law and state common law, as well as malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs asserted their claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class that includes all persons who were barred from displaying a Palestinian flag at the T20 Tournament in Nassau County, New York, or who were prevented from viewing a Palestinian flag at the T20 Tournament in Nassau County, New York. On December 13, 2024, T20 filed the motion to compel arbitration asserting that the Arbitration Agreement required plaintiffs to pursue their claims in arbitration. In opposition, plaintiffs argued that: (1) the Arbitration Agreement was not sufficiently conspicuous, (2) they were not bound by the Arbitration Agreement because they did not purchase the tickets, and (3) their Section 1983 claims were not subject to arbitration. The Court determined that all parties were subject to the Arbitration Agreement. Although only T20 issued the tickets, plaintiffs' allegations established that Nassau County played a significant role in planning and producing the T20 Tournament and that the T20, Gardaworld and Nassau County entered into an agreement to work together to erect a cricket stadium on public Nassau County public parkland. All defendants worked together to promulgate and publicize rules and regulations concerning the T20 Tournament and worked hand in hand to enforce the unconstitutional ban on Palestinian flags. The Court found that plaintiffs were bound by the Arbitration Agreement despite not personally purchasing their tickets. The Court held that a ticket may constitute a contract even when the purchaser neither purchases nor sees the ticket. The Court determined that both Ibrahim and Tahir gained access to the T20 Tournament in a manner that required assent to the Arbitration Agreement, which was sufficient to establish they were both subject to the agreement. Regarding the conspicuousness of the arbitration clause, the Court rejected plaintiffs' arguments. When registering for an account to use the T20 mobile app, a user must affirmatively consent to the Terms and Conditions by clicking a toggle button located directly next to a statement reading "I confirm I have read, accepted and agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy." The phrases "Terms and Conditions" and "Privacy Policy" contained distinct hyperlinks that took the user to the corresponding agreement. The Arbitration Agreement appeared near the top of the webpage in bold, capital letters. According to the Court "The Arbitration Agreement encompassed the claims asserted. Each of plaintiffs' causes of action stemmed from their presentation or attempted presentation of flags at the T20 Tournament." This conduct was arguably prohibited by the Venue Rules, which were incorporated into the Arbitration Agreement and stated that signs and clothing unrelated to the Event, offensive, profane, political, commercial in nature, or otherwise deemed dangerous or inappropriate were prohibited. The Court rejected plaintiffs' assertion that McDonald v. City of West Branch provided clear guidance that a defendant cannot compel arbitration of a Section 1983 claim. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that statutory claims may be the subject of an arbitration agreement, enforceable pursuant to the FAA." The Court distinguished McDonald as addressing the enforcement and arbitrability of a collective bargaining agreement, which was not at issue in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=plYaGTfrom PacerMonitor.com TAPESTRY INC: "Merrell" ADA Class Suit Moved to Central California ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Richard Paul Merrell, Plaintiff, v. Tapestry, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-06671-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Judge Rita F. Lin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). In December 2023, Vivian Salazar, a resident of Contra Costa County, California, filed a class action lawsuit against Tapestry, Inc., a Maryland corporation with its headquarters in Maryland. Salazar alleged that Tapestry's website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 51, et seq. In her original and first amended complaint, Salazar alleged that Tapestry's website contained improperly coded form elements, which prohibited her and members of the putative class from completing purchases on the website and denied them the goods and services of Tapestry's brick-and-mortar retail stores. On June 24, 2025, the Court granted Salazar's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute Richard Paul Merrell, a resident of Riverside County, California, as the named plaintiff. The allegations in Merrell's second amended complaint largely resemble those in Salazar's first amended complaint, except that they concern Merrell's difficulties accessing the website and his local brick-and-mortar retail store in Riverside County, California. Tapestry moved to transfer this action to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Court found that transferring the case to the Central District of California is proper because this action could have been brought there, and Tapestry met its burden of showing that the balance of the Section 1404(a) factors weigh in favor of transfer. The Court determined that Merrell could have brought this action in the Central District of California. Under Section 1391(b)(2), a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Merrell's claims arise from his attempts to use Tapestry's website while he was residing in Riverside County. Merrell alleges that certain elements of the website were incompatible with his screen reader. When he attempted to add items to his online shopping cart, his screen reader did not announce that the items had in fact been added. Because Merrell could not verify whether his desired items were in his shopping cart, he was unable to complete purchases through the website. Additionally, his screen reader could not announce the content of the website's Pickup Availability window, precluding him from selecting a store for in-store pickup. These shortcomings prevented him from taking advantage of Tapestry's Pick Up In Store service, which otherwise would have allowed him to pick up his items at one of Tapestry's brick-and-mortar locations near his residence, including one at the Promenade Temecula in Temecula, California. Merrell observes that he is near Defendant's physical location in Temecula frequently, such that he intends on visiting Defendant's physical locations to pick up goods after selecting in-store locations for pick up on Defendant's website. The Court found that Tapestry met its burden of demonstrating that the balance of the factors in Section 1404(a) weigh in favor transferring this action to the Central District of California. Courts in this District routinely consider both private and public factors, including plaintiff's choice of forum, convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses, ease of access to the evidence, familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, feasibility of consolidation of other claims, any local interest in the controversy, and the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. According to the Court: The convenience of the witnesses is typically the most important factor in a motion to transfer. At the heart of Merrell's complaint is his allegation that due to accessibility issues on Tapestry's website, he was denied access to the services it offered in conjunction with Tapestry's brick and mortar stores, specifically the one in Temecula. Accordingly, in support of its transfer motion, Tapestry argues that hearing the case in the Central District will be more convenient for witnesses employed at Tapestry's brick-and-mortar stores located near Merrell's residence, who will be able to testify as to in-store policies relating to accessibility and Tapestry's Pick Up In Store service. These witnesses will provide crucial testimony going to the threshold issue of whether Merrell can establish a nexus between the services offered by Tapestry's website and its brick-and-mortar locations, as required to assert his ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act claims. The employee witnesses are important witnesses in this case. The Central District also appears to be more convenient for the parties. Although Salazar, as original named plaintiff, elected to bring suit in the Northern District, her choice of forum merits little weight given the circumstances present in this case, where Merrell, at all relevant times, resided in the Central District and the events giving rise to his claims all occurred in the Central District. In addition, Merrell and both parties' attorneys of record are located in the Central District, and Tapestry operates brick-and-mortar locations in the Central District. The fact that Merrell accessed Tapestry's website in the Central District in attempt to arrange pick-up of his items at a brick-and-mortar location within that District supports the conclusion that the Central District has a stronger interest in the dispute and offers easier access to the evidence. These considerations all favor transfer to the Central District. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CwYDOkfrom PacerMonitor.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gordon Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ELBERT GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01575-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., Sept. 8, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and private information of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and at least 4.4 million other Class Members' PII stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, Social Security numbers and other information constituting "personally identifiable information" or "PII." The Defendant discovered the breach as early as July 28, 2025 but did not announce the Data Breach until on or about August 26, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. As a result of TransUnion's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiff' and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII have been exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the fact that the compromised PII is likely already being sold on the dark web, says the suit. TransUnion operates as a credit reporting agency. The Company offers consumer reports, risk scores, analytical services, and decisioning capabilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Aylstock, Esq. Maury Goldstein, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com mgoldstein@awkolaw.com - and - Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD THOMAS, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10511 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former clients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. TransUnion operates as a credit reporting agency. The Company offers consumer reports, risk scores, analytical services, and decisioning capabilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tobin Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMES J. TOBIN, IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10515 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against TransUnion for its failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information which, as a direct and proximate result of such failures, was accessed by one or more malicious third parties and compromised. According to the complaint, TransUnion failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to protect the PII of Plaintiff and class members, particularly in its reliance on third-party vendors. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of criminal mischief—risks which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the suit. Trans Union LLC operates as a global information and insights company. The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk management, marketing, and other related solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 310 S. County Farm Rd., Ste. H Wheaton, IL 60187 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Email: jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market St., Ste. 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com TWC 2022: Foy Sues Over Sex-Based Discrimination & Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEE FOY, HEATHER GESSLING, PENNY GREEN, TIFFANY PAROTTO, and JENNIFER VANDEWATER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWC 2022, INC. and INTERNATIONAL HEALTH BRANDS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61823 (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for sex-based discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful employment practices against the Plaintiffs by allegedly terminating their employment based on their gender. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not have a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for eliminating the Plaintiffs' employment. As a result of the Defendants' action, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress. TWC 2022, Inc. is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in St. Petersburg, Florida. International Health Brands, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place of business in Coral Springs, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles M. Eiss, Esq. Nhu Cao, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L. 550 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 600 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 914-7890 Facsimile: (855) 423-5298 Email: chuck@icelawfirm.com nhu@icelawfirm.com ULTIMATE AUTO SERVICE: Jarillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultimate Auto Service, Inc. The case is styled as Jesus Marure Jarillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ultimate Auto Service, Inc., Case No. 25STCV26790 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ultimate Auto Service, Inc. is a mechanic in Winnipeg, Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com UNITED SERVICES: Court Clarifies Filed-Rate Doctrine Questions -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Christopher Wright, Robert Manning, Elliot Chefitz, and Joshua Steiss, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Services Automobile Association and USAA General Indemnity Company, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-11155-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a memorandum clarifying the controlling legal questions for the First Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether the filed-rate doctrine bars Plaintiffs' insurance overcharge claims. On May 15, 2024, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Defendants asked the Court for an order certifying an interlocutory appeal, which Plaintiffs opposed. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on August 14, 2024, following which the Court granted it, finding that whether the filed-rate doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The specific question on which Defendants sought review was whether the filed-rate doctrine bars plaintiffs' claim that they were overcharged for insurance in violation of Massachusetts law. On August 11, 2025, the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order requesting the district court to enter a memorandum specifying the controlling question or questions that led the district court to grant Section 1292(b) certification and to provide any additional commentary or analysis the district court feels might aid the court in resolving the petition before it. Following the entry of the order, each of the parties filed a response to the inquiry. Defendants took the position that the controlling question here is whether the filed-rate doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims and assert that the question requires the resolution of two separate questions of law about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion: (1) whether the filed-rate doctrine bars claims that challenge rates set by state as opposed to federal agencies, and (2) whether the doctrine bars claims that are pleaded as challenges to the defendant's conduct in setting rates, rather than the regulator's conduct in approving them. In their response, Plaintiffs suggested that trying to identify controlling questions of law is fruitless and asked that the Court reconsider its order allowing an interlocutory appeal and instead either certify the issues to the Supreme Judicial Court or withdraw its certification Order and allow the parties to proceed with discovery. The Court agreed that Defendants have correctly identified the controlling question, that is, whether the filed-rate doctrine bars the relief Plaintiffs seek, in which case Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. To be more precise, however, the Court submitted to the First Circuit Court of Appeals that this raises three distinct but interrelated questions: 1. When a federal court, sitting in diversity, needs to determine whether the filed-rate doctrine applies to bar a claim, should it look to state law or federal common law to determine whether the filed-rate doctrine applies to Massachusetts state agencies? 2. If federal common law is the appropriate source of law, does the federal filed-rate doctrine apply to bar claims that implicate rates set by Massachusetts state agencies, or does it apply solely to those set by federal agencies? 3. If federal common law would apply the filed-rate doctrine to rates set by Massachusetts state agencies, is the doctrine quasi-preemptive, such that it applies to broadly bar legal or equitable challenges that implicate filed rates, as Defendants contend, or does it apply only to direct challenges to the rates themselves, as Plaintiffs contend? The Court noted that it agrees with USAA that federal and state case law reflects a substantial basis for differences of opinion regarding the filed-rate doctrine and, in particular, whether it might be an exception from ordinary Erie principles. Moreover, if Defendants' positions are correct, the Court was wrong in denying the motion to dismiss and this case is over. As such, the Court certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. The Court also submitted that, as a practical matter, the Court of Appeals should resolve these issues now, as it makes little sense for the parties to expend additional time and resources on this litigation. The dispositive questions are purely legal, and requiring the case to go forward without the Court of Appeals first addressing the issues will not result in any further factual or legal development that will change the nature of the inquiry. The Court of Appeals will necessarily be called upon to decide whether the filed-rate doctrine applies here and whether it precludes all of Plaintiffs' requested remedies as a matter of law. The Court believed that the requirements for interlocutory review have been satisfied and referred the Court of Appeals to the more fulsome discussion on these requirements in its order granting Defendants' request for review. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wrWjDc from PacerMonitor.com UNITED STATES: Ramos Appeals Denied Attorney Fees Order to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTA RAMOS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for attorney fees in the lawsuit entitled Crista Ramos, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01554-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Ramos suit was initiated in March 2018. The Ramos Plaintiffs challenged the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) terminations of four countries: Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Sudan. In August 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint which, inter alia, consolidated Plaintiffs Ramos and Bhattarai cases. The government moved to dismiss, largely based on mootness. The Court granted the motion, agreeing with the government that the claims challenging the TPS terminations were moot. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which Judge Edward M. Chen denied on July 16, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Ramos, et al. v. Noem, et al., Case No. 25-5739, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 10, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 15, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on September 23, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on October 23, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 3, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CRISTA RAMOS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Esq. UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW Center for Immigration Law and Policy 385 Charles E. Young Drive, East Box 951476 Los Angeles, CA 90095 - and - Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq. NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK 1030 S. Arroyo Parkway, Suite 106 Pasadena, CA 91105 - and - Emilou MacLean, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Eva Lucia Bitran, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3400 Central Avenue, Suite 230 Riverside, CA 92506 Defendants-Appellees KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. are represented by: Christopher Marisak Lynch, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L. Street NW Washington, DC 20530 USHEALTH ADVISORS: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Sessoms Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Cynthia Michelle Sessoms, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00580-BO-BM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Mar. 5, 2025, the Defendant filed a corrected motion to compel arbitration and a corrected motion to stay. On Aug. 22, 2025, Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Defendant's motion to stay is denied as moot. The Court concludes that because the Defendant is not a third-party beneficiary, and the benefits it receives are incidental, it may not enforce the arbitration provision in the agreement. The motion to compel arbitration is therefore denied. The appellate case is entitled Cynthia Sessoms v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, Case No. 25-2086, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee CYNTHIA MICHELLE SESSOMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael L. Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, PA 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 - and - David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 Defendant-Appellant USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC is represented by: Jeffrey Aaron Backman, Esq. Ronald A. Charlot-Aviles, Esq. Roy Taub, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER PA 200 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Telephone: (954) 491-1120 (704) 492-6646 V.F. CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired V.F. Corporation (NYSE: VFC) securities between October 30, 2023 and May 20 2025. VFC is an apparel, footwear, and accessory company that sells outdoor, active, and workwear products in the Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that V.F. Corporation (VFC) Misled Investors About its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants misled investors regarding the Company's plans to rebuild the Vans brand, including reportedly positive results from a significant inventory reset in early 2024, the appointment of a new Vans president, and a myriad of new product launches and go-to-market strategies, by highlighting sequential revenue growth in the Vans brand. Plaintiff alleges, however, that defendants concealed material adverse facts concerning the true state of VFC's turnaround plans; notably, that additional significant reset actions would be necessary to return the Vans brand to growth, resulting in significant setbacks to Vans' revenue growth trajectory that were neither contemplated nor cautioned by defendants. On May 21, 2025, VFC reported a significant decline in Vans' growth trajectory, which fell from an 8% loss in the third quarter to a 20% loss in the fourth quarter, noting the decline would continue through the next quarter. On this news, the price of VFC's common stock fell from $14.43 per share on May 20, 2025, to $12.15 per share on May 21, 2025, or approximately 15.8%. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against V.F. Corporation. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers with the court by November 12, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Children's Online Privacy Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- E.G., a minor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY; DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.; and DISNEY ENTERTAINMENT OPERATIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07359 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff consumed the Defendant's YouTube videos which were not adequately marked as being 'made for kids' on Defendant's various YouTube channels and which resulted in children having their data being used for targeted advertisements by third parties as well as those same minors being served advertisements by Defendant itself in violation of federal, state and common law causes of action. The Walt Disney Company operates as an entertainment and media enterprise company. The Company's business segments includes, media networks, parks and resorts, studio entertainment, consumer products, and interactive media. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (202) 557-1221 Facsimile: (973) 232-0887 Email: byagman@shnlegal.com WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shareholder Suit over IPO ------------------------------------------------------ Webtoon Entertainment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 13, 2025, that it is facing a September 5, 2024 putative class action lawsuit together with its directors, and the underwriters of the company's initial public offering completed on June 28, 2024 in the federal court for the Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO Prospectus and its Registration Statement on Form S-1 relating to its IPO. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On October 10, 2024, the court ordered that the defendants are not required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, deferring any response until after the court rules on any motion by a purported class member to serve as lead plaintiff. On December 12, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 3, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on March 4, 2025, the company, its directors, and the underwriters of the IPO moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 11, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion to dismiss, and on March 18, 2025, the company, its directors, and the underwriters filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. is a majority-owned subsidiary of NAVER Corporation, a leading online and web-comic platform service company. WINCHESTER CARPET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Winchester Carpet & Rug, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10838 (N.D. Ill., September 9, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.rugs-direct.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. Plaintiff Ford made an attempt to complete a purchase on Rugs-direct.com on June 9, 2025 after she searched Google for online stores offering area rugs. However, as she navigated the site and attempted to complete her purchase, she encountered several accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her experience. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some 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 Winchester Carpet & Rug's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Winchester Carpet & Rug, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of rugs along with home decor items including pillows, poufs, wall art, doormats, baskets, floor cushions, and throws.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law WOODSTREAM CORP: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07298 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.dynatrap.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of 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 Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Woodstream Corporation manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife caring and control products. The Company offers rodent and insect traps, live animal cage traps, animal repellents, fertilizers, and low toxic pesticides for lawns and gardens. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal XANDR INC: Porcuna Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------- MARISSA PORCUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XANDR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-07385 (N.D. Cal., Sept 2, 2025) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knowingly and systematically transmitted sensitive user data intercepted from U.S. websites to Temu, a Chinese e-commerce platform, which has been the subject of widespread reports linking it to China's state intelligence apparatus. The Plaintiff did not consent to the interception, enrichment, or foreign transmission of her browsing data. Xandr's conduct caused Plaintiff concrete and particularized harm, including the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal information to a foreign entity, the invasion of her privacy, and the loss of control over how and where her health-related behavior was shared and used, says the suit. The Xander Group, Inc. provides investment services. The Company invests in infrastructure, hospitality, entertainment, retail, and real estate sectors. The Xander Group serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Silverkorn, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 Email: bsilverkorn@edelson.com YAMAHA MOTOR: Ellert Files Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Charles Ellert, Tosin Adesina, Aaron Dombeck, George Doukas, Chad Whitaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01588-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla., Aug. 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. -- https://yamaha-motor.com/ -- is a Japanese mobility manufacturer that produces motorcycles, motorboats, outboard motors, and other motorized products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Geoffrey S. Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. Steven Calamusa, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, PA 4114 Northlake Blvd. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone: (561) 333-3333 Email: GStahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com scalamusa@fortheinjured.com - and - Joshua Zipper, Esq. SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A. 7777 Glades Rd., Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Phone: (561) 477-7800 Email: jzipper@sbwh.law ********* 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 ***