250929.mbx

250929.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 29, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 194 Headlines 1316 Broadway Chicken: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages 356 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS: Ozburn Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri 41-06 BELL BLVD BAKERY: Mesa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Sale Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 4, 2026 ALBERTSONS COS: Faces Class Suit Over Allergens in Body Wash ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Transfers Gress Suit From Ohio to Minnesota ALTRIA GROUP: IPPs Seek Class Certification Reply Brief ALTRIA GROUP: IRPs Seek to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal AMAZON.COM: Court Partially Denies Motion to Dismiss "Mbadiwe" AMN SERVICES: Guevara FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. California BANNER HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 26 BARCLAYS BANK: Wins Motion to Force Arbitration in "Bennett" BEE SWEET: Bid for Class Cert in Amaro Suit Extended to Oct. 31 BOEING CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Air India Accident BRUCKNER TRUCK: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Toss Eggleston Suit BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Torres Alleges C3.AI INC: Bid to Dismiss Reckstin Family Securities Suit Pending CDK GLOBAL: Court Approves $185MM Attys' Fee in Lopp Class Suit CHARLES BARATTA: Court Bifurcates Discovery in VanderSloot Suit CHART INDUSTRIES: M&A Investigates Sale to Baker Hughes CHILDREN'S PLACE: "Gonzalez" Suit Remains Pending in Calif. CUSTOM MOLDED: Anders Seeks Conditional Status of Collective DAVID L. GITLIN: CFE Investco Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty DH INSURANCE GROUP: McClain Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida DISNEY DTC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Tracking Software DK HOUSEHOLD: Douglass Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement DOCUSIGN INC: "Weston" Securities Suit Remains Pending DOW INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 28 EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought EAST CENTRAL: Court Remands Moser Data Breach Suit to State Court ENTERGY CORPORATION: Bethea Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Louisiana EVRY JEWELS: Settles False Advertising Class Lawsuit for $3.5MM FEDERAL EXPRESS: Alfred Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FLUOR CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations FRED MEYER STORES: Leach Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FRESNO STATE: Court Approves Title IX Settlement for Women Athletes FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Reidt Seeks to Certify Class Action FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Bid to Clarify Class Definition OK'd GENERAL MOTORS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 8 GETAWAY TAMPA BAY: Bowles Sues Over Failure to Pay Servers GLOBE LIFE: Faces Class Action for Denying Life Insurance Claims GOOGLE LLC: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Anderson" GOOGLE LLC: Wins Partial Victory in "Almond" AI Training Suit GREAT PLAINS: Bighead Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Deny Class Certification HADICO HOLDINGS: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property HEIDELBERG MATERIALS: Amison Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages HEIGHTS FINANCE: Discovery Scheduling Order Entered in Alexander HEIGHTS FINANCE: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Oct. 22 HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Antitrust Class Action Suit HOME DEPOT: Castellanos Suit Transferred to D. Arizona HOME DEPOT: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Franklin" HUT CAROLINAS: Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 5, 2026 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Knight Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime INNOVAGE HOLDING: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Securities Suit IPS NATIONWIDE INC: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. IRON MOUNTAIN: Class Cert Bid Filing in First J Due July 15, 2026 JEFF ZMUDA: Jensen Bid to Appoint Class Counsel Tossed KANSAS: Court Confirms Dismissal of Salmon Suit With Prejudice KBR INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud KEVIN COPPINGER: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Response KEVIN STITT: Wins Summary Judgment v. Thomas KIA MOTORS: Appeals Court Revives Class Suit on Theft-Prone Cars KIMBERLY-CLARK: "Rosenwald" Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Defects LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Firefighter Gear Suit LASERSHIP INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action LGCY POWER: Class Cert Hearing in Dounane Set for Sept. 22, 2026 LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass LORETTO REST: Parties Must File Status Report by Nov. 24 LOUISIANA CHILDREN'S: Class Settlement Final Hearing Set Nov. 7 LOVESAC CO: Continues to Defend Nguyen Class Suit in California MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Class Settlement Deal in Beck Gets Initial Nod MANHATTAN LUXURY: Court Wants More Settlement Filings by Oct. 1 META PLATFORMS: Loses Bid to Overturn Jury Verdict in "Frasco" Suit METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Illinois Securities Suit MOUNTAIN RESTAURANT: Marino Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: NY Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit NESPRESSO USA INC: Hooshdaran Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California NESPRESSO USA: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages NEVADA: Parents of Students Defeat Bid to Dismiss IDEA Class Suit NEXT BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Targgart Securities Class Suit NOVA SCOTIA: Proposes to Settle Deaf School Class Action Lawsuit NVE BANCORP: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bell Suit OOMA INC: Continues to Defend " Bachhuber" Suit OOMA INC: Continues to Defend "Chiu" Suit PHILIP AND LORENZO PLUMBING: de Leon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PINPOINT OFFERS: Salamipour Seeks Certification of Class Action PIONEER VALLEY REFRIGERATED: Cornine Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Codrington Suit Removed to S.D. New York PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC: Cox Sues Over Refusal to Pay Overtime QUEST HEALTH SOLUTIONS: Murch Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida RAWLINGS COMPANY: Wins Motion to Dismiss "Dascenzo" REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over False Biodegradable Claims RIKERS WEST: 13 Actions Referred to Magistrate Judge SAKS OFF 5TH: Erdos-Major Suit Removed to S.D. California SALESFORCE INC: Young Seeks to File Docs Under Seal SALESFORCE INC: Young Suit Seeks Class Certification SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Weathington Suit Removed to C.D. California SANTA ELENA HOLDINGS: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Barriers SAROYAN LUMBER COMPANY: Noyola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Loses Bid to Stay Conejo Suit SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Settlement in Mindeguia Suit Has Prelim. Nod SEQUOIA GROUP: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $8.7MM SHADE STORE: Crowder Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply SILVERGATE CAPITAL: $7.4M in Fees and Costs OK'd in Securities Suit SINA CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y. SMG FOOD: Ordono Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines SNOWFLAKE INC: Continues to Defend Montana Data Breach Suit SNOWFLAKE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Discovery Sched Order Entered in Alexander SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Li Suit Gets Initial Nod STACKS ESPRESSO: Parties Must File Status Report by Dec. 2 STAGECOACH SOUTH: Charity Gets GBP3.7MM Unclaimed Settlement Funds STAPLES INC: Rubin Suit Removed to D. New Jersey SURREY REALTY: Suit Seeks to Certify Non-Supervisory Worker Class TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Crenshaw Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas TUFT & NEEDLE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Oct. 10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Superior Court Greenlights Discrimination Suit WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Vang Suit Removed to E.D. California WELLS CONSULTING: Carr Suit Removed to S.D. Florida WELLS FARGO: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Mortgage Lawsuit WELLS FARGO: Settles DEI Hiring Practices Class Action Lawsuit WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS: More Time to File Class Cert. Sought WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks Leave to File Amended Class Cert Bid XACTUS LLC: Cinner Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification XACTUS LLC: Cinner Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal XTO ENERGY: Kriley Amended Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd YELP INC: Casanova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Agent Referral Practices ********* 1316 Broadway Chicken: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Armon Gonzalez, and Sekoa Keita, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. 1316 Broadway Chicken Corp. d/b/a Popeyes, Zamir Doe and Gamal Doe, Case No. 1:25-cv-05213 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") allege that they are entitled to: unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the overtime bonus for overtime hours they worked was willful and lacked a good faith basis because Defendants set Plaintiffs' work schedules and were aware that the plaintiffs have each typically been working in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants also failed to pay plaintiff Gonzalez an additional hour's pay at the minimum wage for each day that he worked a shift lasting in excess of ten hours from start to finish ("spread-of-hours premium"), in violation of the NYLL and Supporting regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks at Popeyes. The Defendant Popeyes owns and operates two chicken restaurants in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com andrew@thesamuellawfirm.com 356 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS: Ozburn Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 356 Capital Investments LLC. The case is styled as Paul Ozburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 356 Capital Investments LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00724-DGK (W.D. Mo., Sept. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 365 Capital -- https://www.365capital.com/ -- is an independent private equity firm focused on well-positioned companies, headquartered in or near the Netherlands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tylor Whitham, Esq. WHITHAM LAW FIRM 12120 State Line Rd., Ste. Box 265 Leawood, KS 66209 Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (816) 522-3399 Email: tylor@whithamlawfirm.com 41-06 BELL BLVD BAKERY: Mesa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Carlos Martinez Mesa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 41-06 BELL BLVD BAKERY LLC (D/B/A MARTHA'S COUNTRY BAKERY), GEORGE STERTSIOS AND TONY ZANNIKOS, Case No. 1:25-cv-05191 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked long days as a baker at the bakery. The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a Bakery located in Bayside, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Sale Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accretive Capital LLC. The case is styled as Kenny Sale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accretive Capital LLC Doing business as: Benzinga, Case No. 2:25-cv-12940-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich., Sept. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Accretive Capital LLC, doing business as Benzinga -- https://www.benzinga.com/ -- operates as a financial news and media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 4, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL AALAND, on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00637-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Peterson entered an order setting trial date and pretrial schedule: Event Date Trial: June 28, 2027 Deadline for amended pleadings: Dec. 1, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file May 4, 2026 motion for class certification and report of class certification expert: Reports of expert witnesses under Dec. 17, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Pretrial conference: June 17, 2027 Albertsons is an American grocery company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qnzePT at no extra charge.[CC] ALBERTSONS COS: Faces Class Suit Over Allergens in Body Wash ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Teresa Flores has filed a class action lawsuit against Albertsons Companies Inc. Why: Flores claims Albertsons falsely advertises its Signature Care Sensitive Skin Body Wash as being hypoallergenic and formulated for sensitive skin. Where: The Albertsons class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims that Albertsons falsely advertises its Signature Care Sensitive Skin Body Wash as being hypoallergenic and formulated for sensitive skin, despite containing known allergens. Plaintiff Teresa Flores claims Albertsons misleads consumers into believing the body wash is comparable to Dove Sensitive Skin Body Wash, which does not contain the allergens in question. "Defendant's claim that the Product is hypoallergenic and formulated for sensitive skin and comparable to Dove Sensitive Skin Body Wash is false and misleading to reasonable consumers," the Albertsons class action lawsuit states. Flores wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased the Signature Care Sensitive Skin Body Wash for personal, household or family use. Albertsons body wash contains two common allergens, class action lawsuit claims Flores argues the body wash contains Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and Methylisothiazolinone (MI), two common allergens that can cause allergic reactions in individuals with sensitive skin. Methylisothiazolinone was named allergen of the year in 2013 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society, a group of 2,500 health care professionals focused on advancing care for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and related inflammatory skin diseases, the Albertsons class action lawsuit states. Flores claims Albertsons intended for consumers to rely on its representation that the body wash is hypoallergenic and that it is reasonable for consumers to do so. "Consumers lack the ability to test or independently ascertain the accuracy of a consumer product label or its potential to cause ACD at the point of sale," the Albertsons class action lawsuit argues. "Reasonable consumers must and do rely on companies to honestly report the nature of a product's characteristics or ingredients." Flores claims Albertsons is guilty of breaching express warranty and violating California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In another class action lawsuit, Albertsons recently asked a federal judge to dismiss a case alleging its Signature Select Fruit & Grain bars are deceptively labeled as naturally flavored. The plaintiff is represented by Jennifer L. MacPherson, Craig W. Straub and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal P.C. The Albertsons class action lawsuit is Flores v. Albertsons Companies Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02476-JAM-JDP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Transfers Gress Suit From Ohio to Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kim Gress, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-1774 (N.D. Ohio), Judge J. Philip Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio grants the Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Kim Gress filed this class action lawsuit following a data breach earlier this year. Some 30 similar actions are pending in the District of Minnesota. Defendant moves to transfer the case to that forum, and Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. According to the Court, district courts balance multiple often-competing factors when weighing a motion to transfer venue: the convenience for witnesses, the location of operative facts, the ability to compel unwilling witnesses, the interests of justice, the ease of accessing sources of proof, convenience of the parties, and the plaintiff's choice of forum. The Court noted that if a change of venue serves merely to shift the inconvenience from one party to another, a change of venue is generally not warranted. The Court found that all factors point to transfer of the case. Although Plaintiff chose to file suit in the Northern District of Ohio, she does not oppose transfer. Given the large number of similar cases already pending in the District of Minnesota, the convenience of the parties and witnesses favor transfer, as does judicial economy. For all these reasons, the Court found that the interests of justice support transfer of this case to the District of Minnesota. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion to transfer and ordered the Clerk to transfer this action to the District of Minnesota. A copy of the Court's Order and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=036rpS from PacerMonitor.com. ALTRIA GROUP: IPPs Seek Class Certification Reply Brief ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al. (RE JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file IPPs' reply memorandum of law in support of motion for class certification, IPPs' memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendants' motion to exclude the overcharge models and damages opinions of Dr. Gareth Macartney, and the supporting reply declaration of Robin F. Zwerling and accompanying exhibits provisionally under seal. On Aug. 6, 2021, the Court entered the stipulated amended protective order, which prohibits any party from filing material designated "Confidential," "Highly Confidential," or Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel Only" absent "written permission from the Designating Party" or a "Court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons." On Sept. 26, 2025 the parties are to provide the Court with a consolidated chart identifying what information should remain under seal for the court’s consideration. IPPs take no position at this time on whether any portion of the aforementioned materials satisfy the requirements for sealing and reserve the right to challenge any confidentiality designation under the Protective Order, as well as the sealability of these documents under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLXtXi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin F. Zwerling, Esq. Justin M. Tarshis, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 E-mail: rzwerling@zsz.com jtarshis@zsz.com - and - Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Kate M. McGuire, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com burt@whafh.com isquithlaw@gmail.com - and - Merle C. Meyers, Esq. Michele Thompson, Esq. MEYERS LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Montgomery St. Suite 1010 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-7500 E-mail: mmeyers@meyerslawgroup.com mthompson@meyerslawgroup.com ALTRIA GROUP: IRPs Seek to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al (RE JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs ("IRPs") will move the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, and the Court's July 25, 2025 order modifying sealing procedures for Daubert briefing and the remainder of class certification motion, for an administrative order to conditionally file under seal: -- IRPs' reply in support of motion for class certification, dated Sept. 8, 2025 and supporting papers; and -- Exhibits 97-110 to the reply declaration of Elana Katcher in further support of IRPs' motion for class certification, dated June 20, 2025. Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exHgU0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq. CERA LLP 50 California St., Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com cdirksen@cerallp.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: David I. Gelfand, Esq. Jeremy J. Calsyn, Esq. Nowell D. Bamberger, Esq. Caleb J. Robertson, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202)974-1500 Facsimile: (202)974-1999 E-mail: dgelfand@cgsh.com jcalsyn@cgsh.com nbamberger@cgsh.com cjrobertson@cgsh.com - and - Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. James M. Rosenthal, Esq. Matthew Skanchy, Esq. Alysha Bohanon, Esq. Jenna Pavelec, Esq. Moira K. Penza, Esq. Jeremy Barber, Esq. WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4000 Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com jrosenthal@wilkinsonstekloff.com mskanchy@wilkinsonstekloff.com abohanon@wilkinsonstekloff.com jpavelec@wilkinsonstekloff.com mpenza@wilkinsonstekloff.com jbarber@wilkinsonstekloff.com - and - Lauren Sachi Wulfe, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLC 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4211 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: lauren.wulfe@arnoldporter.com - and - Mark C. Hansen, Esq. Michael J. Guzman, Esq. David L. Schwarz, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: mhansen@kellogghansen.com mguzman@kellogghansen.com dschwarz@kellogghansen.com AMAZON.COM: Court Partially Denies Motion to Dismiss "Mbadiwe" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Tafari Mbadiwe and Rachel Miller on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-CV-9542 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint. The court ruled that Plaintiffs have antitrust standing under the Associated General Contractors test and that most state law claims can proceed, while dismissing several claims as untimely or failing to state a claim. Amazon's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, with the majority of Plaintiffs' claims across 29 states surviving dismissal. Amazon acts as the world's largest online retailer through various channels including its website, mobile application, and other devices. Consumers can purchase two types of products on the Amazon Platform: products sold by Amazon directly and products sold by third-party sellers. Until about March 2019, the Business Solutions Agreement included a provision called the "Price Parity Restriction" or "PPR," which required each third-party seller to maintain parity between the products offered on the Amazon website and those offered on the third-party sellers' own sales channels. The Price Parity Restriction clause meant that the purchase price and every other term of sale is at least as favorable to Amazon Site users as the most favorable terms via the third-party sellers' Sales Channels. Amazon deployed various mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Price Parity Restriction. Amazon automated scans of competitor e-commerce platforms for the third-party sellers' products." If the product was being offered on a non-Amazon site at a rate lower than that offered on the Amazon Platform, then Amazon would alert that third-party seller of its purported non-compliance with the PPR, sometimes within minutes of a violation. Amazon could then "sanction" that third-party seller by suspending its right to sell on the Amazon Platform or making its products appear less prominently in the search results on the Amazon Platform. Plaintiffs' Claims Plaintiffs are consumers who paid supra-competitive prices for products sold on e-commerce platforms other than Amazon because of an agreement or business combination that each of the third-party sellers were required to enter into with Amazon in order to sell their products on Amazon. The two named Plaintiffs are both residents of the State of New York. Tafari Mbadiwe purchased some toothpaste and a moisturizer on Walmart.com on December 3, 2018. Rachel Miller purchased a cleanser on Sephora.com on February 11, 2019. Plaintiffs allege that the Price Parity Restriction is both a per se violation and an unreasonable restraint of trade under the rule of reason" in violation of state antitrust laws. Because of the PPR, third-party sellers' product prices were the price floor wherever those products were sold online, and those price floors were increased due to Amazon's high fees. Court's Analysis on Antitrust Standing The court found that Plaintiffs sufficiently plead injuries that are 'inextricably intertwined' with Amazon's PPR-scheme to satisfy the proximate-causation factor under AGC. Amazon's scheme regarding the third-party seller fees and the PPR corrupted the separate market between Plaintiffs and Amazon's competitors in order to achieve Amazon's illegal ends for competitive advantage. The court determined that Amazon's PPR-scheme distinguishes itself from other Second Circuit antitrust cases where plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing under AGC in several ways." First, the PPR "enriched" Amazon such that Amazon had a financial stake in consumers' transactions with non-Amazon retailers. Second, the PPR deprived the third-party sellers of the kind of independent decision-making discretion that would otherwise "snap the chain of causation linking Plaintiffs' injury to Amazon's misconduct. Amazon argued that Plaintiffs lack standing under the umbrella theory, but the court noted that Plaintiffs specifically disclaim any reliance on the umbrella theory." The court stated that Plaintiffs instead argue that the umbrella theory is not applicable here because the market participant making the decision at what price to sell the products at issue is an entity other than the non-conspiring retailer. Regarding timeliness, the court applied American Pipe tolling and cross-jurisdictional tolling principles. The court found that American Pipe tolling applies here because when the First Amended Complaint in this action was filed, a class certification motion in Frame-Wilson had not yet been filed or decided. The court established a presumption that cross-jurisdictional tolling applies, absent state-specific considerations. The court stated: I agree with the well-reasoned decision in LIBOR, and find that cross-jurisdictional tolling applies, absent state-specific considerations. In other words, there is a rebuttable presumption that states that have adopted American Pipe tolling would also adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling. Per Se Violations vs. Rule of Reason The court agreed with Amazon that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a per se violation based on a horizontal agreement. The PPR-scheme presents an issue of factual complexity that does not lend itself to a per se standard without need to show anticompetitive effects in a relevant market. For vertical agreements, the court analyzed each state's laws individually. For some states like Maryland and Minnesota, the court found that vertical price-fixing agreements constitute per se violations under state law. For other states with harmonization statutes requiring alignment with federal law, the court applied the rule of reason standard consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. The court conducted a comprehensive analysis of claims under the laws of 29 states, examining antitrust standing, statute of limitations, and substantive requirements for each jurisdiction. For Arizona, the court denied Amazon's motion, finding that Amazon's citation to the federal court decision in Oliver is not dispositive and that no authority broadly prohibits antitrust standing from non-purchasers. For Florida, the court granted the motion in part and denied in part, limiting claims to purchases between November 8, 2018 and March 2019 because several federal courts that have analyzed the issue have similarly concluded that Florida does not recognize American Pipe tolling. For Hawaii, the court denied Amazon's motion entirely, noting that the Hawaii Supreme Court has adopted both American Pipe tolling and cross-jurisdictional tolling. For Illinois, the court granted the motion in part regarding consumer protection claims, finding them completely time barred due to a 3-year statute of limitations, but allowed antitrust claims to proceed under the Illinois savings statute. For states like Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire consumer protection claims, and Tennessee, the court granted Amazon's motion and dismissed these claims either as untimely or for failure to state a claim. Final Ruling The court's final order states: For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part." The following claims survive dismissal: Arizona claims between November 8, 2018, and March 2019; Arkansas claims before August 1, 2017; Connecticut claims; Florida claims between November 8, 2018 and March 2019; Hawaii claims; Illinois antitrust claims; Iowa claims; Maine claims; Maryland claims; Michigan claims; Minnesota claims; Nebraska claims; Nevada claims; New Hampshire antitrust claims; New Mexico claims; New York claims; North Carolina claims; North Dakota claims; Oregon claims; Rhode Island claims; South Dakota claims; Utah claims; Vermont claims; West Virginia claims; and Wisconsin claims. The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice. The court also granted Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend, stating that Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is granted with a deadline of 45 days after entry of the opinion. Counsel for Plaintiffs: Daniel Zachary Goldman, Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr., Nancy J. Sandoval - Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP, San Clemente, CA Gordon Ball - Gordon Ball, PLLC, Nashville, TN Times Wang - North River Law, PLLC, Washington, DC Counsel for Defendant: Karen L. Dunn, William A. Isaacson, Amy J. Mauser, Martha L. Goodman, Meredith R. Dearborn - Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, Washington, DC A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zsFg4sfrom PacerMonitor.com AMN SERVICES: Guevara FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jorge Alfonso Guevara, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AMN Services, LLC, Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU031504C was removed from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02406-AGS-MSB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. AMN Healthcare -- https://www.amnhealthcare.com/ -- offers innovative staffing and total talent solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Joseph Reid, Esq. Christina Marie Le, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: areid@lelawfirm.com cle@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph Jaein Kim, Esq. Mary C. Dollarhide, Esq. Taylor H. Wemmer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2123 Phone: (858) 395-0835 Email: joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com mary.dollarhide@us.dlapiper.com taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com BANNER HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheryl McCulley, et al., v. Banner Health, Case No. 2:23-cv-00985-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadlines as follows: 1. Motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosure shall be due by Nov. 26, 2025; 2. Opposition to class certification and the Defendant's class certification expert disclosure shall be due by Jan. 9, 2026; 3. Reply in support of class certification shall be due by Jan. 30, 2026; 4. Class certification discovery shall be completed by Jan. 30, 2026; and 5. All other deadlines shall remain the same. Banner is a nonprofit health system in the United States, based in Phoenix, Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p4BKVA at no extra charge.[CC] BARCLAYS BANK: Wins Motion to Force Arbitration in "Bennett" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Leopold Bennett, Plaintiff, v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-06549-(LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay this action pending resolution of the arbitration. Plaintiff Leopold Bennett brought this putative class action against Defendant Barclays Bank of Delaware for sharing Plaintiff's personal information with Meta. Plaintiff brings common law tort and contract claims on behalf of himself and a putative nationwide class and a claim alleging violation of the New York General Business Law on behalf of himself and a putative New York subclass. Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay this action pending resolution of the arbitration. Plaintiff has three credit card accounts with Barclays. In 2006, Plaintiff applied for and was approved for a Barclays View-branded account. The initial terms of the account contained an arbitration clause requiring any claim between the parties relating in any way to this Agreement or your Account to be resolved exclusively by arbitration. The terms further state, By signing, keeping or using your Card or Account, you agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Defendant amended the arbitration provision twice, in 2013 and 2024, providing for arbitration at the election of either party, but maintaining the broad language quoted above prescribing what claims must be arbitrated. In 2015 and 2016, Plaintiff applied for and obtained two additional Barclays credit cards, one Upromise-branded account and one JetBlue-branded account. The initial terms of both accounts contained arbitration provisions that were substantially the same as the View account. Both arbitration clauses required arbitration at either party's election of claims between the parties relating in any way to the account, and both stated that the customer's use of the credit cards would constitute agreement to the terms. The evidence, properly considered on this motion, shows that Plaintiff received the arbitration agreement contained in his cardmember agreement when he first received each of his three Barclays credit cards. Defendant's customary practice of mailing the cardmember agreement with the physical credit cards creates a presumption under New York law that those notices have been received by Plaintiff. Where the proof exhibits an office practice and procedure followed in the regular course of business, which shows that the notices have been duly addressed and mailed, a presumption arises that those notices have been received. Plaintiff does not dispute that he received the cardmember agreements, much less proffer any evidence showing that he did not. A plaintiff's denial of receipt, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption. Barclays has met its burden of showing that Plaintiff received the arbitration agreement. The Court found that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate this dispute based on his use of each of the three credit cards coupled with the provision in each cardmember agreement that the customer accepts the agreement by using the card. In New York, a binding contract requires an objective manifestation of mutual assent, through either words or conduct, to the essential terms comprising the agreement. The first requirement of a clear and conspicuous presentation of the contract terms is met here. The cardmember agreement for each of the three accounts contains: (i) an arbitration provision under the bold-faced heading, Arbitration and (ii) a clause stating that, by using the card, the user agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement also under a bold-faced heading, Using Your Account/Acceptance of These Terms. The cardmember agreement, which was sent to Plaintiff with the new credit card, placed him on inquiry notice of both of these contractual terms. His use of the cards objectively manifested his assent to the terms of the cardmember agreement, including the arbitration provision. Plaintiff's claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreements. All of the claims in the Complaint arise out of Barclays' alleged disclosure to Meta of Plaintiff's personal information, which Plaintiff shared with Barclays in connection with his applying for and obtaining Barclays' credit card accounts. The arbitration provisions in each of the initial cardmember agreements and their amendments require arbitration of any claim, dispute or controversy arising from or relating in any way to this Agreement or your Account. Plaintiff's claims are squarely within the broad scope of the arbitration provisions, and Plaintiff does not argue otherwise. Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause is unenforceable as to his claim under New York General Business Law Section 349 under the effective vindication doctrine. This argument is unpersuasive because, even if the doctrine applies to state law claims, the arbitration clause does not prevent Plaintiff from effectively vindicating his Section 349 claim. Nothing prevents Plaintiff from seeking relief under Section 349 in arbitration, whether that relief is in the form of an injunction or monetary damages. For the reasons stated above, Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted. This case is stayed pending the resolution of arbitration. 60 days after the date of this Opinion and Order, and every 60 days thereafter, the parties shall file a joint letter apprising the Court of the status of arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f2VND6from PacerMonitor.com BEE SWEET: Bid for Class Cert in Amaro Suit Extended to Oct. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amaro, et al., v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00382 (E.D. Cal., Filed March 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order granting the Parties' request that Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended to Oct. 31, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Agricultural Acts involving farmworker rights. Bee is a grower, packer and shipper of premium California citrus.[CC] BOEING CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Air India Accident ------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Peters, writing for AeroTime, reports that the families of four passengers who died in the accident involving Air India Flight 171 have launched a class action lawsuit against planemaker Boeing, along with Honeywell, citing negligence and a faulty fuel cutoff switch for the accident. The June 12, 2025, crash occurred shortly after the aircraft, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, had departed Ahmedabad International Airport in India en route to London-Gatwick Airport, killing 260 people. There was one sole survivor. In a complaint filed on September 16, 2025, in Delaware Superior Court, the families claim that the locking mechanism for the switch on the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner could be turned off inadvertently or could even be missing, causing a reduction in fuel supply to the relevant engine with a resulting loss of thrust required for take-off. The aircraft's fuel switches have become a focus for investigators after a preliminary inquiry found that fuel to both engines was cut off just moments after the plane left the ground. Focus on the fuel cut-off switches The claim adds that Boeing and Honeywell (the companies that installed and manufactured the switch, respectively) knew about the risk that the switch could be moved to the cut-off position inadvertently, but took no action in this regard. Even after the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned airlines in 2018 of a risk of locking mechanisms that had disengaged uncommanded on several Boeing aircraft, no follow-up or remedial action was taken by the defending parties. While the FAA urged in 2018 that operators inspect the fuel switches' locking mechanism to ensure that it could not be accidentally moved, thereby cutting off fuel supply. However, such checks were not made mandatory by Boeing at any point. By putting the switch directly behind the aircraft's thrust levers, "Boeing effectively guaranteed that normal cockpit activity could result in inadvertent fuel cut-off," the complaints documents state. "What did Honeywell and Boeing do to prevent the inevitable catastrophe? Nothing." According to the lawsuit, the companies also failed to warn airlines that the switches required inspection and repair and did not supply replacement parts to enable their customers to install them. It adds that Boeing and Honeywell "sat idly" behind a gentle advisory that merely recommended inspecting the switches, said the families, who are represented by a Texas-based law firm. The claim is seeking unspecified damages for the deaths of four passengers -- Kantaben Dhirubhai Paghadal, Naavya Chirag Paghadal, Kuberbhai Patel, and Babiben Patel, who were among the 229 passengers on the Dreamliner when it crashed. Twelve crew members and 19 people on the ground were also killed. The claimants bringing the action on behalf of their deceased family members are citizens of India or the United Kingdom, and live in either one of those countries, according to a report in The Hindu Business Line. No comment from Boeing, Honeywell Boeing, based in Arlington, Virginia, declined to comment on Wednesday, September 17. Honeywell, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, have both so far not provided any comment on the legal claim. Instead, both organizations pointed to India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB) preliminary investigation report into the crash. Both companies are incorporated in Delaware. The lawsuit appears to be the first launched in the United States over the crash. Although the crash happened in India, the choice of the US as the forum for the lawsuit is entirely normal, given that both defendants are US-based. So far, Indian, UK, and American investigators have not conclusively determined the exact cause of the crash, although they said after the publication of a preliminary report that their attentions were focused on the fuel cut-off switches and why they were both moved to the cut-off position, as remarked by one of the pilots and captured on the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder. According to sources close to the ongoing investigation, the full report into the crash, along with findings and recommendations, is due to be published in 2026. [GN] BRUCKNER TRUCK: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Toss Eggleston Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joshua Eggleston, Plaintiff v. Bruckner Truck Sales Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. C25-1467JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington defers ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss until briefing is complete on the Plaintiff's motion to remand. On July 16, 2025, Plaintiff Joshua Eggleston initiated the instant putative class action in state court alleging that Defendant Bruckner Truck Sales Inc. violated the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, chapter 49.58 RCW, and in particular, RCW 49.58.110, in connection with its failure to disclose a wage scale or salary range in its job postings. The EPOA provides a private right of action to employees and job applicants for violations of the statute. Defendant timely removed the action to federal court on August 4, 2025. On August 11, 2025, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of Article III standing, arguing that neither Mr. Eggleston nor any putative class members had alleged they were bona fide job applicants for the positions they applied for or that they suffered a cognizable injury-in-fact. In the alternative, Defendant argued that the case should be dismissed for improper venue or transferred to the Eastern District of Washington. Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion to dismiss. Although Mr. Eggleston agreed that he and the putative class members lack Article III standing, he argued the case should be remanded to state court, rather than dismissed. Plaintiff argued in the alternative that venue is proper in this district. On September 2, 2025, Mr. Eggleston moved to remand this action to state court. On September 4, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine and Spirits, LLC, addressing the question of what a plaintiff must prove to be considered a job applicant within the meaning of RCW 49.58.110(4). The Washington Supreme Court held that a job applicant need not prove they are a bona fide applicant to be deemed a job applicant, and that a person must apply to any solicitation intended to recruit job applicants for a specific available position to be considered a job applicant, regardless of the person's subjective intent in applying for the specific position. Defendant asserted that Branson resolved the parties' dispute regarding standing and moots its arguments for dismissal based on standing. Defendant accordingly withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and asked the court to resolve only its motion to dismiss for improper venue, or in the alternative, to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Washington. In light of the foregoing, the court agreed that it is appropriate to defer resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss until briefing is complete on Mr. Eggleston's motion to remand. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to renote Defendant's motion to dismiss for September 30, 2025. The court will address the parties' motions after that date. A copy of the Court's decison is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YGmnJ9from PacerMonitor.com. BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Torres Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY LAZARO TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUNZL DISTRIBUTION MIDCENTRAL, INC.; BDMC ACQUISITION CORP.; BUNZL DISTRIBUTION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV26108 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 5, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Torres was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse worker. Bunzl Distribution Midcentral Inc. wholesales and distributes food products. The Company supplies foam trays, retail carry- out bags, chicken roasters, and bakery boxes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Enzo Nabiev, Esq. Jason Kwak, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com enabiev@moonlawgroup.com jkwak@moonlawgroup.com C3.AI INC: Bid to Dismiss Reckstin Family Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- C3.ai, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the putative securities class action complaint captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., remains pending. On March 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint (captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., 22-cv-01413-HSG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, and certain current and former officers and directors. On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, four current and former officers and directors, the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), and Baker Hughes Company ("Baker Hughes"). The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions about the Company's partnership with Baker Hughes and the Company's own salesforce. The amended complaint alleges that defendants made these misstatements or omissions in connection with the Company's IPO in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. All defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint on May 1, 2023. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter defendants. On February 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss on all claims except for portions of the alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 15. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 4, 2024. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 17, 2024. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 15, 2024. While the motions were pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their second amended complaint on September 27, 2024 to add new factual allegations. On February 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend, and the Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on February 14, 2025. On March 25, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 6, 2025, the Court took the motion under submission. CDK GLOBAL: Court Approves $185MM Attys' Fee in Lopp Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOOP LLC d/b/a AUTOLOOP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00571-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order granting in part the class counsel's motion for attorney fees. The court approves attorney fees in the amount of $185,157,529, which is approximately 30% of the settlement after expenses and the service award are subtracted. The court will issue its final order approving the remainder of the settlement after the parties' September 9 deadline for objecting to the form of the order. The court acknowledges that class counsel took on a large risk when accepting this case, so a generous lodestar multiplier is appropriate. But as previously discussed, the risk was somewhat reduced when class counsel agreed to represent the class in 2019: counsel began settling these cases only three months later. And even class counsel’s own expert does not try to justify a multiplier of more than four. All this is further support for the conclusion that a fee award of more than 30 percent would be excessive. The court also acknowledges that no class member, including Loop itself, objected to class counsel’s fee request. And some class members sent representatives to the hearing in support of the settlement proposal, and implicitly, the fee request. In this certified class action, plaintiff Loop LLC sued CDK Global, LLC for antitrust violations, alleging that CDK and its competitor The Reynolds and Reynolds Company agreed to unreasonably restrain trade in the market for automotive dealer manager systems. Two weeks before the case was scheduled for trial, the parties announced a proposed settlement of $630 million. During a hearing, the court approved most aspects of the agreement but reserved a ruling on the issue of attorney fees. Class counsel ask for $205,730,587, which is one-third of the settlement after expenses and Loop's service award are subtracted. CDK provides integrated information technology and digital marketing to the automotive, heavy truck, recreation, and heavy equipment industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kT7aLA at no extra charge.[CC] CHARLES BARATTA: Court Bifurcates Discovery in VanderSloot Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Matthew VanderSloot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charles Baratta LLC, doing business as Prime Marketing, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-07096 (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to bifurcate individual and class discovery. The Court ordered that Defendant's motion is granted, allowing limited discovery related to whether Defendant placed the subject calls before proceeding with broader class discovery. Judge Wicks ruled that all discovery relevant to Plaintiff's individual direct liability claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act shall conclude by November 7, 2025, while class discovery remains stayed until further order by the Court. Matthew VanderSloot commenced this action on October 8, 2024, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Section 227 et seq., asserting that Charles Baratta doing business as Prime Marketing Source allegedly called his residential phone number repeatedly despite his registration on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff contends that through use of fictitiously named individuals who allegedly worked for various non-existent companies and entities, Defendant initiated calls over one hundred times without consent in an attempt to solicit him to file a potential Camp Lejeune claim. Beginning on August 30, 2023, Plaintiff maintains that he received over approximately one hundred calls from supposedly fictitious individuals named Tiffany, DeAndre, and Christopher, working for allegedly non-existent companies, including Legal Helpers and Medical Health Department, seeking to solicit him for legal representation in a Camp Lejeune claim. The Plaintiff avers that these calls were unwanted, nonconsensual, and resulted in violations of his and the Do Not Call Class's privacy rights. On September 20, 2023, and September 27, 2023, Defendant allegedly sent a text message from the (210) 405-8263 telephone number to Plaintiff identifying itself as DeAndre with Legal Helpers. The calls continued and on January 10, 2024, Plaintiff allegedly received at least seven calls from Tiffany from the Medical Health Department using a (713) 405-3514 number. During the last of the calls, Tiffany allegedly asked Plaintiff if he received calls from her law associate from a (954) 800-2991 number. Plaintiff called this number and spoke with Christopher Garcia who provided cgarcia@primemarketingsource.com as his email address and a callback number of (954) 799-8058. Christopher Garcia followed this call with an email regarding a Camp Lejeune claim which also originated from Defendant's email. As Plaintiff contends, the two 954 numbers are direct telephone numbers owned and operated by Defendant in the Defendant's name. . The Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on February 13, 2025. On April 3, 2025, the Court held a pre-motion conference on Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. During this pre-motion conference, Plaintiff stipulated on the record that on the current Amended Complaint only claims of direct liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act are sought and that it does not encompass a claim of vicarious liability. On July 9, 2025, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the TCPA, finding that because Plaintiff presented sufficient allegations that raised a plausible inference that Defendant initiated the calls and messages to him, his direct liability claim ought to proceed to discovery. Consequently, the Court directed the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order addressing the end date for fact discovery; dates for expert reports and disclosures in chief and rebuttal; and end date of expert discovery. On July 23, 2025, the parties submitted two competing discovery schedules. In this submission, Defendant expressed its intention to seek bifurcation on the issue of whether Defendant placed the at issue calls, which the Plaintiff opposes. Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to submit briefing on the motion to bifurcate discovery. Defendant seeks to bifurcate discovery and serve limited discovery upon Plaintiff targeted at whether it placed the calls at issue or not. Defendant specifically intends to serve upon Plaintiff discovery requests that cut to the core issues that might decide the case, including whether Prime actually called Plaintiff at the phone number, whether Plaintiff independently owns the phone number for residential use, whether Prime actually called Plaintiff on specific dates, and whether Prime owns the phone numbers identified in the Complaint. The Court determined that the issues regarding Plaintiff's individual claim are distinct from, and do not overlap with, class issues. Through limited discovery, Defendant seeks to gather telephone logs evidencing the purported calls, confirm Plaintiff's ownership of the telephone number, show alleged text messages and emails that were exchanged, any relevant phone recordings of the subject calls, and verify through carrier data the origin of said call. According to the Court, Plaintiff's class allegations make generalized assertions that Defendant knowingly violated the TCPA by causing multiple telephone solicitation calls and text messages to be initiated to him and members of the National Do Not Call Class in a 12-month period despite being registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff fails to offer anything more than conclusory statements to support its contention that overlap exists. The Court found that determining whether Defendant initiated the calls to Plaintiff is the dispositive issue on a direct liability claim. It follows, therefore, that Plaintiff's direct liability claim may be rendered baseless following a limited discovery period into whether Defendant placed the calls and whether it owns the numbers that called him. Furthermore, limited discovery may save the parties, particularly Defendant, from the hefty litigation expenses and an extensive use of judicial resources common in TCPA class actions. Indeed, a majority of Plaintiff's initial discovery demands are tailored towards a theory of vicarious liability notwithstanding his stipulation to the contrary. The Court noted that this case is also in its nascent stages. Although a scheduling order was entered on January 6, 2025, discovery was stayed shortly thereafter on February 7, 2025 pending disposition of Defendant's motion to dismiss. Even following denial of the motion to dismiss on July 9, 2025, no discovery schedule was entered because of the current motion to bifurcate. Under the circumstances presented, where limited discovery does not substantially overlap with class discovery, would ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action, and would not prejudice Plaintiff based on the status of this litigation, Defendant has established good cause for limited discovery related to Plaintiff's individual claim of direct liability. Accordingly, bifurcation of discovery is warranted and appropriate here. Therefore, the Court ordered that Defendant's motion for bifurcation is granted. All discovery relevant to Plaintiff's individual direct liability claim under the TCPA shall conclude by November 7, 2025. The parties are directed to file a joint status report, on or before November 3, 2025, advising the Court as to the progress of discovery. Class discovery is stayed until further order by the Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GSRXxT from PacerMonitor.com. CHART INDUSTRIES: M&A Investigates Sale to Baker Hughes ------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Chart Industries, Inc. (NYSE: GTLS) related to its sale to Baker Hughes Co. for $210.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 6, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chart-industries-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (NYSE: BBVA) related to its merger with Banco de Sabadell, S.A. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Banco Bilbao will acquire all outstanding shares of Banco de Sabadell, offering one newly issued Banco Bilbao share and €0.70 in cash for each 5.5483 Banco de Sabadell shares tendered. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on October 7, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/banco-bilbao-vizcaya-argentaria-s-a/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Vimeo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VMEO) related to its sale to Bending Spoons US Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Vimeo shareholders will receive $7.85 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vimeo-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- TEGNA Inc. (NYSE: TGNA) related to its sale to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, TENGA shareholders will receive $22.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/tegna-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] CHILDREN'S PLACE: "Gonzalez" Suit Remains Pending in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Children's Place, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the lawsuit filed by Gabriela Gonzalez remains pending in a California court. The Company is a defendant in Gabriela Gonzalez v. The Children's Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The plaintiff alleged that the Company had falsely advertised discounts that do not exist, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and the court granted the motion on August 17, 2022—staying the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The demand for arbitration was filed on October 4, 2022, in connection with the individual claim of the plaintiff. A mass arbitration firm associated with plaintiff's counsel then conducted an advertising campaign for claimants to conduct a mass arbitration. In part, to avoid the mass arbitration, the parties stipulated to return the original plaintiff's claim to court to proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the arbitration would not be proceeding and the Company's response to the original plaintiff's complaint in court was filed on July 20, 2023. On August 16, 2023, however, the Company began to receive notices regarding an initial tranche of approximately 1,300 individual demands that were filed with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. ("JAMS") as part of a related mass arbitration claim. The parties participated in mediation proceedings on November 15, 2023 and February 9, 2024. The parties agreed to further discuss settlement options in May 2024, which occurred without resolution. In late May 2024, due to the judge's retirement, the Gonzalez action was transferred and reassigned to a different judge. Deadlines were therefore reset, including the Company's motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2024, JAMS advised that it would be pausing its administration of the claims until the parties resolve their dispute over which set of arbitration terms apply to the case. The Company's motion to dismiss was denied in November 2024. Any liability arising out of these proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. CUSTOM MOLDED: Anders Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALTON ANDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CUSTOM MOLDED PLASTICS, LTD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00468-ALT (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action consisting of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees of 20/20 Custom Molding ("Defendant") who were not properly compensated for overtime work. The Plaintiff requests that the Court conditionally certify this case as a collective action under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The collective action members should include all non-exempt employees of the Defendant who, since Oct. 1, 2022, received at least one attendance bonus for a period during which they also worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant's failure to include non-discretionary bonuses in the calculation of the regular rate of pay resulted in an underpayment of overtime compensation to Mr. Anders and similarly-situated employees, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff Anders worked for the Defendant from April 24, 2024, until Aug. 28, 2025. Custom is a manufacturing company that offers synthetic resins, plastics materials, and nonvulcanizable elastomers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CCJ4Vl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Elliott, Esq. Noah W. Vancina, Esq. BECKMAN LAWSON, LLP 201 W. Wayne Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 Telephone: (260) 422-0800 DAVID L. GITLIN: CFE Investco Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------------- CFE Investco, LLC, derivatively on behalf of Carrier Global Corporation, and individually on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION v. DAVID L. GITLIN, JOHN J. GREISCH, JEAN-PIERRE GARNIER, CHARLES M. HOLLEY, JR., MICHAEL M. MCNAMARA, SUSAN N. STORY, MICHAEL A. TODMAN, MAXIMILLIAN VIESSMANN, VIRGINIA M. WILSON, and BETH A. WOZNIAK, Case No. 2025-1037- (Del. Chancery Ct., Sept. 15, 2025), is brought asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against certain current and former members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"). Subject to certain specified conditions and limitations, the Company's 2020 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan") gave the Board authority to issue up to 90,000,000 shares of Carrier Global common stock in the form of equity awards for the Company's officers, employees, and non-employee directors. In order to control dilution and prevent the Board from using the Plan to grant excessive compensation, the Plan limits the amount of equity awards that may be granted to an individual participant. With respect to an award of full-value awards, which the Plan defines as any award other than stock options, stock appreciation rights, and cash awards ("Full-Value Awards"), the Plan expressly provides that "a participant who is not a non-employee director may not be granted. On January 30, 2024, the Board granted David L. Gitlin ("Gitlin"), Carrier Global's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") two Full-Value Awards under the Plan (the "Awards"): (a) an award of Performance Share Units ("PSUs") pursuant to which Gitlin is entitled to receive up to 238,760 shares of Carrier Global common stock upon the achievement of certain total shareholder return goals over a three-year performance period; and (b) a supplemental equity award of PSUs pursuant to which Gitlin is entitled to receive up to 892,220 shares of Carrier Global common stock upon the achievement of earnings per share growth goals over a three-year performance period and subject to certain time-based vesting requirements. Thus, in 2024, Gitlin received Full Value Awards under the Plan covering 1,130,980 shares, which exceeded the Limit by 530,980 shares, nearly twice the size of what the Plan permits. The Plaintiff apprised the Board of the violation by sending a formal demand letter (the "Litigation Demand"), and requested that the Board take corrective action by rescinding the Awards and/or modifying the Awards to comply with the Limit. The Board did not do so. Instead, the Board took the position that only 565,490 shares—the amount of shares Gitlin would earn if he achieved the performance goals at "target level"—were subject to the 600,000-share Limit. This interpretation makes no sense and was in fact soundly rejected in Garfield v. Allen, where the applicable limit, as here, "does not reference 'target performance," and has "no 'target' qualifier" on the limit. Garfield, at 325-326. As a result of the Board's misconduct, the Company and its stockholders have been harmed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has continuously owned shares of Carrier Global common stock since 2022 David Gitlin has been a member of the Board since 2020; he has also been the Company's CEO since 2019, and Chairman of the Board since 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Stephen C. Childs, Esq. PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP 600 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 400 Harrison, NY 10528 Phone: (212) 725-1000 - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com DH INSURANCE GROUP: McClain Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DH Insurance Group, LLC. The case is styled as Marshall McClain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DH Insurance Group, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24177-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. DH Insurance Group -- https://www.dhinsurancegroup.com/ -- is a medical insurance company that focuses on providing insurance options for those who are 65 years and above.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com DISNEY DTC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Tracking Software ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff John Tasker filed a class action lawsuit against Disney DTC LLC and The Walt Disney Company. Why: Tasker claims Disney illegally installed tracking software on its website without first obtaining users' consent. Where: The Disney class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Disney illegally installed tracking software on its website without first obtaining users' consent. Plaintiff John Tasker claims Disney installed and operates tracking software on its website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Disney's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising and the monetization of consumer data, Tasker argues. "Defendant aids, employs, agrees and conspires with the third parties by enabling the trackers, which transmit user data to third-party servers to identify users and support advertising, profiling and data monetization activities," the Disney class action lawsuit states. Tasker wants to represent a California class of individuals who accessed and used Disney's website during the relevant statute of limitations period. Disney allegedly tracks user data, including IP addresses The class action lawsuit claims Disney violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by installing tracking software that captures detailed information about users' electronic communications, including IP addresses. "Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding or injection of the trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way," the Disney class action lawsuit argues. Tasker demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages for himself and all class members. Recently, Disney agreed to a $10 million settlement to resolve allegations it violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule by failing to properly label certain YouTube videos as "made for kids." The plaintiff is represented by Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan & Associates APC and Ross Cornell of the Law Offices of Ross Cornell APC. The Disney class action lawsuit is Tasker, et al. v. Disney DTC LLC, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02368, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] DK HOUSEHOLD: Douglass Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DK HOUSEHOLD BRANDS CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-01183-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (A) Certifying the class for settlement purposes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; (B) Preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the proposed agreement; and (C) Approving the notice and notice plan included in the Proposed Order accompanying this motion. The agreement defines the settlement class as "A national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, the Websites or Mobile Applications from the United States." In October 2024, the Plaintiff attempted to access https://zyliss.com/. The Plaintiff could not access https://zyliss.com/ because it was not compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, which Plaintiff uses to access digital content because he is blind, the suit says. The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on Aug. 4, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate policies and practices to cause the Websites to be accessible to blind persons, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its implementing regulations. DK distributes household appliances, grills, and entertainment electronics. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t68q8N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com DOCUSIGN INC: "Weston" Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Docusign, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative securities class action Weston v. Docusign, Inc., et al., remains pending in a California court. On February 8, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Weston v. Docusign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00824, naming Docusign and certain of our then-current and former officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2022. As amended, the suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about our business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. As amended, the suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022. Our motion to dismiss was denied by the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2023 and we have continued to defend the case since that time. A second amended complaint was filed on April 14, 2025, but has been held in abeyance and is superseded by a third amended complaint filed May 22, 2025. Our motion to dismiss that complaint was filed on June 12, 2025. Discovery and other case proceedings have been stayed pending resolution of our motion to dismiss. Eight putative shareholder derivative cases have been filed containing allegations based on or similar to those in the securities class action. The cases were filed on May 17, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Pottetti v. Springer, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00652; on May 19, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Lapin v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02980; on May 20, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Votto v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02987; on September 20, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Fox v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05343; on March 7, 2024, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Roy v. Alhadeff, et al., Case No. C.A. 2024-0223-PAF; on April 9, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Alexander v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02139; on April 11, 2024, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Ingrao v. Beer, et al., Case No. C.A. 2024-0382-PAF; and on May 28, 2024, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Jordan v. Springer, et al., Case No. C.A. 2024-0564-PAF. Each case is allegedly brought on the Company's behalf. The suits name the Company as a nominal defendant and, depending on the particular case, the members of our board of directors or, in certain instances, then-current or former officers, as defendants. While the complaints vary, they are based largely on the same underlying allegations as the securities class action suit described above, as well as, in certain instances, alleged insider trading. Collectively, these lawsuits purport to assert claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting such breach, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, and under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints seek to recover unspecified damages and other relief on the Company's behalf. By court order dated July 19, 2022, the first two cases in the Northern District of California (Lapin and Votto) have been consolidated and stayed in light of the securities class action and no response to the complaints in the action will be due unless and until the stay is lifted. The third case in the Northern District of California (Fox) was related to the other derivative suits and assigned to the same judge, and was similarly stayed by order of the court on December 2, 2022. The most recent case in the Northern District of California (Alexander) was also related to the other derivative suits and assigned to the same judge, and subsequently consolidated with Lapin and Votto and stayed by order of the court on May 8, 2024. The Delaware suit (Pottetti) was voluntarily dismissed on September 1, 2022, and then re-filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on September 22, 2022, under the caption Pottetti v. Springer, et al., Case No. C.A. 2022-0852-PAF. The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order on September 30, 2022, staying the action in light of the securities class action. On May 28, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice seeking to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware Court of Chancery Pottetti action. On June 14, 2024, the plaintiff in Pottetti moved to voluntarily dismiss that action and the Court granted the dismissal on June 17, 2024. On September 30, 2024, the newly filed suits (Roy, Ingrao, and Jordan) were consolidated and stayed in light of the securities class action, such that no response to the complaints would be due unless and until the stay is lifted. In addition, on June 3, 2025, two cases, captioned Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund, et al. v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04681, and Advanced Series Trust, et al. v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04683, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by plaintiffs who have opted out of the class certified in Weston v. Docusign. These opt-out cases allege substantially similar claims as in the class action, which Docusign denies. On July 18, 2025, the cases were stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class action, such that no response to the complaints is currently due. DOW INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 28 ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Dow Inc. ("Dow" or the "Company") (NYSE: DOW) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, and docketed under 25-cv-12744, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Dow securities between January 30, 2025 and July 23, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Dow securities during the Class Period, you have until October 28, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Dow is an American materials science company, serving customers in the packaging, infrastructure, mobility, and consumer applications industries. Dow conducts its worldwide operations through six global businesses organized into three operating segments: (i) Packaging & Specialty Plastics, (ii) Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure, and (iii) Performance Materials & Coatings. Historically, Dow has touted its "industry-leading dividend," which is of particular importance to investors. On conference calls with investors and analysts, Dow's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Jim Fitterling ("Fitterling"), has variously stated that the Company's "dividend is a key element of our investment thesis," and that "north of 65% of our owners count on that dividend." Notwithstanding an ongoing slump in the materials science industry, as well as the recent onset of tariff-related market uncertainties, at all relevant times, Defendants represented that Dow was well positioned to weather macroeconomic and tariff-related headwinds while maintaining sufficient levels of financial flexibility to support the Company's lucrative dividend. Specifically, Defendants cited various purported strengths and advantages unique to Dow in its industry, including, inter alia, the Company's purported "differentiated portfolio," "cost-advantaged footprint," and "industry-leading flexibility to navigate global trade dynamics." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Dow's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Dow's ability to mitigate macroeconomic and tariff-related headwinds, as well as to maintain the financial flexibility needed to support its lucrative dividend, was overstated; (ii) the true scope and severity of the foregoing headwinds' negative impacts on Dow's business and financial condition was understated, particularly with respect to competitive and pricing pressures, softening global sales and demand for the Company's products, and an oversupply of products in the Company's global markets; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 23, 2025, BMO Capital downgraded its recommendation on Dow to "Underperform" from "Market Perform" while also cutting its price target on the Company's stock to $22.00 per share from $29.00 per share, citing sustained weakness across key end markets and mounting pressure on the Company's dividend. On this news, Dow's stock price fell $0.89 per share, or 3.21%, to close at $26.87 per share on June 23, 2025. Then, on July 24, 2025, Dow issued a press release reporting its financial results for the second quarter of 2025. Therein, Dow reported a non-GAAP loss per share of $0.42, significantly larger than the approximate $0.17 to $0.18 per share loss expected by analysts. Dow also reported net sales of $10.1 billion, representing a 7.3% year-over-year decline and missing consensus estimates by $130 million, "reflecting declines in all operating segments." The Company further reported, inter alia, that "[s]equentially, net sales were down 3%, as seasonally higher demand in Performance Materials & Coatings was more than offset by declines across the other operating segments." Defendant Fitterling blamed these disappointing results on "the lower-for-longer earnings environment that our industry is facing, amplified by recent trade and tariff uncertainties," while providing a dour outlook marked by "signs of oversupply from newer market entrants who are exporting to various regions at anti-competitive economics." In a separate press release, Dow revealed that it was cutting its dividend in half, from $0.70 per share to only $0.35 per share, citing the need for "financial flexibility amidst a persistently challenging macroeconomic environment." Following these disclosures, Dow's stock price fell $5.30 per share, or 17.45%, to close at $25.07 per share on July 24, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com[GN] EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TLALOC MUNOZ, an individual; MIGUEL RUIZ, an individual; EDGAR CORONA, an individual, STEVEN SNAVELY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC a Delaware limited liability company; BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01269-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification briefing deadlines. The Parties request that the Court enter an Order establishing Nov. 17, 2025, as the deadline for the Defendants' opposition to class certification and Dec. 1, 2025, as the deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in further support of class certification. Earthgrains is a producer of bakery products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nCZY8k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Jake W. Schulte, Esq. Jordan Belcastro, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415)442-1790 EAST CENTRAL: Court Remands Moser Data Breach Suit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mildred Moser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. East Central Missouri Behavioral Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Arthur Community Health, Defendant, Case No. 2:25CV20 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and ordered the case be returned to state court. The court ruled that the Defendant lacked valid grounds for federal court removal in this class action data breach lawsuit. Judge Autrey determined that neither the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act nor the federal officer removal statute provided proper basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this class action in the Circuit Court for Audrain County, Missouri on behalf of herself and other similarly situated patients. She alleged that Defendant failed to properly secure its patients' protected health information and personally identifying information, which resulted in a data breach of Defendant's electronic health record system and the theft of Defendant's patients' information by unknown bad actors. The Plaintiff brought claims of: (1) negligence and negligence per se, (2) breach of implied contract, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) breach of bailment, and (5) invasion of privacy. Defendant was served on January 16, 2025. On February 17, 2025, Defendant filed a notice of removal, invoking the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 233, and the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). Defendant is a nonprofit community health center that receives federal funding under the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 254b. Defendant asserted that it is entitled to immunity under the FSHCAA because it is deemed to be a Public Health Service employee, and Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's performance of a medical or related function. In the notice of removal, Defendant stated that it delivered the summons and complaint to the HHS Secretary's designated point of contact via the agency's designated email address on or about February 10, 2025. The United States Attorney's Office received notice of the state court action from the Department of Health and Human Services on February 24, 2025. The United States then advised the state court that, while HHS had deemed Defendant to be a PHS employee for the relevant time period, the United States would not intervene in this case or remove it to federal court because Plaintiff's Complaint does not arise out of any conduct by Defendant for which Section 233(a) makes the remedy against the United States exclusive. In a March 7, 2025 letter, the United States denied Defendant's request to intervene and substitute itself in Defendant's place because the state court action is not one for damage for personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions under Section 233(a). The court examined whether removal under 42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2) was proper. The FSHCAA authorizes removal in only two circumstances. First, under Section 233(l)(1), the government may remove a case to federal court at any time before trial if the Attorney General appears in the state-court proceeding within 15 days of being notified and makes an affirmative determination that the defendant is entitled to coverage under the FSHCAA. Second, under Section 233(l)(2), the defendant may remove the case itself if the Attorney General fails to appear in the state-court proceeding within 15 days of being notified. The court found that Section 233(l)(2) does not support removal because the Attorney General timely appeared in the state court proceeding. The court stated that removal under Section 233(l)(2) is procedurally improper when the United States appeared in state court within 15 days after receiving notice of the litigation. Even if the Attorney General had not timely appeared, removal under Section 233(l)(2) would still be premature because Defendant removed this action before the expiration of the government's 15-day period to appear in the action. The court determined that Defendant's reliance on the FSHCAA is misplaced because data security does not constitute a related function under Section 233(a). Following the Fourth Circuit's opinion in Ford v. Sandhills Med. Found., Inc., the court explained that in order to trigger immunity, alleged damages giving rise to a lawsuit must arise from the provision of healthcare and concluded that data security was not a related function based on the plain language of Section 233(a). The court noted there was little support for the notion that data security, which is more akin to an administrative function, should be included within the meaning of Section 233(a). The focus is on the function that caused the injury, and here, Plaintiff was not injured by any health care provided by Defendant. Because Plaintiff's injury did not arise from Defendant's provision of health care, Section 233(a) does not shield Defendant from Plaintiff's claims or provide a basis for removal. Regarding removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), the court found that this provision also did not support federal jurisdiction. The federal officer removal statute grants independent jurisdictional grounds over cases involving federal officers where a district court otherwise would not have jurisdiction. When the removing party is not itself a federal officer or agency, it may remove a case only if it shows that it was acting under a federal officer or agency in carrying out the acts that underlie the plaintiff's complaint. This threshold showing requires the removing party to show that: (1) it is a person under the statute, (2) it acted under the direction of a federal officer, (3) a causal connection exists between its complained-of conduct and official federal authority, and (4) it has a colorable federal defense to the claim or claims against it. The court determined that immunity under Section 233(a) is the only federal defense Defendant raises, and that defense is not colorable because Section 233(a) immunity does not extend to the data breach claims raised in the Complaint. The court stated that to permit Defendant to raise Section 233 as a defense for purposes of Section 1442 when it didn't abide by the removal procedures of Section 233 would sidestep the framework of Section 233. Additionally, the court found that Defendant's cybersecurity activities were not taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions. The court explained that acting pursuant to a federal officer's directive does not include simply complying with the law, even if the law involves intense governmental regulations. Parties must show that the federal government delegated its own duties to them -- duties that are essentially governmental. The court distinguished the case from Agyin v. Razmzan, noting that compliance or noncompliance with federal laws, rules, and regulations does not by itself fall within the scope of the statutory phrase acting under a federal official. Additionally, the plaintiff in Agyin sued the defendant for medical malpractice related to the delivery of her stillborn child, which is materially different than the conduct at issue in this case - namely, Defendant's alleged failure to properly store and secure its patients' information. Based on the Court's determination that neither of Defendant's proffered grounds for removal are sufficient, the court ordered that this case must be remanded to state court. The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, and all doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court. Regarding Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees, while Defendant has not met its burden to establish federal jurisdiction, the court determined it could not say that Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees was denied. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. This matter is remanded to the Circuit Court for Audrain County, Missouri. The Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is denied. The court concluded that neither Section 233(l)(2) nor Section 1442(a)(1) provides a valid basis for removal, requiring remand to state court. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EcY2oD from PacerMonitor.com. ENTERGY CORPORATION: Bethea Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Entergy Corporation. The case is styled as Russell Bethea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Entergy Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01896-BSL-MBN (E.D. La., Sept. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Entergy Corporation -- https://www.entergy.com/ -- is an American energy company engaged in electric power production and retail distribution operations in the Deep South of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rayford Jerome Andries, I, Esq. ANDRIES LAW FIRM P.O. Box 731 Marksville, LA 71351 Phone: (318) 729-0981 Email: jerome@andrieslawfirm.com EVRY JEWELS: Settles False Advertising Class Lawsuit for $3.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Evry Jewels has agreed to a $3.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it deceptively advertised discounts on its website. The Evry Jewels settlement benefits consumers who, while in the states of California, Oregon or Washington, purchased one or more products from Evry Jewels' website between Sept. 3, 2021, and Sept. 3, 2024. The class action lawsuit claims Evry Jewels violated California, Oregon and Washington consumer protection laws by deceptively advertising discounts on its website. The plaintiffs in the case claim they were misled by Evry Jewels discounts and overpaid for products as a result. Evry Jewels is an online jewelry retailer that sells rings, necklaces, earrings, bracelets and other accessories. Evry Jewels has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay the $3.5 million settlement to resolve the false advertising class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Evry Jewels settlement, class members can receive a cash payment or a store credit. Each class member is estimated to receive $14 in settlement benefits for each order they placed during the class period. Class members who submit a valid claim form can receive their benefits as cash payments in the form of a check or electronic payment. Class members who do not submit a claim form will automatically receive their benefits as store credit. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Evry Jewels class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Oct. 30, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 28, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who, while in the states of California, Oregon or Washington, purchased one or more products from Evryjewels.com between Sept. 3, 2021, and Sept. 3, 2024. Potential Award $14 cash or store credit for each order Proof of Purchase Order number(s) Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/28/2025 Case Name Juliette Lundborg, et al. v. Evry Jewels Inc., Case No. 25CV33514, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Final Hearing 10/30/2025 Settlement Website ProductPriceSettlementEJ.com Claims Administrator Product Price Settlement EJ c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (844) 755-4182 Class Counsel Simon Franzini Grace Bennett DOVEL & LUNER LLP Defense Counsel Sherry E. Jackman GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP [GN] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Alfred Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Qeana Alfred, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-22227-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01769. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought this class action against FedEx for penalties under RCW 49.62.070. She alleges that she and other similarly-situated current and former FedEx employees earning less than twice the Washington minimum wage were restricted, restrained, and prohibited from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self employed. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn P. Fletcher, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-876-5301 Fax: 206-693-7058 Email: kathryn.fletcher@ogletree.com FLUOR CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fluor Corporation ("Fluor" or the "Company") (NYSE:FLR) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, and docketed under 25-cv-02496, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor securities between February 18, 2025 and July 31, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor securities during the Class Period, you have until November 14, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Fluor provides engineering, procurement, and construction ("EPC"), fabrication and modularization, and project management services worldwide. The Company operates through three segments: Urban Solutions, Energy Solutions, and Mission Solutions. Throughout 2024 and the first quarter of 2025, Fluor's Urban Solutions segment accounted for the largest portion of the Company's revenue and profit. The Urban Solutions segment offers EPC and project management services to the advanced technologies and manufacturing, life sciences, mining and metals, and infrastructure industries, as well as provides professional staffing services. The Company's infrastructure projects in this segment include work on, inter alia, the Gordie Howe International Bridge ("Gordie Howe"), as well as the Interstate 365 Lyndon B. Johnson ("I-635/LBJ") and Interstate 35E ("I-35") highways in Texas. In February 2025, Fluor provided financial guidance for the full year ("FY") of 2025, including adjusted EBITDA of $575 million to $675 million and adjusted earnings per share ("EPS") of $2.25 per share to $2.75 per share. Defendants reaffirmed the foregoing financial guidance in May 2025, notwithstanding their acknowledgement of the potential negative impacts of ongoing economic uncertainty on Fluor's business resulting from trade tensions and other market conditions. Contemporaneously, Defendants touted, inter alia, the purported health and stability of Fluor's and its customers' operations and the strength of the Company's risk mitigation strategy, both for itself and its clients. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Fluor's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) costs associated with the Gordie Howe, I-635/LBJ, and I-35 projects were growing because of, inter alia, subcontractor design errors, price increases, and scheduling delays; (ii) the foregoing, as well as customer reduction in capital spending and client hesitation around economic uncertainty, was having, or was likely to have, a significant negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; (iv) accordingly, Fluor's financial guidance for FY 2025 was unreliable and/or unrealistic, the effectiveness of the Company's risk mitigation strategy was overstated, and the impact of economic uncertainty on the Company's business and financial results was understated; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 1, 2025, Fluor issued a press release reporting its financial results for the second quarter ("Q2") of 2025. Among other results, the press release reported Q2 non-GAAP EPS of $0.43, missing consensus estimates by $0.13, and revenue of $3.98 billion, representing a 5.9% year-over-year decline and missing consensus estimates by $570 million. Defendants blamed these disappointing results on, inter alia, growing costs in multiple infrastructure projects due to subcontractor design errors, price increases, and scheduling delays, as well as reduced capital spending by customers. The same press release also provided a negatively revised financial outlook for FY 2025, guiding to adjusted EBITDA of $475 million to $525 million, down significantly from Defendants' prior guidance of $575 million to $675 million, and adjusted EPS of $1.95 per share to $2.15 per share, down significantly from Defendants' prior guidance of $2.25 per share to $2.75 per share, citing "client hesitation around economic uncertainty and its impact on new awards and project delays and results for the quarter[.]" The same day, Fluor hosted a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss the Company's Q2 2025 financial results. During that call, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant James R. Breuer, disclosed that the infrastructure projects that had negatively impacted Fluor's Q2 2025 results were the Gordie Howe, I-635/LBJ, and I-35 projects. Following the foregoing disclosures, Fluor's stock price fell $15.35 per share, or 27.04%, to close at $41.42 per share on August 1, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] FRED MEYER STORES: Leach Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Olivia Leach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; FRED MEYER, INC., a foreign profit corporation; FRED MEYER JEWELERS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 158533/2025 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01776. The Complaint sets forth one cause of action based on an alleged violation of RCW 49.62.070 and brings forth claims on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class under Washington Civil Rule 23. Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged that she and "potentially dozens of Washington employees" were "restricted, restrained, or prohibited" from "having an additional job supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor or being self-employed."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas E. Smith, Esq. Megan J. Crowhurst, Esq. Anne E. Reuben, Esq. Laura Y. Davis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: desmith@littler.com mcrowhurst@littler.com areuben@littler.com ladavis@littler.com FRESNO STATE: Court Approves Title IX Settlement for Women Athletes ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Taylor Anders, et al., Plaintiffs, v. California State University, Fresno and Board of Trustees of California State University, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-KJM-BAM (E.D. Cal.), United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended granting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement addressing Title IX violations in athletics. The Court found that the proposed settlement, on the current record, is 'fair, reasonable, and adequate' within the meaning of Rule 23(e)(2). The settlement resolves claims that Fresno State violated Title IX by eliminating its women's lacrosse team and failing to provide female students with equal opportunities. The lawsuit began when Fresno State eliminated its women's lacrosse team, along with its men's tennis and wrestling teams, from its varsity intercollegiate athletics program at the end of the 2020-2021 academic year." Plaintiffs Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts, Megan Walaitis, Tara Weir, and Courtney Walburger were the then female students and varsity athletes at Fresno State. The Court previously certified two Rule 23(b)(2) classes on March 7, 2025. For Plaintiffs' claim for equal participation opportunities, the class includes Current and future female California State University, Fresno students who: (i) have lost membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team at Fresno State; (ii) have sought but not achieved membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team at Fresno State; and/or (iii) are able and ready to seek membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team at Fresno State but have not done so due to a perceived lack of opportunity." The second class for equal athletic treatment and benefits includes "Current and future female Fresno State students who: (i) participate or have participated in women's varsity intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State; and/or (ii) are able and ready to participate in women's varsity intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State but have been deterred from doing so by the treatment received by female varsity intercollegiate student-athletes at Fresno State." The settlement provides for equitable relief through several key provisions: (1) Appointing a mutually agreed-upon third-party to conduct a Title IX Gender Equity Review under an agreed protocol using the process consistent with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights' 1990 Title IX Investigator's Manual. (2) Developing a Gender Equity Plan to ensure compliance with Title IX requirements for varsity athletic participation opportunities and athletic treatment and benefits to male and female student-athletes. Fresno State will begin implementing the Gender Equity Plan starting September 1, 2026, and will complete implementation of the Gender Equity Plan by the end of the 2027-28 academic year. (3) Publishing annual summary reports to confirm implementation of the Gender Equity Plan on Fresno State's athletic department website by July 31 following each academic year from 2025-2026 through 2028-2029. (4) Agreeing that "if the women's participation gap at Fresno State is 40 participants or larger in any two consecutive academic years, or 30 participants or larger in any three consecutive academic years, Fresno State will add a women's varsity team if there are no available alternative means to shrink the participation gap." Court's Analysis The Court found that the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations after the parties "reached an agreement to settle the litigation" following productive discussions and negotiations that took place over the course of two months" during mediation sessions with Judge McAuliffe. Regarding the adequacy of the settlement, the Court noted that if Plaintiffs were successful at trial, the available remedies would be substantially similar to the relief obtained through the Settlement Agreement, as defendants in Title IX cases are afforded considerable discretion in deciding how to bring their programs into compliance with Title IX." The Court concluded that "immediate resolution permits more class members to benefit from the steps Fresno State will take, through the Gender Equity Review and Gender Equity Plan described in the Settlement Agreement." Plaintiffs' counsel sought "preliminary approval of their request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $900,000." The Court found this reasonable, noting that counsel litigated the case for four years by defending three motions to dismiss, preparing written discovery, analyzing over 6,000 pages of data received in discovery, defending multiple depositions of the Class Representatives, submitting two expert reports, advancing multiple motions for class certification (ultimately granted), attending numerous hearings and pursuing a successful appeal at the Ninth Circuit." The Court determined that the amount to be paid is a significant reduction from the lodestar calculated by Class Counsel (hours expended multiplied by their usual hourly rates), which Plaintiffs agreed to accept in the interest of reaching the proposed settlement. Notice and Objection Process The Court approved the notice plan, finding that emailing the Notice and posting the Notice on Fresno State's Athletics website substantially in the manner and form as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including accounting for email bouncebacks, and the Notice meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances. Class members who wish to object must mail objections to the Court indicating the reasons for the objection. The deadline for submitting objections is 15 days after Fresno State's posting of the Notice. 1. The Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement be granted 2. A Final Approval Hearing be held before the Honorable Kimberly J. Meuller in Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California located Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 95814 on November 17, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. 3. The settlement agreement be preliminarily approved including all the terms and conditions set forth therein and the allocation and payment of attorneys' fees and costs 4. Class Counsel - Clarkson Law Firm and Caddell & Chapman - be reappointed 5. Plaintiffs Anders and Walburger be reappointed as Class Representatives The Court ordered that no later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, Fresno State will send to all female students who attended the Fresno State from the 2018-19 academic year through the present by sending them an email, at their last known address, with a link to the Notice and Proposed Settlement Agreement documents. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IxvNWm from PacerMonitor.com FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Reidt Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY REIDT, on behalf of the Frontier Communications 401(k) Savings Plan and all others similarly situated, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP., THE RETIREMENT INVESTMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:18-cv-01538-RNC (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and either 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(3); (ii) appointing Reidt to serve as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Bailey & Glasser LLP and Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Frontier Communications 401(k) Savings Plan at any time from Dec. 31, 2012 to April 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and whose Plan accounts included investments in Verizon common stock (including the Verizon Stock Fund)." The Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested because the requirements of Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) have been satisfied. Frontier is an American telecommunications company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GwgUyT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Bid to Clarify Class Definition OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURA SALAZAR, DAMARIS VENTURA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FULFILLMENT AMERICA, INC., JOHN BARRY SR., JOHN BARRY JR. Case No. 1:23-cv-11625-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order granting plaintiffs motion to clarify class definition: 1. The class definition is amended to include all any hours of work in December 2022 at Fulfillment America, were laid off by Fulfillment America between Dec. 31, 2022, and Jan. 8, 2023, and who suffered a loss of employment and/or did not receive full wages owed at termination. 2. The Court authorizes the Plaintiffs to issue supplemental notice to individuals within this class definition who were not included on the class list used for the notice sent on Jan. 13, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall use the approved procedure for providing Members and Procedure for Providing notice outlined in the Parties' joint status report regarding proposed notices to class members and procedure for providing notice. Fulfillment provides supply chain management solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YOvIjA at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 8 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re General Motors Corp Air Conditioning Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Leitman entered an order extending class certification filing deadlines: The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on Sept. 22, 2025, GM's opposition to the motion shall be due on Dec. 8, 2025, and Plaintiffs' reply to the motion shall be due on Jan. 12, 2026. On July 8, 2025, the Court conducted a remote status conference with counsel for the Parties to discuss the filing of a renewed motion for class certification and the deadlines to complete the briefing on that motion. General designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=93b2C5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th fl. New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market St., Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48306 Telephone: (248) 841-2201 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com Not sure if defendants’ attorneys ni? The Defendant is represented by: April N. Ross, Esq. Rachel P. Raphael, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-5000 E-mail: april.ross@morganlewis.com rachel.raphael@morganlewis.com - and - Krista L. Lenart, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT 2723 S. State Street, Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 214-7660 E-mail: klenart@dykema.com GETAWAY TAMPA BAY: Bowles Sues Over Failure to Pay Servers ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason Bowles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE GETAWAY TAMPA BAY, LLC d/b/a THE GETAWAY, Case No. 8:25-cv-02467 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") against Defendant for failure to pay restaurant servers federal and state minimum wages during the applicable limitations period. The Defendant maintained uniform policies and practices that violated minimum-wage protections by: (a) paying servers a tipped cash wage without first providing the tip-credit notice required by the FLSA and the FMWA unlawfully retaining servers' tips by allowing managers and/or supervisors to keep, share in, or divert tip income, including through a tip pool that included managerial personnel, in violation of the FLSA and the FMWA. As a result, any tip credit claimed by Defendant is invalid and Plaintiff and the putative collective/class are owed the full minimum wage for all affected workweeks. Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective are also entitled to all misappropriated tips, an equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA and the FMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the putative FMWA class members are/were restaurant servers who worked for Defendant. The Getaway is a restaurant located in Petersburg, Florida, and is responsible for its day-to-day management, control, and business operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com GLOBE LIFE: Faces Class Action for Denying Life Insurance Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Debra Jennings filed a class action lawsuit against Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company. Why: Jennings claims Globe Life illegally denies life insurance benefits to Arkansas consumers. Where: The Globe Life class action lawsuit was filed in Arkansas federal court. An Arkansas woman claims in a new class action lawsuit that Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company illegally denies life insurance benefits to Arkansas consumers. Plaintiff Debra Jennings filed the class action lawsuit against Globe Life on Sept. 3 in Arkansas federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. According to the lawsuit, Globe Life sells "burial policies" designed to cover end-of-life expenses primarily to elderly Arkansans with limited means. Jennings claims that Globe Life conducts a short phone interview with vague health questions before issuing these policies, and the application form is not filled out or signed by the buyer. When a policyholder dies, Globe Life allegedly rescinds the policy and refuses to pay the beneficiary by conducting a posthumous review of the insured's medical records. Jennings says Globe Life claims the deceased policyholder "incorrectly" answered a question during the phone interview and that the policy would not have been issued if the questions were answered "correctly." Globe Life illegally rescinds policies based on 'Good Faith Defense,' class action claims Jennings alleges Globe Life has a uniform practice of denying life insurance claims based on non-disclosure of health conditions that are unrelated to the policyholder's cause of death. The Globe Life class action lawsuit argues that this practice has been illegal in Arkansas since 2011, when the state outlawed the "Good Faith Defense," which allowed life insurers to rescind policies based on undisclosed health conditions regardless of their relevance to the policyholder's death. Jennings claims Globe Life has ignored this change in the law for more than 14 years and lacks a claims process that complies with Arkansas law. Jennings is looking to represent anyone in Arkansas where an insurance claim was denied by Globe Life based on the Good Faith Defense or other illegal grounds since Sept. 3, 2020. She is suing for breach of contract and bad faith and is seeking a declaration that Globe Life's claims practices are illegal as well as damages, penalties and attorney fees. Earlier this year, Globe Life was sued for allegedly failing to protect sensitive customer information in a data breach that affected more than 850,000 individuals. What do you think of the allegations made in this Globe Life class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Jason W. Earley and Christopher D. Jennings of Jennings & Earley PLLC. The Globe Life class action lawsuit is Jennings v. Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00172-BSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Delta Division. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Anderson" ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Cheyne Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Google LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03268-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss following a hearing held on September 18, 2025. Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant who were terminated after participating in actions protesting certain of Defendant's practices at its offices in Sunnyvale, California, and New York, New York. Both protests were conducted on April 26, 2024, as part of a Day of Action organized by a group of technology industry workers called No Tech for Apartheid. Plaintiffs participated in the Action to oppose Defendant's purported discrimination and discriminatory harassment against Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim employees and business dealings with the government of Israel. At the Sunnyvale office protest, participants entered the building and went to the sixth floor, which contains a large, open space and executive offices, including the office of Thomas Kurian, head of Google Cloud. Around 9:00 a.m., a small group entered Mr. Kurian's office and taped a banner against the inside window that said "Thomas Kurian, Drop Project Nimbus," referring to a cloud-computing contract with the Israeli government. Around 3:30 p.m., security notified participants that their access had been revoked and they were being placed on administrative leave. Around 7:00 p.m., after they declined to leave, they were arrested and removed. Concurrent with the Sunnyvale Action, the protest at Defendant's New York office occurred on the tenth floor Commons area. Around noon, participants gathered wearing t-shirts for the Action and hung a banner that said "Google Workers Sit In Against Project Nimbus. No Tech for Genocide" off the tenth-floor railing into the atrium. Around 6:00 p.m., after refusing to exit the building, remaining participants were arrested. On April 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII as well as local and state law claims. On June 16, 2025, Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs' activities as described by the Complaint were not protected and urging the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. To plead a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must plead (1) protected activity, (2) adverse action, and (3) causation. The threshold for making such a case is minimal. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead Title VII's protected-activity prong because the complaint demonstrates that the actions were not reasonable in view of the employer's interest in maintaining a harmonious and efficient operation. The Court found that accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the complaint adequately pleads retaliation in violation of Title VII. The Ninth Circuit applies a balancing test in assessing the boundaries of protected oppositional conduct under Title VII. The reasonableness of an employee's conduct is a heavily fact-intensive inquiry that depends upon the specific circumstances and context in which the opposing activity occurred. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs that additional factual development is required at this stage and that dismissal is not warranted. Regarding Count III, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs' claim for retaliation in violation of the San Francisco Police Code must be dismissed because it is preempted by California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiffs did not oppose this portion of the motion. The Court agreed, noting that in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the state legislature declared its intention to occupy the field of regulation of discrimination in employment. Article 33 of the San Francisco Police Code unambiguously regulates the same subject matter as the Fair Employment and Housing Act. As to Counts IV, V, and X, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs' New York and New York City claims must be dismissed because Plaintiffs at the New York Action did not live or work for Defendant in New York. The New York Court of Appeals has made clear that the protections of these provisions extend only to persons who either work or reside in New York and can show that the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York. Plaintiffs did not dispute the point and proposed to add additional plaintiffs residing in New York. The Court ordered that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted without leave to amend as to Count III, granted with leave to amend as to Counts IV, V, and X, and denied as to all other claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=leoMDF from PacerMonitor.com GOOGLE LLC: Wins Partial Victory in "Almond" AI Training Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Steve Almond, Sarah Andersen, Burl Barer, Jessica Fink, Kirsten Hubbard, Hope Larson, Mike Lemos, Jill Leovy, Connie McLennan, and Jingna Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc., Defendants, Master File Case No. 23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), Judge Eumi K. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Court granted the motion in part, without leave to amend, after carefully reviewing the parties' briefs, sending a tentative ruling, and hearing argument on April 23, 2025. Ten visual artists and authors brought this putative class action claiming that Google infringed millions of registered copyrighted works to build and train Google's generative artificial intelligence models. Plaintiffs alleged that Google trained its generative AI models on their copyrighted works without authorization. The complaint identified three types of generative AI models: large language models that accept user text prompts as input text and generate responsive text as output; text-to-image diffusion models that use text prompts to create image outputs through a machine-learning technique called diffusion; and multimodal large language models that accept input and generate output in multiple formats. Google developed a series of large language models and multimodal large language models known as PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard, and Gemini. Google allegedly trained these models on overlapping datasets, including Google's Infiniset dataset, which incorporates the C4 dataset. The C4 dataset includes materials collected from ZLibrary and oceanofpdf.org and Scribd.com, a subscription-based digital library with 60 million e-books and audio books. Google also developed a family of text-to-image diffusion models known as Imagen. Google allegedly trained the first version of Imagen on the LAION-400M dataset and likely trained later versions of Imagen on the LAION-5B dataset, which includes the LAION-400M dataset and about 5 billion additional images. Each Plaintiff identified specific works and traced them to specific datasets that Google allegedly used to train certain generative AI models. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs alleged Google directly infringed upon their exclusive rights through multiple distinct acts of unauthorized reproduction and use of their works during the model training process. The Court rejected Google's challenge to Plaintiff Andersen's copyright registrations. Google argued that Andersen failed to plausibly allege that any of her asserted works was covered by a valid copyright registration. However, the Court found that Andersen plausibly alleged that each of her asserted works was covered by a valid registration, and she provided the copyright registration information for each asserted work. The Court concluded this was sufficient at the pleading stage. The Court also declined to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims regarding alleged infringement of unspecified other works. While Defendants took issue with Plaintiffs' allegations that Google infringed at least the specified works, the Court found that at the pleading stage, particularly when the scope of alleged infringement is wide-ranging and not precisely known, it is permissible to plead infringement of representative works. However, the Court granted dismissal as to certain AI models. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged copyright infringement as to PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard, Gemini, and Imagen because Plaintiffs identified specific copyrighted works allegedly included in datasets used to train these models. But the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege copyright infringement as to Codey, Chirp, Veo, MedLM, LearnLM, SecLM, Gemma, CodeGemma, RecurrentGemma, and PaliGemma because they did not allege any facts regarding these models at all. Injunctive Relief Claims Google argued that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege two requirements for injunctive relief: irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies. The Court disagreed, finding that Plaintiffs alleged Google's mass appropriation of literary works depressed the overall market for fiction and nonfiction writers, illustrators, and cartoonists, thereby causing substantial harm to the commercial value of Plaintiffs' portfolio of works. The Court concluded these allegations were sufficient at this stage. Vicarious Copyright Infringement Against Alphabet The Court dismissed all vicarious copyright infringement claims against Alphabet Inc. To state a claim for vicarious copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has (1) the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and (2) a direct financial interest in the infringing activity. The Court found that Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that Alphabet had the practical ability to stop or limit Google's alleged direct infringement. Plaintiffs did not allege any facts regarding Alphabet's involvement in the training process, such as instructing Google how to select training datasets or overseeing any part of the training process. Additionally, the Court held that vicarious copyright infringement claims are subject to the bedrock principle of corporate law that a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries solely because of the parent-subsidiary relationship. The Court found no basis in the Copyright Act or case law to hold a parent company vicariously liable solely due to the parent-subsidiary relationship. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs' allegations did not establish that Alphabet exercised greater control over Google than any parent company may exercise over its subsidiary. The allegations fell into two categories: facts regarding the corporate relationship between Alphabet and Google, and facts suggesting that Alphabet exercised strategic oversight regarding AI development generally. These allegations do not plausibly allege that Alphabet is vicariously liable for Google’s alleged infringement by training its AI models using datasets that contained Plaintiffs’ works.. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend The Court dismissed certain claims without leave to amend, considering factors such as repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed and futility of amendment. Although the Court did not find bad faith or dilatory motive, all other factors weighed in favor of denying leave to amend. Plaintiffs failed to cure pleading deficiencies despite several previous opportunities to amend. Before reassignment, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the Leovy complaint and granted leave to amend. After consolidation, this Court granted leave to amend again over Defendants' objections and required substantial meet and confer processes. The Court found that further leave to amend would be futile in light of previous opportunities and Plaintiffs' failure to cure pleading deficiencies. Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to identify any facts that could save the dismissed claims at the hearing, which further demonstrates that amendment would be futile. Final Orders Therefore, the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' direct infringement claims relating to Codey, Chirp, Veo, MedLM, LearnLM, SecLM, Gemma, CodeGemma, RecurrentGemma, and PaliGemma. The Court also dismissed with prejudice all claims for vicarious copyright infringement against Alphabet. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a second amended consolidated complaint within 14 days to amend the class definition and make necessary conforming edits, consistent with the Court's order on Google's motion to strike class allegations. Plaintiffs may not add any new claims, parties, or other allegations in the amended complaint. Google shall file its answer within 21 days after Plaintiffs file the second amended consolidated complaint. A copy of the court's decision is available athttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=DqtHxl from PacerMonitor.com GREAT PLAINS: Bighead Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Dwight Samuel Bighead, Jr., and Ethan Elliott, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREAT PLAINS PROTECTION Agency LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company, and Patrick Redden, Individually, Case No. 5:25-cv-01057-PRW (W.D. Okla., Sept. 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA, because Plaintiffs, and members of the putative class, performed services for Defendants for which no provisions were made by Defendants to properly pay Plaintiffs, and members of the putative class, for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a workweek. The Defendants have/had a willful common policy and plan of improperly classifying Plaintiff Bighead, as well as other Sergeants, Majors, Captains, and Lieutenants throughout the company, as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA as well as failing to keep accurate records of the hours worked by the members of the FLSA Class in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work week(s) within the past 3 years, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant Great Plains Protection Agency, LLC and Defendant Patrick Redden. Great Plains Protection Agency, LLC is a privately held company and has conducted business as an employer providing security guard service to various homes, apartment complexes, and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dorothy E. Heim, Esq. HEIM LAW FIRM 764 N. Santa Fe Ave. Edmond, OK 73003 Phone: (405) 445-6155 Fax: (405) 594-7611 Email: dorothy@heimlegalservices.com GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Deny Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Civil Rights Department, Plaintiff, v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, No. 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and denied Defendant's motion to deny class certification. The Civil Rights Department brought this action against Grimmway Enterprises alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The lawsuit concerns Defendant's treatment of employees referred to its Interactive Process Section between January 1, 2016 and March 1, 2024. Plaintiff seeks to represent a group consisting of over 600 employees who were referred to the Interactive Process Section during this period. The Court denied Defendant's motion to deny class certification, finding that state agencies authorized to act in the public's interest to obtain broad relief under federal statutes need not comply with Rule 23 requirements. The Court concluded that states are authorized to bring suit under Title VII and therefore under the ADA, and that states may bring such suits in their capacity as parens patriae. Regarding Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court denied most claims but granted summary judgment on limited theories. The Court granted Defendant's motion only as to Plaintiff's theory that Defendant failed to consider undue hardship when denying accommodations, finding that undue hardship is a defense that may be raised during litigation rather than a requirement for employers to analyze contemporaneously. The Court also granted Defendant's motion regarding Plaintiff's theory that Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, noting that Plaintiff had apparently abandoned this theory. The Court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding several alleged patterns or practices, including: First, automatic unpaid leave placement. The evidence showed that Defendant automatically funneled into unpaid leave almost all employees referred to the Interactive Process Section (at least 96%) and had a policy of doing so. The Court found that where unpaid leave is imposed automatically without engagement with employees to find other appropriate accommodations, it can constitute disability discrimination under the ADA. Second, failure to consider assistive technology. Plaintiff's expert concluded that Defendant's practices are not compliant with prevailing guidelines for meeting employers' reasonable accommodation obligations and that Defendant systematically failed to consider assistive technology as a possible reasonable accommodation. Third, preference in hiring for reassignment. The evidence reflected disputed issues regarding whether Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of failing to give disabled employees priority in reassignment to vacant positions. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its FEHA disability discrimination claim premised on automatic unpaid leave placement. The Court found this violated California regulations prohibiting employers from requiring employees to take leave when other reasonable accommodations exist. The Court also granted Plaintiff's motion regarding several of Defendant's affirmative defenses, including the limited scope of the administrative complaint, failure to satisfy conditions precedent, laches, unclean hands, and standing challenges. Remaining Claims for Trial The action proceeds to trial on multiple claims including disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, unlawful interference, and failure to prevent discrimination under both the ADA and FEHA. Procedural Orders The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer on their availability for trial and contact the Courtroom Deputy within fourteen days with proposed dates for a Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial. The Court applied the Teamsters two-phase framework for pattern or practice employment discrimination cases, finding that in the first phase, the government need only establish that one employee in the group is disabled and otherwise qualified to demonstrate that a discriminatory pattern or practice is unlawful. The Court also addressed the scope of representative actions by government agencies, concluding that the Civil Rights Department's authority derives from its role as parens patriae rather than traditional class action procedures. The Court's ruling allows the Civil Rights Department to proceed with its representative action challenging Grimmway Enterprises' accommodation practices while narrowing some theories of liability. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining discrimination and accommodation failure claims under both federal and state disability rights laws. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38veqA from PacerMonitor.com HADICO HOLDINGS: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. HADICO HOLDINGS LLC and LUXURY HOTELS GROUP FLORIDA INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-14338-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. HADICO HOLDINGS LLC and LUXURY HOTELS GROUP FLORIDA INC. own, operate, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot, paths of travel and walkways.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com HEIDELBERG MATERIALS: Amison Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Cornelius E. Amison, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heidelberg Materials U.S., Inc., & Heidelberg Materials Midwest AGG, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02494-D (N.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2025), is brought against Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff time and one half-the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. Specifically, Defendants require Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to suit into protective clothing and safety gear (personal protective equipment, hereafter "PPE") necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines also known as "donning," while on mining premises without compensation, prior to being "clocked in." Similarly, Defendants require Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to remove and store PPE and wash up, also known as "doffing," without compensation, or while "clocked out." This pre/post shift off the clock work policy of Defendants violates the FLSA by depriving Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants who, like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each 7 day workweek in the time period of 3 years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on 2012 and stopped working for Defendants on May of 2025. The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com HEIGHTS FINANCE: Discovery Scheduling Order Entered in Alexander ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ALEXANDER, v. HEIGHTS FINANCE CORPORATION, SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LIFE INS. CO., Case No. 3:23-CV-00449-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin Lindsay entered an order setting the following schedule to establish joint administration of discovery in light of the Court's Order consolidating two cases for discovery purposes: (1) All non-class fact discovery shall be completed within 120 days of the Court’s ruling on the pending motions for class certification. (2) Should the Parties deem it necessary to conduct non-class- certification-related expert discovery, they shall move the Court for leave to do so and include a proposed amended schedule in their motion. (3) Counsel for the Parties shall file all dispositive motions and any motions objecting to the admissibility of expert witness testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), no later than 30 days after the close of non-class discovery. Heights provides installment loans and related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0aUSsj at no extra charge.[CC] HEIGHTS FINANCE: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Oct. 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ALEXANDER, v. HEIGHTS FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00449-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Lindsay entered an order as follows: The Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is granted nunc pro tunc, and the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is deemed timely filed. The Defendant shall respond to the motion for class certification on or before Oct. 8, 2025, and the Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before Oct. 22, 2025. Heights provides installment loans and related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UqJKS1 at no extra charge.[CC] HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Antitrust Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that French luxury brand Hermes has convinced a U.S. judge to dismiss for a second time a lawsuit alleging it violates antitrust law by forcing buyers to spend thousands of dollars on its products before they can purchase one of the fashion company's famed Birkin handbags. U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco on Wednesday, September 17, rejected claims by three Hermes shoppers in California that the company was suppressing competition. "It may be, as plaintiffs suggest, that Hermes reserves the Birkin bag for its highest-paying customers, but that in itself is not an antitrust violation," Donato wrote in his order. The judge dismissed the proposed class action with prejudice, which means it cannot be refiled. Hermes, its lawyers and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit, filed last year, claimed Hermes violated U.S. antitrust law by "tying" or restricting purchases of its Birkin bags to customers with a sufficient sales history with the company. The consumers called the retail price of a Birkin bag an illusion that "masked a hidden lottery system that forces consumers to purchase substantial amounts of Hermes ancillary products to 'qualify' for the mere opportunity to buy a Birkin." Hermes and its sales staff "know that many of the people they induce to buy ancillary products will not in fact get a Birkin bag," the lawsuit said. In seeking dismissal, Hermes told Donato that sales of Birkin bags, which are handmade and can cost thousands of dollars, take place in a competitive market. Donato at a hearing last year cast doubt on the claims made by the plaintiffs before he dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit. The judge told the lawyers for the plaintiffs that if Hermes "chooses to make five Birkin bags a year and charge a million to them, it can do that." [GN] HOME DEPOT: Castellanos Suit Transferred to D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Judy Castellanos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-4665-TRJ was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Sept. 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-mc-00036-SPL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- often simply referred to as Home Depot, is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A Keilson, Esq. Oyinkansola Muraina, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 75 14th St. NE, Ste. 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 372-0408 Email: mkeilson@wtlaw.com HOME DEPOT: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Franklin" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Travis Franklin, Plaintiff, v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-03657-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part. Franklin was employed by Home Depot and filed this putative class action in the Superior Court of California County of Monterey on March 21, 2025, asserting claims for unfair competition and violations of the California Labor Code against his former employer. Home Depot removed the action to federal district court on April 25, 2025. The Complaint alleged nine claims against Defendant: (1) Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq.); (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1); (3) Failure to Pay Overtime (Labor Code Section 510); (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Permit Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Labor Code Section 226); (7) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses (Labor Code Section 2802); (8) Failure to Pay All Wages When Due; and (9) Failure to Correctly Pay Paid Sick Leave. The Court found the Complaint wholly inadequate, noting that it does not even allege what job Plaintiff performed while employed by Home Depot. At the hearing, the Court advised Plaintiff's Counsel that the Complaint was wholly inadequate and discussed numerous deficiencies, including the failure to allege any facts regarding the alleged Labor Code violations. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Claims 2-9 for violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code on the ground that those claims were comprised entirely of conclusory, boilerplate allegations. The Court stated that the Complaint does not contain a single fact specific to the conduct of Defendant or the experience of Plaintiff in particular. The generalized allegations set forth in the Complaint are insufficient to support Plaintiff's claims for wage and hour violations. Regarding Claim 1 under California's UCL, the Court dismissed this claim because it was grounded in Defendant's insufficiently pled violations of the California Labor Code. Because Plaintiff's UCL claim was predicated on the violations inadequately alleged in Claims 2-9, the Court found that Claim 1 was likewise subject to dismissal. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, he lacks Article III standing because he is no longer employed by Defendant. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's class allegations under Rule 12(b)(6), finding this was one of the rare cases in which dismissal of class allegations was appropriate because the complaint lacks any factual allegations and reasonable inferences that establish the plausibility of class allegations. The Complaint was devoid of any facts that could support a plausible inference that all members of the two putative classes suffered violations of the California Labor Code. The Court determined that leave to amend was appropriate for most claims, finding no evidence of undue delay, bad faith, failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to Defendant. However, any amendment to the claim for injunctive relief would be futile. Accordingly, leave to amend was granted as to each of the claims other than the claim for injunctive relief. (1) The motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted as to all claims with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part, as follows: a. Leave to amend is granted as to Claims 2-9; b. Leave to amend is granted as to Claim 1 to the extent it seeks restitution; and c. Leave to amend is denied as to Claim 1 to the extent it seeks injunctive relief. (2) The motion to dismiss the class allegations is granted with leave to amend. (3) Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days after the date of this order, by October 20, 2025. Plaintiff may not add new claims or parties without express leave of the Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at fhttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ct4YrL from PacerMonitor.com HUT CAROLINAS: Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 5, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANANDA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. HUT CAROLINAS LLC, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00106-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Jones, Jr. entered an order as follows: 1. Initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(l) are due by Aug. 22, 2025; 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Daubert motions related to class certification shall be filed by no later than Feb. 5, 2026, responses shall be filed by no later than March 5, 2026, and any replies shall be filed by no later than March 26, 2026; and 3. The parties shall conduct a supplemental Rule 26(f) conference within 14 days after the court rules on the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and thereafter file a plan that will govern the remaining discovery period. On consent of all parties, and with the concurrence of the District Judge, this case may be referred to a Magistrate Judge for jury or bench trial, as appropriate, with a peremptory trial setting and the right of direct appeal to the Fourth Circuit. A copy of the consent form may be obtained from the Clerk. The parties are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. The remaining provisions of the discovery plan not inconsistent with the foregoing are approved and adopted as this court's order. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XGUH1H at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Knight Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Elenor Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00735 (M.D. Ala., Sept. 12, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees are entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in November 2004 and is currently employed with Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, and employs thousands of hourly employees in Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Sheffer, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 314-0500 Email: esheffer@wigginschilds.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com INNOVAGE HOLDING: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ InnovAge Holding Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of the settlement they entered into in the putative securities class action complaint filed in the District Court for the District of Colorado. On October 14, 2021, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action complaint filed in the District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired shares of the Company's common stock during a specified period. Through the complaint, plaintiffs asserted claims against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and directors, Apax Partners, L.P., Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe and the underwriters in the Company's IPO, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for making allegedly inaccurate and misleading statements and omissions in connection with the Company's IPO and subsequent earnings calls and public filings, and seeking compensatory damages, among other things. In June 2025, the Company and the other defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle all claims in exchange for a payment by the Company of $27.0 million. The settlement agreement received preliminary approval from the District Court on June 17, 2025, and a final approval hearing has been set for November 26, 2025. After adjusting for the settlement amounts to be paid directly by the Company's insurers, the Company accrued expenses of $10.1 million representing its share of the settlement amount during fiscal year 2025. Until the District Court grants final approval of the settlement, there can be no assurances that the settlement will be completed on the terms disclosed herein or at all. IPS NATIONWIDE INC: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IPS Nationwide, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Keshawn Moore, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. IPS Nationwide, Inc., Case No. 25STCV27234 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Sept. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." IPS Nationwide, Inc. -- https://ipsnationwide.com/ -- are a premier security company specializing in event & security services for some of the largest events nationwide.[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 IRON MOUNTAIN: Class Cert Bid Filing in First J Due July 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FIRST J PRODUCTIONS, INC., v. IRON MOUNTAIN, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04412-CV-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valenzuela entered a scheduling and trial order as follows: Last date to hear motion to amend pleadings or Dec. 5, 2025 add parties: Class certification expert disclosure (initial): May 3, 2026 The Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for July 15, 2026 class certification: The Defendants' deadline to file opposition Aug. 14, 2026 to motion for class certification: Last date to hear motion for class Oct. 2, 2026 certification: Expert discovery cut-off: Apr. 2, 2027 Iron is an American enterprise information management services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IL6y7a at no extra charge.[CC] JEFF ZMUDA: Jensen Bid to Appoint Class Counsel Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA JENSEN, v. JEFF ZMUDA, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-03178-JWL (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W. Lungstrum entered an order provisionally granting the Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff remains obligated to resubmit his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the required financial information by the Oct. 2, 2025, deadline set forth in the Court's notice of deficiency at Doc. The failure to comply with the notice of deficiency by the deadline may result in the dismissal of this matter without further prior notice to the Plaintiff. The Court further entered an ordered that the motion to appoint class counsel, the motion for joinder of parties, and the motion to subpoena are denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff and state prisoner Joshua Jensen filed this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Lansing Correctional Facility inLansing, Kansas. The Plaintiff asserts that NCF staff have a pattern or practice of failing to comply with K.A.R. 44-12-601, they violate his Fourth Amendment right to be secure in his papers by censoring his mail, they do not afford him due process, and they treat him differently than "all other Americans" whose mail is not censored by the State. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NYl3B5 at no extra charge.[CC] KANSAS: Court Confirms Dismissal of Salmon Suit With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Micheal Salmon, Plaintiff v. David Braun, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-3148-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and confirms the dismissal of the case with prejudice. Plaintiff Micheal Salmon, a state pretrial detainee currently detained at the Franklin County Detention Center in Ottawa, Kansas, brought this pro se civil action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On August 19, 2025, the Court issued a memorandum and order to show cause identifying deficiencies in the complaint that left this matter subject to dismissal in its entirety. On August 29, 2025, the Court issued an order dismissing this matter with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of his truck, reversal of an eviction, and his immediate release from pretrial detention. He also requested that this case be redesignated as a RICO action and processed immediately. The Court found that even if this case had not been dismissed, any request for summary judgment would have been denied because both defendants named in this case are immune from being sued. The Court explained that the plaintiff's request for reclassification of this case as a civil RICO case was unpersuasive. Nothing in the complaint filed in this matter, even when liberally construed, states a civil RICO claim. The Court noted that the way to alter the nature of claims in this matter was to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did not do. Regarding jurisdiction, the plaintiff asserted that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332 and argued that he was entitled to the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Court found these arguments unpersuasive. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages against the State of Kansas, unless the State waives its immunity. The Ex parte Young doctrine applies only when plaintiffs are suing state officials rather than the state itself, and therefore would not affect plaintiff's claims against the State of Kansas. The plaintiff argued that Judge Braun was not entitled to judicial immunity because he issued a frivolous protection order, told plaintiff to shut up and face forward during a hearing, and worked with a prosecutor. The Court carefully read and considered the cases cited by plaintiff and concluded that none of them provide legal authority to find that Judge Braun is not entitled to judicial immunity. The Court noted that a judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. The Court determined that the only two defendants named in this matter were the State of Kansas and Judge Braun, both of whom are immune from the claims brought and relief sought by plaintiff in his complaint. Even liberally construing plaintiff's latest response, nothing in the response would have altered the Court's determination that this case must be dismissed for failure to state a claim against a named defendant. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment. Even considering the merits of plaintiff's response, the Court remained convinced that this matter was correctly dismissed on August 29, 2025. The case will remain closed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pFYo71 from PacerMonitor.com. KBR INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR) between May 6, 2025 and June 19, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for KBR investors under the federal securities laws. To join the KBR class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42136 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Despite the knowledge that the U.S. Department of Defense's Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) had, for months, had material concerns with HomeSafe's ability to fulfill the Global Household Goods Contract, defendants claimed that the partnership was without issue, and would ramp up in future quarters; and (2) as a result, defendants statements about KBR's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 18, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42136 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com[GN] KEVIN COPPINGER: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CARON and ADAM COCHRANE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. KEVIN COPPINGER, in his official capacity as Essex County Sheriff, Case No. 1:25-cv-11075-GAO (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant until Nov. 7, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs until Dec. 8, 2025, to file a reply, if any, or to otherwise reach agreement on the class certification issue. Accordingly, the parties seek to extend the Defendant's time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion, as well as the Plaintiffs' time to reply, so that they may explore potential agreement. No party will be prejudiced by the allowance of this motion. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 23, 2025. On that same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On June 25, 2025, the Defendant sought an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs motion until Sept. 8, 2025, and an extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file a reply brief, if any, until Oct. 8, 2025. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FPvPwC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Milton, Esq. Michael Horrell, Esq. Ada Lin, Esq. Rachel Talamo, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS 50 Federal Street, 4th Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-2773 E-mail: dmilton@plsma.org mhorrell@plsma.org alin@plsma.org rtalamo@plsma.org The Defendant is represented by: Katherine M. Fahey, Esq. Rauvin A. Johl, Esq. GOVERNMENT BUREAU One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2078 Facsimile: (617) 963-2441 E-mail: Katherine.Fahey@mass.gov Rauvin.Johl@mass.gov KEVIN STITT: Wins Summary Judgment v. Thomas -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAIN EDWARD THOMAS, v. KEVIN STITT, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00944-D (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Defendants also argue that the line of Supreme Court cases limiting the types of sentences that can be imposed on certain juvenile offenders do not apply to Plaintiff, who was a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Finally, the Defendants contend that Plaintiff has received a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by being considered for parole, and thus no Eighth Amendment violation has occurred. The Plaintiff is a state prisoner that was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for crimes he committed when he was 15 years old. The Plaintiff is currently parole-eligible and has been denied parole five times. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ex8pWl at no extra charge.[CC] KIA MOTORS: Appeals Court Revives Class Suit on Theft-Prone Cars ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Tobias, writing for Signal, reports that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this week revived a class action lawsuit against Kia and Hyundai, overturning a lower court decision involving their theft-prone cars. The lawsuit stems from the rampant theft of the vehicles after their manufacturers failed to install industry-standard anti-theft devices in the cars' steering columns and fix flimsy ignition assemblies. The social media platform TikTok became a host of viral how-to videos showing how to steal the cars, which led to reels of teens joyriding in stolen vehicles. The plaintiffs in the case are a person severely injured and the family of a man who died after being hit by stolen Kias in separate incidents, one driven by a 15-year-old and one by a 16-year-old. A district judge previously dismissed the lawsuits, emphasizing that the role of the teenage drivers bore the blame, not the vehicles. But appellate judges ruled that the teenagers' actions were a predictable enough outcome of cars that are so easy to steal that the manufacturers shouldn't be let off the hook. Treatment tensions in Portsmouth Portsmouth, in Southern Ohio, first drew national attention earlier this century as an epicenter of the opioid epidemic. It has become an epicenter of addiction recovery -- and that shift is sparking new tensions in the community. This week, Andrew reported how Scioto County now has among the most recovery homes of any county in Ohio, outranking some of Ohio's largest counties, despite having a population of only about 72,000. These homes, often set up in converted single-family houses, provide temporary housing for people in recovery. The growth has brought classic "Not in My Backyard" concerns -- but also deeper worries. Local officials say the rapid expansion is fueling speculation in the housing market, making homes unaffordable and in some cases contributing to homelessness and leaving vulnerable residents in unsafe conditions. At the Statehouse, a pending bill aims to rein in the problem, though advocates warn it could end up choking off recovery efforts instead. Activists and others call for unbiased congressional maps It was a familiar sight for Ohio politics watchers: A left-leaning coalition of redistricting advocates held a rally outside the Statehouse and urged Republicans to approve a fair congressional map later this year. They also announced they're resubmitting a map they developed earlier this decade for state leaders to consider. A longtime redistricting reform advocate who's a leader in the group isn't optimistic that lawmakers will heed the call. Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, said redistricting has gotten even more political this year after President Donald Trump openly called on Republican states to help the GOP expand its slim congressional majority by redrawing their congressional lines early. Democratic-controlled states have responded by doing the same. "It's really hard going into this feeling hopeful," Turcer said in an interview. "But there are good rules in the Ohio Constitution, and elected officials should live up to what is in the Ohio Constitution." The event was held ahead of the first public redistricting hearing set for Monday, September 22. Republicans have until the end of November to come up with a new map and are expected to tweak the state's lines to help them win a larger share of Ohio's congressional districts. Currently, Republicans hold 10 of the state's 15 districts. Groups that participated in September 17 rally included organized labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO Federation of Labor and the Ohio Education Association. Good-government and political advocacy groups and civil rights organizations also participated, including the League of Women Voters, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative and the A. Philip Randolph Institute. Some elected Democrats milled around the event but didn't take the stage. Millions for disaster relief The Ohio Controlling Board this week released $13.4 million to cover costs due this year from increasingly frequent extreme weather events in the state. Flooding and severe storms in Jackson County cost the Emergency Management Agency more than $600,000. Severe flooding in 13 Southeast Ohio counties in late March and early April cost $10 million. Flash flooding in Fairfield County in late July cost $2.8 million. EMA officials estimate they'll owe another $6.6 million in disaster relief spending. [GN] KIMBERLY-CLARK: "Rosenwald" Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Judah Rosenwald; Cindy Rutter, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; Craig Chouraki-Lewin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 24-299, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-04993-LB (9th Cir.), Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment against plaintiffs and remanded with instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice because neither the district court nor the appellate court had diversity jurisdiction. Kimberly-Clark manufactures Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes. The wipes are sold in packages with front and back labels. The front label says that the wipes are for germ removal and that the product safely wipes away 99% of germs from skin with "no harsh chemicals." Next to the last two statements, the front label has a banner that says WIPES AWAY in all capital letters. The back label says that the wipes provide "the cleansing power of water" and provides a list of ingredients indicating that the product contains soaps but no germicides. Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes and sued Kimberly-Clark in August 2022, claiming that the wipes' labels misled them into believing that the wipes contained germicides, not just soaps, and would kill germs, not just wipe them away. The district court dismissed the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (6), dismissing the non-California Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing the remaining claims because it was not plausible that the labels would deceive a reasonable consumer. The court did the same with the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), this time without leave to amend. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint did not allege Kimberly-Clark's citizenship, and did not allege the amount in controversy. The panel explained that a federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction" and we are obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction. The court examined both Section 1332(a) and Section 1332(d)(2) diversity requirements. Section 1332(a) requires complete diversity - no plaintiff may be from the same state as any defendant. Section 1332(d)(2) requires minimal diversity, which is satisfied whenever any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant. The SAC alleged that each plaintiff is a citizen of California, Washington, or Wyoming, but said nothing about Kimberly-Clark's citizenship. The court rejected arguments that Exhibit 1 to the SAC established Kimberly-Clark's citizenship, noting that a corporation can have an office in a state without being a citizen of that state and a corporation is a citizen of the place where it is incorporated even if it has no office there. Agreeing with the Tenth Circuit and disagreeing with the Fifth Circuit, the panel held that a district court may not establish diversity of citizenship purely by judicial notice. The court explained that the party seeking to invoke the district court's diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction. The court reasoned that what may be judicially noticed need not be pleaded and if a "court could take judicial notice of a party's citizenship, there would be no necessity at all for alleging diversity of citizenship between corporate parties in Federal courts. Amount in Controversy Issues The SAC stated no dollar value for the amount in controversy, either in the jurisdictional allegations or elsewhere. The court noted that when a plaintiff originally files in federal court, the amount in controversy is determined from the face of their pleadings. Therefore, plaintiffs must affirmatively allege the essential elements of diversity jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy. On appeal, plaintiffs submitted a proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) at the court's invitation. The plaintiffs successfully alleged diversity of citizenship for purposes of either 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(a) or 1332(d)(2). However, they conceded that they could not allege over $5 million in controversy pursuant to Section 1332(d)(2), and the court held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged over $75,000 in controversy pursuant to Section 1332(a). The court found that plaintiffs misread the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act's statutory-damages provision. The total award of damages in a class action must be at least $1,000, but individual recoveries have no floor. The court concluded that with at least 1,000 Californians in the class, the $1,000 provision gives the class less than a dollar each, which is less than the amounts they actually paid ranging from $0.99 to $14.03. The court noted that no plaintiff can recover a full refund unless they prove the product had no value to them. While plaintiffs claimed the class members received no value for their money because the product only contained soaps, the court found this allegation far-fetched at best, observing that people pay for soaps even though soap is sometimes free in public spaces. The court found that no class member could claim $10,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiffs seemed to reach $10,000 in punitive damages by taking actual damages of $1,000 and multiplying by 10. However, the court noted that plaintiffs' punitive-damages calculation relied on an erroneous estimate of actual damages, stating that because nothing in the TAC permits a reasonable inference that any class member's actual damages are anywhere near $1,000, punitive damages are, at most, far below $10,000. Attorney's Fees Calculation The court determined that plaintiffs could not find the missing $64,000 by adding in attorney's fees. In a class action, the potential attorneys' fees should be attributed pro rata to each class member." The court calculated that with approximately 53,500 class members in California, to get $64,000 in fees per class member, Rosenwald needs $3.4 billion in total fees. He has no chance of nearing that figure." Court's Final Determination The court held that the TAC said nothing to suggest any class member bought enough wipes to bring their actual damages near $1,000. Nor could any class member claim $10,000 in punitive damages. Even assuming $1,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages were in controversy, plaintiffs cannot find the missing $64,000 by adding in attorneys' fee Constructive Amendment Denied The court declined to constructively amend the pleadings, applying six factors for such determination. The court found that the first factor cut against amendment because plaintiffs had not made the necessary allegation. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' counsel said he cannot allege in good faith that an award of attorneys' fees or punitive damages here would plausibly bring a possible award to the $5m mark of CAFA. No Further Leave to Amend The court denied further leave to amend, noting that plaintiffs failed to plead subject-matter jurisdiction in the original Complaint, First Amended Complaint, or SAC. The court issued two orders outlining jurisdictional concerns, yet Plaintiffs' TAC is far from alleging a viable amount in controversy. Final Ruling The Court of Appeals concluded that neither it nor the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment against plaintiffs and remanded with instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend as moot and ordered that each side shall bear its own costs on appeal. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AoFJYR from PacerMonitor.com LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Firefighter Gear Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lakeland Industries, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action regarding firefighter turnout gear. The Company is involved in various claims, actions, and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including multiple lawsuits pending in the aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") multi-district litigation consolidated in the United States District Court of South Carolina, Charleston Division. These cases involve allegations that plaintiffs were exposed to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") in the course of their careers as firefighters. Plaintiffs allege they were exposed to PFAS contained in AFFF and firefighter turnout gear. The Company is also named alongside several defendants in a class action regarding firefighter turnout gear pending in the United States District Court of Connecticut, styled as Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut et al. v. 3M Company et al., Case No. 3:24-CV-01101. The case seeks certification of a fire fighter class, a nationwide purchaser class, and a Connecticut purchaser subclass. The Company's exposure in these matters to losses, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. LASERSHIP INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WEST, ROMAINE CLARKE, RYON MORGAN, and SAADALA ABOULESSAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting in part and denying in part Second Collective Motion as follows: (1) The Court conditionally certifies a collective action comprised of: "drivers who delivered packages out of LaserShip's Maspeth and Mineola warehouses from June 17, 2018 to the present (the "Collective")." (2) The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding Court- ordered changes to the Proposed Notice and by Sept. 19, 2025, submit the Revised Notice for the Court's review and approval. (3) By Oct. 6, 2025, the parties shall meet and confer regarding whether LaserShip possesses any additional Contact Information for the members of the Collective that it has not already produced, and if so, a deadline for such production no later than Nov. 5, 2025. (4) Once approved by the Court, the Revised Notice and consent form shall be mailed, emailed, and/or sent by text message to all potential members of the Collective, who must opt-in to this action within 60 days of the date of distribution. (5) The Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling is denied without prejudice to any individual plaintiff's ability to request tolling on a showing that tolling applies to that plaintiff's particular circumstances. (6) LaserShip's request for argument is denied as moot. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have met their modest-plus burden to show that they and other drivers who made deliveries out of LaserShips Maspeth and Mineola warehouses worked comparably long hours without overtime compensation and therefore were similarly situated to warrant distribution of notice of this action under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime and related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Lasership offers pickup, delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6diS2w at no extra charge.[CC] LGCY POWER: Class Cert Hearing in Dounane Set for Sept. 22, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dounane, v. LGCY Power, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-04720-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: July 26, 2027 Final pretrial conference: June 10, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 12, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Oct. 20, 2026 Last day to hear motion for class Sept. 22, 2026 certification: Hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss: Oct. 7, 2025 LGCY provides solar panels. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eEJtNm at no extra charge.[CC] LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON KLEIN, an Individual, ISAAC LEE, an Individual and JOHNSON WU, an Individual, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LJUBLJANA INTER AUTO D.O.O., a Slovenian Corporation, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 16, 2025, will move the Court for certification of the following Rule 23(b) (3) classes: The Macan Suspension Defect Class defined as: "All persons who purchased a Porsche Macan vehicle, other than a wholly electric Macan, regardless of trim level, between Jan. 1, 2014 and present, within California and primarily for personal, family or household purposes." The New Macan Suspension Defect Subclass consisting of: "All persons who purchased a new Macan between Dec. 1, 2015 and present." A Macan is 'new' if, at the time of purchase, it has not been previously purchased by anyone other than Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, their affiliates, or an authorized Porsche dealership. The Macan Oil Leak Class consisting of: "All persons who purchased a model year 2015-2018 Macan S, GTS, or Turbo Porsche Macan, between Jan. 1, 2014 and present, within California and primarily for personal, family or household purposes." The Macan Oil Leak Subclass consisting of: "All persons who purchased a new Macan. A Macan is "new" if, at the time of purchase, it has not been previously purchased by anyone other than Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, their affiliates, or an authorized Porsche dealership." (“The New Macan Oil Leak Subclass”). The Plaintiffs further request that Allison Klein, Johnson Wu, and Isaac Lee be appointed as the class representatives of The Macan Suspension Defect Class and The Macan Oil Leak Class, while Klein and Lee (but not Wu) be appointed as the class representatives of the two respective New Macan Subclasses. The Plaintiffs further request that Filippo Marchino, Richard W. Davis, Carlos X. Colorado, and Thomas E. Gray of The X-Law Group, P.C., be appointed as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs assert that Porsche Macans have two unrelated design defects: an engine-related oil leak and an upper control arm bushing that wears prematurely [the "suspension defect"]. The engine-related oil leak is present in the model year 2015-2018 Macan S, GTS, or Turbo Porsche Macans. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CnHNlM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Filippo Marchino, Esq. Richard W. Davis, Esq. Thomas E. Gray, Esq. Carlos X. Colorado, Esq. THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C. 625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (213) 599-3380 Facsimile: (213) 599-3370 E-mail: FM@XLAWX.com RD@XLAWX.com TG@XLAWX.com CC@XLAWX.com LORETTO REST: Parties Must File Status Report by Nov. 24 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alyssa Cruz v. Loretto Rest Realty Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-00613-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lovric entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before Nov. 5, 2025. -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before Nov. 5, 2025. -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before Nov. 24, 2025. -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before Sept. 30, 2026. -- Class Certification motion: March 16, 2026. Loretto provides healthcare space rental and dental, podiatry, and vision services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tNe2eE at no extra charge.[CC] LOUISIANA CHILDREN'S: Class Settlement Final Hearing Set Nov. 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a class action settlement resolves litigation against the Louisiana Children's Medical Center (LCMC) over its alleged sharing of patients' personal and medical data with Facebook and Google without consent. The LCMC class action settlement received preliminary court approval and covers anyone who has an LCMC Patient Portal account that they accessed between January 1, 2019 and November 30, 2022. The court-approved website for the Louisiana Children's Medical Center settlement can be found at LCMCDataSettlement.com. No action is required on the part of LCMC settlement class members to receive one year of CyEx Privacy Shield Pro, which includes CyEx's Dark Web Watchlist, Password Scan, Password Defense, Digital Vault, Private Search, VPN In Touch and Data Broker Opt-Out functions and services. Per the settlement website, an enrollment code was sent to all class members in their copy of the settlement notice, which can be used on this website to activate the Privacy Shield Pro subscription after the court grants final approval to the LCMC data settlement. LCMC class members may also choose to submit a claim form to receive a $15 cash payment. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by November 25, 2025. A hearing is scheduled for November 7, 2025 to determine whether the LCMC settlement will receive final court approval. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Louisiana Children's Medical Center class action lawsuit claimed that the LCMC allowed unauthorized transmissions containing private personal and medical information to be sent to Facebook and Google via its website and Patient Portal. [GN] LOVESAC CO: Continues to Defend Nguyen Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Lovesac Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Nguyen class suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. On March 21, 2024, a putative class action complaint related to the Company's pricing was filed against the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Nguyen v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, and was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint generally alleges that the Company falsely advertised discounts on certain products. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief related to the Company's sales practices, and attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other expenses. On June 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. On November 26, 2024, the court entered an order to stay all proceedings in the case in light of a mediation of the dispute scheduled for January 23, 2025. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the January 23, 2025 mediation. On February 7, 2025, the court unstayed the proceedings in the case for the purpose of ruling on the Company's pending motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, but dismissed Plaintiff's request for equitable relief, including injunctive relief, without leave to amend. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 2, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint is pending a decision by the Court. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this proceeding. Lovesac is a technology company that designs, manufactures and sells modular couches, premium foam beanbag chairs and their associated home decor accessories. It market and sell throughshowrooms, mobile concierge and kiosks and online directly at www.lovesac.com. MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Class Settlement Deal in Beck Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CZIGANY BECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. MANHATTAN COLLEGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03229-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Louis Stanton entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement, certifying settlement class, appointing class representatives, appointing class counsel, and approving notice plan] -- For purposes of settlement only: (a) Poulin Willey Anastopoulo, LLC is appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (b) Czigany Beck is named Settlement Class Representative. -- For purposes of settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class as defined in the Agreement: "All full-time students enrolled as undergraduate students during the Spring 2020 semester." Excluded from the Settlement Class are students who enrolled for classes at the beginning of the Spring 2020 semester, who paid no tuition or fees, or who left Manhattan College prior to March 1, 2020; Defendant; Defendant's officers, directors, agents, trustees, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint venturers, and/or entities under Defendant's control. Manhattan College is a Lasallian Catholic liberal arts school located in Riverdale. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=juebGo at no extra charge.[CC] MANHATTAN LUXURY: Court Wants More Settlement Filings by Oct. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brian Watson, et al., Plaintiffs v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-4572 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directs the parties to submit supplemental filings by Oct. 1, 2025, relating to their motion for approval of a class action settlement. A preliminary approval hearing was held on Sept. 2, 2025, to discuss the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The court addressed specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Release, including Section 48(3) regarding excluded settlement class members, Section 57 concerning individual settlement caps and per capita payments, Section 62 addressing the cy pres fund, Section 75 outlining notice types, Section 77 governing objection procedures, and Section 80(a) defining objection parameters. The court ordered the parties to file a proposed long-form notice for the settlement website providing detailed information similar to previously approved litigation class notices. Additionally, the parties must submit briefing addressing the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement for the ATDS Class and the adequacy of Plaintiff Jose Espinal to represent that class. The court further required submission of documents mandated by Individual Rule III.C.5, any amendments to the Settlement Agreement with marked changes from the original version, and a revised Postcard Notice reflecting settlement modifications. Finally, the parties must provide a revised proposed order for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, including a Word format copy to Chambers via email. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=koJJVe from PacerMonitor.com. META PLATFORMS: Loses Bid to Overturn Jury Verdict in "Frasco" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Erica Frasco, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Flo Health, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Meta Platforms, Inc.'s post-trial motions seeking to overturn a jury verdict that found the company violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act. The Court denied Meta's requests for decertification of the California plaintiffs' class, judgment as a matter of law on the CIPA claim, and a new trial. The jury had unanimously concluded that Meta violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act Section 632 by obtaining highly personal ovulation and menstrual period information communicated by women who used the Flo Period and Ovulation Tracker app. This privacy class action was tried to a jury over two weeks. The named plaintiffs were women who, between 2017 and 2019, downloaded and used the Flo App, which was marketed as a sexual health and wellness app and rated the number one period tracker in the United States. The app coached users to input personal information such as the timing of the user's menstrual cycle, preferred birth control methods, and details about users' sexual activity. Flo represented to users that it would keep their sensitive health information confidential, but Meta and Google obtained access to the personal information via a software development kit that each company provided to Flo for integration into the Flo App. Flo used Custom Event fields in the Flo App that captured users' menstruation and pregnancy information, which the SDKs collected and sent to Meta and Google. Defendants Google LLC and Flurry, Inc. settled before trial. Defendant Flo Health, Inc. settled during trial. Meta was the last defendant standing for the verdict. On May 19, 2025, the Court certified two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): 1. All Flo App users in the United States who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App between November 1, 2016, and February 28, 2019, for breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, and California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act claims against Flo. 2. All Flo App users in California who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App while residing in California between November 1, 2016, and February 28, 2019, for the invasion of privacy claim against Flo under California Constitution Article I, Section 1, and the CIPA Section 632 claim against Meta and Google. The Trial Evidence The trial evidence established that the Flo App contained a mandatory onboarding survey for all new users. During this survey, users were required to answer questions about their menstrual cycles, pregnancy status, and age. Each time a user answered an onboarding question and proceeded to the next screen, a series of functions would occur that resulted in the Facebook SDK recording the response before sending it to Meta's servers. Dr. Serge Egelman, plaintiffs' expert witness, testified that when a user clicked Next during the onboarding survey, the Flo App would invoke the Facebook SDK, and the SDK would begin to record the information as it was being logged and processed by the app. The evidence showed that Meta's code was listening in and recording the communication in real time. Meta argued that it did not eavesdrop on users' communications because the transmissions were separate communications between the app and Meta, distinct from communications between users and the app. The Court rejected this argument, finding there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the Facebook SDK directly eavesdropped on and recorded the communications between the Flo App and users. Meta also contended that the SDK was not an electronic recording device within the meaning of Section 632 because it was computer code rather than physical equipment. The Court found that even if a physical device were required, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that a user's phone fit the bill, as phones are essential to the operation of both the Flo App and the Meta SDK. Meta argued it did not intentionally use an electronic device because Flo integrated the SDK and controlled what data to send. The Court found ample evidence that Meta used its SDK running on users' phones to record and transmit user data. This included evidence that Meta actively encouraged app developers to incorporate its SDK to obtain consumer data for its advertising business and that Meta reaped substantial revenues from this data. The Court noted that witness Satterfield, a manager at Meta during the class period, acknowledged being aware of the risk that the SDK could transmit sensitive health information as early as 2016. Documentary evidence showed this risk was known within Meta, yet the company took no affirmative steps to control the flow of personally identifiable information until 2018 and did not restrict health information acquisition until after the class period ended. Meta claimed users consented through Meta's privacy policy, which disclosed that Meta could receive data from third-party apps. The Court found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Meta's privacy disclosure was too ambiguous to explicitly notify users of the conduct at issue. The Court noted that Flo's own privacy policy assured users it would not communicate their personal information to Meta. Regarding confidentiality, Meta argued users' communications were not confidential because they knew Flo was storing their answers. The Court rejected this interpretation, finding that Section 632's exclusions refer to communications where parties reasonably expect to be overheard by a non-party to the communication, which was not the case here. Meta challenged the availability of statutory damages, arguing individualized inquiries would be required. The Court rejected this argument, noting that under CIPA Section 637.2, an actionable violation occurs the moment surreptitious recording is made, and plaintiffs who suffer privacy injury from unauthorized recording are entitled to statutory damages without demonstrating further injury. The Court found that CIPA provides for damages of $5,000 per violation, and it is not a necessary prerequisite that the plaintiff has suffered actual damages. The statute's plain language establishes that the California legislature intended an award of $5,000 to be the remedy for a violation of CIPA, irrespective of actual damage. The Court concluded that nothing in the evidence adduced at trial or the record as a whole justified disturbing the California class or the jury's unanimous verdict. The Court found Meta's decertification arguments were nothing more than an improper attempt to seek reconsideration of the certification order, as Meta's arguments had virtually nothing to do with the evidence admitted at trial and were not based on materially new facts or law. Therefore, the Court denied Meta's motion for decertification or modification of the class definition. The Court also denied Meta's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Meta violated CIPA Section 632. Finally, the Court denied Meta's motion for a new trial, concluding the verdict was not contrary to the clear weight of the evidence. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahfJLg from PacerMonitor.com METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Illinois Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Methode Electronics, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative securities class action lawsuit filed in an Illinois court. On August 26, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Company common stock between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024, inclusive, entitled Marie Salem v. Methode Electronics, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, a former Chief Executive Officer, President and director of the Company and a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including in respect of the Company's transition to production of more specialized components for manufacturers of electric vehicles and the Company's operations at its facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages along with equitable relief and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. Another purported shareholder filed a substantially similar action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 7, 2024 against the same defendants and a former Chief Operating Officer of the Company, in a case entitled City of Cape Coral Municipal General Employees Retirement Plan v. Methode Electronics, Inc., et al. The second securities class action was filed on behalf of a broader putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between December 2, 2021 and March 6, 2024. In addition, two purported shareholders filed derivative lawsuits on November 26, 2024 and February 4, 2025, respectively. The derivative lawsuits were filed on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the current members of the Company's Board of Directors, as well as certain former directors and executives, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to issue various statements that are alleged to have been false or misleading for the same reasons alleged in the securities class action complaints. The derivative lawsuits are entitled Ray Homsi v. Donald Duda, et al. and Kevin D. Murphy v. Mark D. Schwabero, et al. (collectively with the Salem and City of Cape Coral matters, the "Stockholder Actions"). The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the Stockholder Actions. The Stockholder Actions could result in costs and losses to the Company, including potential costs associated with the indemnification of the other defendants. At this time, given the current status of the Stockholder Actions, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, that may result from the Stockholder Actions. MOUNTAIN RESTAURANT: Marino Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Marino, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MOUNTAIN RESTAURANT SUPPLY, LLC LOUIS FRANCESE, Case No. 7:25-cv-07607 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages on behalf of himself and all individuals similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law Articles 6, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("NYLL"). The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of both the FLSA, and the NYLL. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked after 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff at a rate of at least one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek was willful. The Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded the record-keeping requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants installing commercial kitchen equipment from 2022 to August 2025. The Defendants are engaged in sales, service, installation and delivery of commercial kitchen equipment and systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: NY Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff, v. National Instruments Corporation, Eric Starkloff, and Michael McGrath, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-10488-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification with a modified class definition. The Court granted the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointed Wayne County Employees' Retirement System as class representative, and appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel. The Court modified the proposed class definition to limit it to two discrete trading periods when National Instruments Corporation actually repurchased stock. National Instruments Corporation produced automated test equipment and virtual instrumentation software before being acquired by Emerson Electric Co. in 2023. Defendant Eric Starkloff served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and Board member. Defendant Michael McGrath was Chairman of the Board. The Board approved a stock repurchase program on January 19, 2022, authorizing repurchases of up to $250 million worth of common stock, representing the largest stock repurchase in the company's history. Stock repurchases occurred each month from January through May, with all March through May repurchases pursuant to the 2022 Stock Repurchase Plan. Emerson began making overtures to acquire the company in May 2022. On May 25, Emerson's CEO emailed a letter to Starkloff detailing an initial offer to purchase 100% of the outstanding common stock for $48 in cash per common share. The company's stock closed that day at $34.35 per share. The letter stated that Emerson was motivated to pursue a merger, was prepared to move quickly, and preferred to negotiate in private. On June 14, the Board rejected Emerson's offer, concluding that it substantially undervalued the company. In a letter of June 22, Emerson renewed its offer to acquire the company at $48 per share, stating that acquiring it was Emerson's highest strategic priority. The Board and management again rejected the offer as inadequate. On August 2, the company advised Emerson that the Board remains unanimously of the view that your proposal is not in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. No stock repurchases occurred in June or July, but the company resumed stock repurchases in August and September. Between August 12 and September 26, it repurchased 2,033,135 shares at an average price of $40.25. No more stock repurchases occurred in 2022. In a letter of November 3, having had no contact since August 2, Emerson made an offer to purchase the company at $53 per share and reiterated its desire to move quickly. Emerson warned that it was willing to bring its offer directly to shareholders if the company continued in its refusal to engage. On January 13, 2023, prior to the opening of trading, the company issued a press release announcing that its Board had initiated a review and evaluation of strategic options, including solicitation of interest from potential acquirors and other transaction partners, some of whom have already approached the Company. This statement did not mention Emerson or any of Emerson's offers. The stock price surged from the previous day's close of $40.17 per share to a high of $47.95 per share. On January 17, prior to the opening of trading, Emerson issued a press release announcing that it had made an all-cash offer to purchase all shares at $53 per share. Emerson also stated that in response to an initial offer, the company had chosen to conceal the offer from the investing public and had instead undertaken a large stock repurchase. The stock price surged from a previous close of $46.97 per share to a high of $54.69 per share. Emerson completed its acquisition on October 11, 2023, purchasing all stock at a price of $60 per share. The putative class action was filed on November 30, 2023. The lead plaintiff asserted a cause of action for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as a cause of action for control person liability pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Wayne County Employees' Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff on February 16, 2024. It filed the Amended Complaint on March 29. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 26. An Opinion of September 6, 2024 granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part. The Opinion dismissed claims that various statements by the defendants were misleading by omission because they failed to disclose Emerson's offers. Remaining in the action is a claim that the company violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by engaging in insider trading, having failed to either abstain from trading in securities or to disclose Emerson's offers while repurchasing securities. Also remaining are claims of control person liability against Starkloff and McGrath, which stem from the alleged insider trading. On May 2, 2025, the lead plaintiff moved to certify a class of all persons who sold common stock between August 12, 2022 and September 30, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The motion also requested that the lead plaintiff be appointed as class representative and that Robbins Geller be appointed as class counsel. The Court found that the lead plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The numerosity requirement was satisfied, as the lead plaintiff submitted evidence that over 400 institutions held stock during the proposed class period. The defendants did not dispute that the requirements of superiority and ascertainability were satisfied. The Court determined that the predominance requirement was satisfied under Rule 23(b)(3). The lead plaintiff may rely on the Affiliated Ute presumption to show reliance. Under the doctrine articulated in Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, when a securities fraud claim is premised on an omission rather than a false statement, reliance on the omission can be presumed from its materiality. The Affiliated Ute presumption applies in the context of an insider trading claim. Based on the evidence submitted, the defendants' failure to disclose Emerson's offers to acquire the company while repurchasing stock may have constituted a material omission. There was a meaningful possibility that Emerson would continue its efforts to acquire the company after it indicated serious interest in doing so in its letters of May 25 and June 22, and such acquisition efforts would have been significant to investors. The lead plaintiff showed that damages can be measured on a classwide basis. Dr. Cain opined that Emerson's offer to purchase stock at $48 per share implied a stock valuation of at least that amount per share during the class period. The but-for stock price that would have existed had the relevant truth been exposed can be conservatively estimated as $48 per share during the class period, which implies that the artificial deflation at any time during the class period can be modeled as $48 minus the actual stock price. The Court modified the proposed class definition to include only individuals who sold stock contemporaneously with repurchases. A duty of disclosure is owed to all persons who during the same period as the defendants traded stock on the open market. The duty of disclosure is owed only to those investors trading contemporaneously with the insider; non-contemporaneous traders do not require the protection of the disclose or abstain rule because they do not suffer the disadvantage of trading with someone who has superior access to information. Accordingly, the class was certified for sellers of stock in the two discrete periods identified by the defendants: August 12-30 and September 12-28, 2022, the dates when repurchases occurred, inclusive of settlement dates. This eliminated 14 days from the lead plaintiff's proposed class definition. The Court appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The firm demonstrated adequate work in identifying potential claims, experience in handling class actions and complex litigation, knowledge of applicable law, and resources to commit to representing the class. For Lead Plaintiff: Chad Johnson, Noam Mandel, Desiree Cummings, Jonathan Zweig, Jai Chandrasekhar, Christopher T. Gilroy, Alyssa H. Plascoff - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Robert C. Finkel, Joshua W. Ruthizer - Wolf Popper LLP For Defendants: James F. Bennett, J. Russell Jackson, Jenny E. Braun - Dowd Bennett LLP Andrew Ditchfield - Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ir9OHH from PacerMonitor.com NESPRESSO USA INC: Hooshdaran Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nespresso USA, Inc. The case is styled as Victoria Hooshdaran, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Nespresso USA, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02414-RBM-KSC (S.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nespresso USA -- https://www.nespresso.com/ -- brings luxury coffee and espresso machines straight from the café and into your kitchen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com NESPRESSO USA: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany A. Andres of Troutman Amin, LLP, writing for The National Law Review, reports that a putative class action was filed by Jibrael Hindi's office and is targeting Nespresso! Of course, it is a putative class action for alleged violations of the quiet hours provisions of the TCPA -- a statute that Hindi's office has latched on to recently. The facts are simple. Between May 2025 and July 2025, Plaintiff Victoria Hooshdaran alleges she received at least 13 text messages before the hour of 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time at the Plaintiff's location. Apparently from the screenshots included in the complaint, she was receiving text messages at 5:09 a.m. and 5:10 a.m. pacific. Based on this purported violation, Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location).[GN] NEVADA: Parents of Students Defeat Bid to Dismiss IDEA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Riquelmy, writing for Courthouse News Services, reports that parents of students with disabilities in the nation's fifth-largest school district overcame arguments Thursday, September 18, that their purported class action should be dismissed. The parents argue the Nevada Department of Education and the Clark County School District denied some 40,000 students their right to appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, called "IDEA," and violated the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The school district has policies that disrupt identifying students who need special education and doesn't provide proper accommodations for those with dyslexia, behavioral management needs and autism, the parents claim. "Plaintiffs identify [the school district's] policy of ignoring staffing shortages, using long-term substitutes, non-certified staff, and non-certified paraprofessionals to provide services to students with disabilities," U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said in her ruling. "They describe the district's policy of removing staff from classrooms and leaving special education students without sufficient support." The state and county defendants made different arguments for why the judge should dismiss the class action. The school district said the parents failed to state a claim, adding that they didn't prove every element needed for a class action. It said the parents didn't properly claim the school district discriminated against the students by reason of their disabilities, a necessary element. However, the judge pointed to "numerous" claims the school district didn't provide disability-specific services as a reasonable accommodation, including that it has no resources for those with dyslexia. She denied the motion to dismiss the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Turning to the IDEA claim, Navarro also found sufficient accusations in the class action. "It provides specific alleged examples of policies and practices that violate the IDEA, including a policy of instructing general education teachers not to tell parents that their children may need evaluation for special education services," the judge said. Navarro also disagreed with the school district's argument that she should decide now whether to certify the class. The district said it's uncertain whether the plaintiffs meet the requirements, an argument the judge said highlights her decision that it's premature to decide the issue. Pivoting to the state Department of Education's motion to dismiss, Navarro listed its arguments and turned them down one by one. The state said the parents have no standing for their IDEA claims as there's no private right of action. Also, they didn't exhaust the IDEA administrative process. The judge ruled that while M.M. v. Lafayette School District, a 2014 Ninth Circuit case, found IDEA doesn't provide a private right of action, it made no decision on whether it could be an implied right. Also, Lafayette focused on one student's rights, not a class arguing systemic problems. The state also said the judge should dismiss the class action, as parents didn't properly exhaust their administrative path. "The Ninth Circuit has made clear that exhaustion requirements are not absolute and has identified certain exceptions to the exhaustion rule for situations in which exhaustion serves 'no useful purpose," Navarro said. It isn't required when the process would prove futile, comes from a policy that clashes with law or is unlikely to provide relief, the judge said. "Plaintiffs are not challenging a specific state policy but are instead asserting that [the state] has failed to ensure that [the school district] is complying with the law," Navarro added. "Plaintiffs are therefore seeking to hold [the state] accountable for its failure to comply with its administrative oversight responsibilities -- the same responsibilities that the Ninth Circuit has explained are aided by the very administrative scheme plaintiffs want to avoid." The judge also disagreed with the argument that she should dismiss Jhone Ebert, school district superintendent, as a defendant because the claims are redundant. The claims against the superintendent are separate from those made against the state, Navarro said. "We are gratified that the court recognized the importance of these claims and refused to let procedural barriers prevent families from seeking justice," the plaintiffs' legal team said in a joint statement. "This ruling is an important step, but the work continues. We look forward to presenting the evidence and fighting to ensure every child with special needs in Clark County receives the education they are guaranteed by law." Attorneys for the defendants couldn't be reached for comment. [GN] NEXT BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Targgart Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Next Bridge Hydrocarbons Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Targgart securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 15, 2024, a securities class action captioned Targgart v. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-1927, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities that acquired the Company's shares in connection with the Company's spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc., in December 2022. The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that the Form S-1 that the Company filed with the SEC on July 14, 2022, which became effective on November 18, 2022, contained untrue statements or omissions. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified statutory and compensatory damages. On August 12, 2024, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Texas. On September 9, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the Company. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on July 3, 2025, the Court granted that motion. Targgart has filed a notice of appeal. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons -- https://www.nextbridgehydrocarbons.com/ -- is an energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation and/or development of oil and natural gas properties.[BN] NOVA SCOTIA: Proposes to Settle Deaf School Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority relating to the former School for the Deaf in Halifax, Nova Scotia and the former Interprovincial School for the Education of the Deaf in Amherst, Nova Scotia. The lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleges negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the alleged abuse of former students.day The settlement must be approved by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to be effective. A hearing is scheduled for November 28, 2025 at 9:30 am. The Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the Class. Interpreters will be at the hearing. On that same date, the Court will also consider whether to approve the payment of the legal fee and reimbursement of expenses to Wagners, the law firm representing the Class. If the settlement is approved, the Defendants will pay up to $36,235,702 to compensate Eligible Class Members, plus further amounts for collective indirect benefits ($3,000,000), the costs of administering the settlement ($2,500,000), and honoraria to the two Representative Plaintiffs ($15,000 each). The Defendants will also pay Class Counsel's legal fee and expenses. Class Counsel is seeking the Court's approval of a legal fee of $12,529,710.60 plus tax. These legal costs do not impact the amount of money Class Members will get under the settlement. The Defendants will also deliver a public apology. If the settlement is approved, Eligible Class Members can apply for two types of payments. The Systemic Harms Payment - open to Eligible Class Members, or their estates if the Eligible Class Member is now deceased but was alive on or after January 31, 2019 - will compensate for harmful experiences commonly suffered by Class Members. The Independent Assessment Process Payment will compensate living Eligible Class Members for physical and sexual abuse suffered at the schools. This amount depends upon the severity of the abuse and harm (level 1 is $90,000 to $100,000, level 2 is $140,000 to $150,000). "This settlement provides the acknowledgment of Class Members' experiences that they deserve. It is an important achievement for us all," said Richard Martell, one of the two Representative Plaintiffs. Michael Perrier, also a Representative Plaintiff, said "We're looking forward to November 28. We've waited many years for an outcome, and it is time that Class Members be compensated." NVE BANCORP: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bell Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jasmine Bell, Plaintiff v. NVE Bancorp, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00618-CCC-AME (D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss, compel arbitration, and stay proceedings. Judge Cecchi denied NVE Bancorp's motion to compel arbitration without prejudice and ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. The court found that the question of arbitrability cannot be resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, and thus it would be inappropriate to apply the Rule 12(b)(6) in deciding this motion. Plaintiff brings this matter against NVE, Tablo Pty Ltd d/b/a Tablo Publishing Inc., and John Does 1 to 10 for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the federal Electronic Transfer Act, and various common law claims. Plaintiff claims that Tablo charged Plaintiff's account with an unauthorized transaction, and NVE erroneously permitted the transaction. The defendant moved to compel arbitration based on an alleged agreement between NVE and Plaintiff. NVE attached to its Declaration the first page of the Deposit Account Agreement and a letter regarding updates to the DAA, which includes an alleged arbitration agreement. The court explained that the Federal Arbitration Act reflects the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration and places arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts. Courts compel arbitration of claims covered by a written, enforceable arbitration agreement. However, arbitration is strictly a matter of contract and thus is governed by state law. When deciding whether to compel arbitration under the FAA, the court must determine (1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties and, if so, (2) whether the merits-based dispute in question falls within the scope of that valid agreement. In conducting this inquiry, the court applies state law principles of contract formation. The court noted that in determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, it must first decide whether to apply the Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 standard of review. The court will review a motion to compel arbitration under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard when it is apparent, based on the face of a complaint, and documents relied upon in the complaint, that certain of a party's claims are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause. Conversely, the Rule 56 standard will apply when either the motion to compel arbitration does not have as its predicate a complaint with the requisite clarity to establish on its face that the parties agreed to arbitrate, or the opposing party has come forth with reliable evidence that is more than a naked assertion that it did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement. Judge Cecchi found that Plaintiff's complaint makes no reference to the DAA, any contractual agreement including an arbitration clause, or a particular arbitration provision itself. Moreover, the DAA is not attached to Plaintiff's complaint as an exhibit. Instead, it is cited and entered into the record for the first time in defendant's motion. The court explained that on a motion to compel arbitration the court may only consider the face of a complaint and documents relied upon in the complaint. Thus, the court cannot rely on defendant's submission as the proper vehicle through which to analyze the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Courts routinely deny motions to compel arbitration where the contractual agreement including the arbitration clause is not referenced or otherwise attached to the Plaintiff's complaint. The Third Circuit advises that motions to compel arbitration should be denied where the factual record needs to be developed. Plaintiff contended that the DAA attached to defendant's Declaration is incomplete, and the attachment does in fact appear to include only the first page of the DAA. Accordingly, the court denied defendant's motion without prejudice and ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Thereafter, defendant may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which the court will review under the Rule 56 standard. The court ordered that defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied and that the parties shall conduct limited expedited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uNIGbq from PacerMonitor.com. OOMA INC: Continues to Defend " Bachhuber" Suit ----------------------------------------------- Ooma, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit filed by Kevin Bachhuber. On September 3, 2025, plaintiff Kevin Bachhuber filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 or TCPA (the "Bachhuber Litigation"). The complaint seeks damages of $500 per violation, or $1,500 per willful violation, of the TCPA and injunctive relief. Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any loss resulting from the Bachhuber Litigation is not estimable. OOMA INC: Continues to Defend "Chiu" Suit ----------------------------------------- Ooma, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit filed by Fiona Chiu. On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company from describing and marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word “free” or otherwise representing that it is free. On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding. In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021. In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding jurisdiction and class action certification issues. In January 2025, the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favor of the Company by denying class action certification and compelling individual arbitration in California; however, plaintiff's counsel has since filed an appeal of certain portions of the judgment in Canada and filed a related complaint in California seeking a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement in the Company's terms of services is invalid and unenforceable. On June 5, 2025, the proceedings related to the complaint filed in California were stayed pending the resolution of the Canadian appeal. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against these complaints. Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any reasonably possible loss resulting from these matters is not estimable. PHILIP AND LORENZO PLUMBING: de Leon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philip and Lorenzo Plumbing, Inc. The case is styled as Guillermo de Leon, Rodolfo Jeronimo, Timoteo Lorenzo, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Philip and Lorenzo Plumbing, Inc., Case No. 25CV142583 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Philip and Lorenzo Plumbing, Inc. also known as R&L Plumbing is San Francisco's premier plumbing company with over 25 years of experience.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP 212 9th St, Ste 314, Oakland, CA 94607-4479 Phone: 510-269-4200 Fax: 408-657-4684 Email: jds@advocatesforworkers.com PINPOINT OFFERS: Salamipour Seeks Certification of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS SALAMIPOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PINPOINT OFFERS USA LLC, and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-01997 (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class action seeking statewide or nationwide relief: As a result of negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5), the Plaintiff seeks for himself and each national DNC Class and Internal DNC Class member $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5)(B). The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently contacting the Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Beginning no later than Oct. 25, 2024, the Defendant and/or its agents began contacting the Plaintiff's DNC-registered cellular number without the Plaintiff's consent. The Defendant's campaign consisted of at least 48 total contacts through Aug. 13, 2025, comprised of 36 calls and 12 SMS text messages. These included missed calls, declined calls, voicemails, and texts. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the National Do-Not-Call Class defined as follows: All persons within the United States registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who received more than one call by or on behalf of the Defendant that promoted the Defendant's products or services within any twelve-month period, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification. 43. The Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the Internal Do-Not-Call Class defined as: All persons within the United States who requested that the Defendant stop calling them, and who, after requesting the Defendant stop calling them, received more than one call by or on behalf of the Defendant that promoted the Defendant's products or services within any twelve-month period, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification. Pinpoint offers real estate investment and home buying services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OtGYwA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd, Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 619-3774 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com PIONEER VALLEY REFRIGERATED: Cornine Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pioneer Valley Refrigerated Warehouse Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Cornine, individually and on Behalf of All others similarly situated v. Pioneer Valley Refrigerated Warehouse Inc., Case No. 2579CV00635 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Sept. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business." Pioneer Valley Refrigerated Warehouse Inc. -- https://pioneercold.com/ -- provides logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP 745 5th Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (917) 565-1170 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Codrington Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kimbelee Codrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 158533/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York on Sept. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07656-CM. The Plaintiff alleges that P&G falsely advertised its Metamucil branded Fiber Gummies (the "Product"). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Product's label states that it includes "5g of fiber per serving" and that the bottle contains "72 Gummies." The Plaintiff alleges the Product is "misbranded" and/or deceptively labeled because she expected each of the 72 gummies in the bottle to include 5g of fiber, even though the bottle states there is 5g of fiber "per serving" and the Supplement Facts on the bottle states that the "Serving Size: 3 Gummies." As a result, Plaintiff alleges she received one-third of the fiber she actually expected.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES PC 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: 516-268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com The Defendants are represented by: Philip A. Irwin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: +1 (212) 841-1190 Email: pirwin@cov.com - and - Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Phone: + 1 (415) 591-7078 Facsimile: + 1 (415) 591-6091 Email: clannin@cov.com PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC: Cox Sues Over Refusal to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Sara Cox, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-00248 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 12, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendant's refusal to pay its hourly employees at time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a workweek. The Plaintiff typically worked no fewer than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff at all for substantial amounts of time spent on compensable preparatory and concluding tasks and compensable travel. The Defendant maintained and followed policies and practices under which it refused to pay its hourly employees for any overtime wages. The Defendant did not keep a record of the actual hours worked by Plaintiff. The Defendant followed the policies and practices described in the preceding paragraph without regard to whether the Plaintiff had performed compensable preparatory tasks before her paid work time and concluding tasks after her paid work time. As a result, the Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff on many occasions for compensable work time traveling and performing preparatory and concluding tasks. The Plaintiff performed this off-the-clock work in many weeks in which they worked more than 40 hours, resulting in unpaid overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as an hourly employee in the Lufkin operation from September 2024 until the present. The Defendant is a company engaged in the business of road construction and repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone/Fax: (903) 596-7100 Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com QUEST HEALTH SOLUTIONS: Murch Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jessica Murch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUEST HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05478 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Sept. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-61839-MD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quest Health Solutions -- https://www.questhealthsolutions.com/ -- aims provide medical supplies to patients with chronic illnesses.[BN] RAWLINGS COMPANY: Wins Motion to Dismiss "Dascenzo" --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jean A. Dascenzo, Plaintiff, v. Rawlings Company LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-1238 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Charles E. Fleming of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against Defendant for unjust enrichment and conversion. On July 22, 2024, Defendant removed the case to this Court under the Federal Officer Removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On July 29, 2024, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant alleged that Plaintiff was required to exhaust the administrative appeals process under the Medicare Act because her claims involve Medicare Part C benefits. Defendant further contended that Plaintiff's common-law claims fail because the Medicare Act expressly preempts state common-law claims. On October 2, 2024, Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion arguing that she was not required to exhaust the administrative appeals process because her claims are not related to subjects covered by appeal, Defendant's subrogation demand was not an organizational determination, and Defendant did not provide Plaintiff notice of her appeal rights. Plaintiff was injured on December 20, 2023 when a driver ran her over in a crosswalk. The at-fault driver was insured by Progressive Insurance with a liability limit of $100,000. Progressive disputed Plaintiff's claim for recovery, so Plaintiff hired counsel to pursue recovery against the driver and Progressive. Progressive ultimately settled with Plaintiff for the $100,000 policy limit. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan, sponsored by Aetna. Plaintiff's medical providers billed Aetna for her medical treatment, which Aetna paid. Defendant, on behalf of Aetna, asserted a subrogation claim and lien against Plaintiff's recovery from Progressive to recover the accident-related medical costs paid by Aetna. The amount demanded by Defendant did not reduce the subrogation lien by Plaintiff's procurement costs: her attorney fees and expenses from her litigation with Progressive. Plaintiff brought this action to recover her procurement costs. The Court examined the exhaustion requirement under Medicare law. The sole avenue for judicial review for any claim arising under the Medicare Act is through the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff argued that, because she is simply trying to enforce the ban on collection of procurement costs under 42 U.S.C. Section 411.37 against Defendant, her claims do not arise under the Medicare Act and, therefore, the administrative exhaustion requirement does not apply to her claims. Defendant countered that, because the standing and substantive basis for Plaintiff's claims is the Medicare Act and the claims are inextricably intertwined with a claim for Medicare benefits, the claims arise under the Medicare Act. The complaint alleged that Defendant violated the applicable Federal Regulations by refusing to reduce the subrogation lien for the procurement costs, causing Plaintiff injury. Federal courts are precluded from entertaining claims that arise under the Medicare Act. A claim arises under the Medicare Act if the Act provides the standing and substantive basis for the presentation of Plaintiff's claims. When an individual seeks a monetary benefit from an agency, the agency denies the benefit, and the individual challenges the lawfulness of that denial, Section 405(h) bars judicial review, irrespective of whether the challenge is based on evidentiary, rule-related, statutory, constitutional, or other legal grounds. In this case, Plaintiff is essentially challenging Defendant's denial of a monetary benefit - the ability of Plaintiff to retain procurement costs under the Medicare Act. Although Plaintiff's claims are listed as state-law claims, her challenge is based on statutory grounds. In fact, the foundation of Plaintiff's lawsuit is that Defendant's reimbursement demand violated applicable federal regulations, 42 C.F.R. Sections 411.37 and 422.108. The Court found that Plaintiff's claim that she is entitled to retain a portion of the overpayment to cover procurement expenses is, in essence, a claim for benefits. The Medicare Act provides the standing and substantive basis of Plaintiff's claims. Therefore, Plaintiff was required to exhaust the administrative appeals process. This Court is precluded from entertaining these claims until that process has been exhausted. Regarding notice requirements, Plaintiff argued that Defendant waived the exhaustion requirement by not providing her with written notice of her appeal rights. The MAO's failure to provide written notice of the enrollee's right to appeal, however, is itself an adverse organization determination and may only be appealed through the administrative appeals process. Failure to provide notice does not waive the exhaustion requirement. Moreover, the requirement that an individual present a claim to the agency before raising it in court is nonwaivable and nonexcusable. The Court found that the general outline of the various grievance processes was not specific enough to put Plaintiff on notice of her right to appeal Defendant's denial of her request to reduce the reimbursement amount. Inadequate notice does not waive the exhaustion requirement, but it may entitle an enrollee to tolling of the appeal deadline. Plaintiff must present her inadequate notice claim to the agency in an administrative appeal. Plaintiff's defense of insufficient notice of her right to appeal has no bearing on the fact that she was required to exhaust the administrative appeals process. Accordingly, the Court found that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). The Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, so the case is dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling after exhaustion of the administrative appeals process. Plaintiff must file her claims with HHS pursuant to the administrative appeals process outlined in her Aetna Plan. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EEa70H from PacerMonitor.com REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over False Biodegradable Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Global Cosmetics News reports that a new class action lawsuit has been filed against Revlon Consumer Products LLC, alleging that its Almay makeup wipes were falsely marketed as "100% biodegradable." THE DETAILS The complaint, filed July 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by plaintiff Robin Victoria Savage, argues that the wipes do not decompose as advertised under customary disposal conditions such as landfills or incineration. The suit cites the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, which consider unqualified biodegradable claims deceptive if products do not fully decompose within one year. Savage alleges Revlon's packaging, which includes eco-friendly imagery, misled consumers into believing the wipes were environmentally sustainable. She claims she would not have purchased the product -- or would have paid less -- had she known otherwise. The proposed class covers California consumers who purchased the wipes during the statute of limitations period. The lawsuit seeks damages, fees, costs, and a jury trial, and includes claims under California's consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. Treehouse Law LLP is representing the plaintiff. THE WHY? The case highlights growing scrutiny of green marketing in the beauty sector, with companies facing legal and reputational risks if sustainability claims cannot be substantiated under federal and state consumer protection standards. [GN] RIKERS WEST: 13 Actions Referred to Magistrate Judge ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Campos v. Doe (Re Rikers West Facility Related Cases), Case No. 25-cv-04736 (AT) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y.), the thirteen (13) referenced actions have been referred to Mag. Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, thirteen individuals, either currently or formerly detained at Rikers Island West Facility, have filed identical -- or near identical -- putative class action complaints alleging, inter alia, unconstitutional conditions of confinement at West Facility. The Court notes that all thirteen actions were marked as related and, accordingly, assigned to the same District Judge, the Honorable Analisa Torres. Between August 4 and August 11, 2025, Judge Torres issued orders of service in all of the cases directing the Clerk of Court to (1) add the City of New York (hereinafter the City) as a defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; and (2) electronically notify the New York City Department of Corrections and the New York City Law Department of the orders of service. Between September 3 and September 5, 2025, the City submitted waivers of service in all thirteen cases, making the City's answers due no later than November 4, 2025. To date, counsel for the City (Andrew Liberatore and Dorian Alexander) have filed Notices of Appearances in seven of the thirteen cases. In light of the identical (or near identical) facts alleged in each of the complaints, and in the interest of efficiency and economy, any party that has a proposal for consolidating or coordinating these related cases should submit that proposal no later than October 10, 2025. By that same date, the City must also update the Court as to the current location and custodial status of each named plaintiff (whether presently detained at West Facility, transferred to another facility, or released). The Plaintiffs are reminded that they must keep the Court apprised of any new contact information. Service of court orders cannot be accomplished if a party does not update the Court when a change of address occurs. Accordingly, all self-represented plaintiffs are ORDERED to inform the Court of each change in their address or electronic contact information, the Court says. The 13 Actions include: 25-cv-04515 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04521 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04527 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04530 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04535 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04537 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04538 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04540 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04723 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04732 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04735 (AT) (BCM), 25-cv-04736 (AT) (BCM), and 25-cv-05168 (AT) (BCM). A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GDpSpZ at no extra charge.[CC] SAKS OFF 5TH: Erdos-Major Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexis Erdos-Major, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SAKS OFF 5TH LLC AND SAKS GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU041311C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Sept. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02392-BJC-VET. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants implemented a "policy and practice of recording and monitoring telephone conversations without the consent of all parties" in violation California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code Section 630 ("CIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph J. Orzano, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East, Suite 1200 Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 Email: jorzano@seyfarth.com - and - Connor Bateman, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Phone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 Email: cbateman@seyfarth.com SALESFORCE INC: Young Seeks to File Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE YOUNG and LANAE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SALESFORCE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that the Defendant designated as either confidential or highly confidential – attorney's eyes only. The Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. The Plaintiffs submit this request only to comply with their obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and the protective order issued in the case, and Plaintiffs take no position at this time on the propriety of other parties’ confidentiality designations, or whether they meet the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality. Salesforce provides applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYUUlZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com SALESFORCE INC: Young Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE YOUNG and LANAE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SALESFORCE, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 19, 2026, before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, will move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) to: (i) certify a class defined as: "all natural persons who, between the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations period and no later than May 1, 2025, started a chat in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania using the Salesforce Chat function on Rite Aid's website, www.riteaid.com"; (ii) appoint Diane Young and Lanae Johnson as representatives of the Class; and (iii) appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel. The Defendant allegedly receives, stores, and otherwise "automatically" acquires entire Chat transcripts from consumers before its customers, like Rite Aid, receives them. The Chat messages the Defendant receives and stores are neither encrypted nor anonymous, the suit says. Salesforce is an American cloud-based software company specializing in customer relationship management (CRM) and related applications. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gaJn9X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Ira Rosenberg, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Weathington Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Telon Weathington, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1-10, Case No. 25STCV22517 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08752. The Plaintiff asserts eight claims for alleged: breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; violations of the California False Advertising Law; fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment; negligent misrepresentation; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Herrington, Esq. Blakeley S. Oranburg, Esq. Luke James Martin, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 Email: Robert.Herrington@gtlaw.com oranburgb@gtlaw.com Luke.Martin@gtlaw.com SANTA ELENA HOLDINGS: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Lopez, and the others similarly situated v. SANTA ELENA HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24173-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA"), and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the unlawful barriers. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Premises and intends to return to utilize the goods, services, and accommodations offered to the public. However, he is deterred from returning while the discriminatory barriers and non-compliant policies described herein persist. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Subject Premises, preventing him from enjoying the goods and services offered therein. These denials are caused by the physical barriers, including those outlined in this Complaint, and will continue until the barriers are removed. The Plaintiff has suffered harm and injury as a result of personally encountering barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and she will continue to suffer harm due to the Defendants' failure to address the ADA violations described herein. The Plaintiff has experienced direct and indirect injury as a result of the physical barriers and ADA violations at the Subject Premises and the Defendants' actions or inactions in remedying these violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a double-leg amputee from above the knee, which limits his major life activities including but not limited to walking, and requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility purposes. SANTA ELENA HOLDINGS, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of Florida and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Phone: 844-702-8867 Email: WassenbergL@gmail.com SAROYAN LUMBER COMPANY: Noyola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saroyan Lumber Company, Inc. The case is styled as Martina Arroyo Noyola, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Saroyan Lumber Company, Inc., Case No. 25STCV27155 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Sept. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Saroyan Hardwoods -- https://saroyanhardwoods.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer of fine hardwood products, including custom-designed flooring, moulding, and millwork, with a legacy of four generations in family ownership.[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 SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Loses Bid to Stay Conejo Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Conejo, et al., v. Sellan Structural Erectors, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02930 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order denying motion to stay. The Court does not grant motions based on theoretical filings, and therefore, this Motion is denied without prejudice. The Defendants may refile if they so choose once they have submitted the purported Motion to Dismiss. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sellan is the on-site steel erection division of Sellan, LLC.[CC] SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACEY CARTER and BONNY DAVIS, as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SENTARA 403(B) SAVINGS PLAN, v. SENTARA HEALTHCARE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE and SENTARA HEALTH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00016-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(1), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3): "All Plan participants with a balance in the GIBC at any time since Jan. 8, 2018, along with their beneficiaries and alternate payees of record, excluding Committee members and any directors and officers of Sentara Health with fiduciary responsibility for the Plan's investments." In addition, the Plaintiffs move to appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives for the class, and the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g). Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee is the entity within Sentara Healthcare responsible for managing its employee retirement plan, specifically the Sentara 403(b) Savings Plan. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bcWZuT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law - and - Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: jlee@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - James H. White IV, Esq. THE JAMES WHITE FIRM LLC 2100 Morris Avenue Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 317-2551 E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Settlement in Mindeguia Suit Has Prelim. Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kevin Mindeguia, Erin McGurk, Adam Enger, Amy Carter, Seth Jones, and Christopher Cottrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sequoia Benefits & Insurance Services, LLC and Sequoia One PEO, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-CV-08217-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement. The Court provisionally certified a nationwide class defined as: All persons in the United States who appear on Sequoia's list of individuals whose information was compromised in the Data Security Incident. Additionally, the Court certified a California subclass comprising "All California residents at the time of the Data Security Incident, which occurred between September 22 and October 6, 2022, who appear on Sequoia's list of individuals whose information was compromised in the Data Security Incident." The Court excluded from the classes officers and directors of Defendant, Class Counsel, the presiding Federal District Court Judge, and any members of that Judge's immediate family and judicial staff. The Court determined that for settlement purposes the proposed Settlement Class meets all the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), finding that the class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impractical, that there are common issues of law and fact, that the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of absent Class Members, that the Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class, as they have no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the Class and have retained experienced and competent counsel to prosecute this matter; that common issues predominate over any individual issues, and that a class action is the superior means of adjudicating the controversy. Kevin Mindeguia, Erin McGurk, Adam Enger, Amy Carter, Seth Jones, and Christopher Cottrell were designated and appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. David M. Berger (Gibbs Mura LLP) and Rachele R. Byrd (Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP), previously designated as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, and M. Anderson Berry (Clayeo C. Arnold, APC) and Kaleigh N. Boyd (Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC), previously designated as the Interim Class Counsel Executive Committee, were all designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Upon preliminary review, the Court found the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, otherwise meets the criteria for approval, and warrants issuance of notice to the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the proposed Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved. The Court ordered that a Final Approval Hearing shall take place on April 7, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 15 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine whether the proposed Settlement Class should be finally certified for settlement purposes, whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, whether Settlement Class Members should be bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement, whether the proposed Final Approval Order and Judgment should be entered, whether the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses should be approved, and whether the application for Service Awards should be approved. Kroll Settlement Administration LLC was appointed as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for reviewing, determining the validity of, and processing all claims submitted by Settlement Class Members, and all other obligations of the Settlement Administrator as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. All Administration and Notice Costs incurred by the Settlement Administrator will be paid out of the Settlement Fund, as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Court approved the Class Notice plan along with the Claim Form, Short Notice, and Long Notice, finding they satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. The Court found that the form, content, and method of giving notice to the Settlement Class constitute the best practicable notice, are reasonably calculated to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the action, the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, and their rights under the proposed Settlement Agreement, are reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to those persons entitled to receive notice, and satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the constitutional requirement of due process, and any other legal requirements. The Court further found that the notice is written in plain language, uses simple terminology, and is designed to be readily understandable by Settlement Class Members. The Court established procedures for exclusions from the class, stating that any individual that wishes to be excluded from the Settlement must mail such request in writing to the Settlement Administrator at the address set forth in the Class Notice, or submit a request to opt out on the settlement website. Any Request for Exclusion must be submitted online or postmarked no later than 60 days after the Class Notice Date. The Request for Exclusion must state the Class Member's full name, current address, and signature, and specifically state his or her desire to be excluded from the Settlement and from the Final Settlement Class. For objections to the Settlement Agreement, the Court ordered that no Settlement Class Member shall be heard unless a written objection is submitted to the Court on or before the Objection Deadline, which shall be 60 days after the Notice Date. The written objection must include the objector's full name and current address, the case name and case number, documentation sufficient to establish membership in the Class, a written statement of the position(s) the objector wishes to assert, including the factual and legal grounds for the position(s), the identity of any and all counsel representing the objector in connection with the objection, a statement whether the objector and/or his or her counsel will appear at the Final Fairness Hearing, and the objector's signature of the objector's duly authorized attorney or other duly authorized representative (if any) representing him or her in connection with the objection. . The Court preliminarily approved the claims process and distribution plan established in the Settlement Agreement for assessing and determining the validity and value of claims and a methodology for paying Settlement Class Members that submit a timely, valid Claim Form. Settlement Class Members that qualify for any benefit under the Settlement Agreement, but who fail to submit a claim in accordance with the requirements shall be forever barred from receiving any such benefit. According to the Settlement "Any residual funds following distribution shall not revert to Sequoia. If the settlement results in residual funds, the Parties will meet and confer regarding the appropriate use of such residual funds, including the possibility of a secondary distribution to the class members." If the residual funds exceed $1,000, the parties will submit for court approval their suggested plan for distribution of such residual funds other than through a secondary distribution on the same pro rata basis as the alternative cash payments. The Court stayed, pending Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, any actions, lawsuits, or other proceedings brought by Settlement Class Members against Defendant related to the Data Security Incident, unless such Settlement Class Member has elected to exclude themself from the Settlement Agreement. The Court established the following key deadlines: Class Notice on December 11, 2025; Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards by January 5, 2026; Opt-Out/Exclusion Deadline and Objection Deadline on February 9, 2026; Claims Deadline and Final Approval Brief on March 11, 2026; and Final Approval Hearing on April 7, 2026. A copy of the preliminary settlement approval is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4WYLLVfrom from PacerMonitor.com. SEQUOIA GROUP: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $8.7MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Sequoia Group and Sequoia One have agreed to pay an $8.7 million settlement to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit over a 2022 data breach involving the human resources management companies' cloud storage system. The deal with Sequoia One PEO, LLC and Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Services, LLC, which does business as Sequoia Group, received preliminary approval from United States District Judge Rita F. Lin on September 9, 2025. The class action settlement covers all consumers in the United States who appear on Sequoia's list of individuals whose information was compromised in the data breach, which occurred between September 22 and October 6, 2022. According to the settlement agreement, 584,109 people were notified about the incident. To receive a Sequoia settlement payment, eligible class members must submit a timely, valid claim form by March 11, 2026. Consumers will be able to file a claim form by mail or online through the court-approved settlement website once it is launched. ClassAction.org will update this page when the official Sequoia settlement website is established. Under the terms of the agreement, class members can submit a claim form to receive up to $7,500 per person in reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses that were incurred on or after September 22, 2022 and are reasonably traceable to the incident. Court documents share that qualifying expenses must be supported by documentation and may include unreimbursed costs incurred as a result of identity theft, fraud or other misuse of personal data; fees for credit monitoring or other mitigative measures; notary, fax, postage, mileage or phone charges; and other miscellaneous expenses. In addition, consumers may file a claim form for compensation for up to four hours of time spent handling issues related to the data breach, at a rate of $30 per hour, the settlement agreement says. Combined claims for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses and lost time are subject to the $7,500 cap, the document notes. Alternatively, the settlement agreement states that class members can forgo the above-mentioned benefit in favor of an estimated $75 cash payment. Those who were California residents between September 22 and October 6, 2022 are eligible for an additional payment projected to be $150 per person, the document says. Per the agreement, if a consumer's expense reimbursement and/or lost time payment is less than what they would receive by making a claim for an alternative cash benefit, the individual will be awarded the larger amount. Court documents relay that all Sequoia settlement payments are subject to adjustment on a pro rata basis depending on how many valid claims are submitted, among other factors. A hearing is set for April 7, 2026, at which time the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the Sequoia class action settlement. The agreement relays that, should the deal be ultimately approved, settlement checks will be issued to eligible class members within 60 days following the date it goes into effect, or within 30 days after the date that a validity review is completed for all claims, whichever is later. According to the Sequoia class action lawsuit, negligent data security on the part of the California-based companies was to blame for the cyberattack, which reportedly exposed Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical information and other sensitive data housed in the defendants' cloud storage system. [GN] SHADE STORE: Crowder Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and opposition to motion to exclude shall be filed by Oct. 10, 2025. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by Nov. 14, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, hearing on the Defendant's motion to exclude, and case management conference shall be continued to Dec. 3, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their notice of motion and motion for class certification. on April 28, 2025, the Defendant filed its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts. Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rMpXFN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulated motion to extend the deadlines for the Parties' class certification briefing by 4 weeks. The Parties request that these deadlines be extended as follows: Case Event Amended Deadline The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Oct. 17, 2025 motion for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: The Defendant's reply in support of Nov. 21, 2025 motions to exclude: The Parties request an extension of these briefing deadlines because the Parties have been discussing settlement, and the extension will provide the Parties time to focus on reaching a mutually agreeable resolution to the case. The Parties' request to extend these deadlines is not intended to unnecessarily delay the resolution of these issues. It is the result of the Parties' desire to focus on potential resolution of the case through settlement. On March 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On April 30, 2025, the Defendant filed its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts. Shade offers a selection of window treatments, shades, blinds, curtains, and drapes. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zAGK5x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com - and - Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL, PLLC 20 Sixth Ave. NE Issaquah WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com The Defendant is represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. James M. Shore, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com jim.shore@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com - and - Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SILVERGATE CAPITAL: $7.4M in Fees and Costs OK'd in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In re Silvergate Capital Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01936-JES-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge James E. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California awards $6,375,000 in attorneys' fees and $991,648 in litigation expenses. The Court ordered that Lead Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 17% of the Settlement Fund, or $6,375,000 plus interest earned at the same rate as the Settlement Fund. Lead Counsel are also awarded $991,648.74 for payment of their litigation expenses. The Court found these sums to be fair and reasonable and ordered they shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. The Settlement created a fund of $37,500,000 in cash that has been or will be funded into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation dated May 9, 2025. The Court determined that numerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable claim forms will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of Lead Counsel. In considering Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses, the Court considered the reasonableness of the request in light of percentage of the common fund awards in similar cases and additional factors including: (1) the results achieved, (2) the risks of litigation, (3) the skill required and the quality of work, (4) the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by the Lead Plaintiffs, (5) awards made in similar cases, (6) the class's reaction, and (7) a lodestar cross-check. The Court found that Lead Counsel litigated this case on a purely contingent basis and have not received any compensation for their work on this matter. Lead Counsel devoted over 6,700 hours, with a lodestar value of approximately $6.18 million through June 30, 2025, to achieve the Settlement, and will continue to perform work on behalf of the Settlement Class in overseeing the claims administrator's processing of claims received and the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Notice was mailed to over 218,000 potential Settlement Class Members stating that Lead Counsel would apply for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 17% of the Settlement Fund and payment of litigation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1.4 million. No objections to the requested award of attorneys' fees or litigation expenses were submitted. The Court also awarded reimbursement for reasonable costs and expenses directly related to representation of the Settlement Class to the following Lead Plaintiffs: Indiana Public Retirement System ($14,062.50), Boston Retirement System ($9,076.86), Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago ($26,956.38), International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario ($20,200), UMC Benefit Board, Inc. and Wespath Institutional Investments LLC ($16,800), and Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund ($1,278.24). The Court ordered that any appeal or challenge affecting this Court's approval regarding any attorneys' fees and expense application shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the judgment. The Court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and the Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to this action, including the administration, interpretation, effectuation or enforcement of the Stipulation and this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ltwKCH from PacerMonitor.com. SINA CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ The National Law Review reports that Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sina Corporation ("Sina" or the "Company") (formerly Nasdaq: SINA) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons and entities who sold Sina ordinary shares, including those that sold into the Merger, between October 13, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned Lu v. Sina Corp., No. 25-cv-7820 (S.D.N.Y.). Based in Beijing, China, Sina is an Internet media company that provides region-specific news, information, entertainment, and financial content in China. In 2018, Sina made a strategic investment of $90 million in TuSimple Holdings, Inc. ("TuSimple"), an autonomous trucking company based in San Diego, California that was a privately held company at the time. Prior to TuSimple's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about April 15, 2021, Sina held a stake of approximately 34 percent of TuSimple's ordinary shares. However, Sina shareholders were largely unaware of the Company's investment in TuSimple and the value of this investment. Indeed, on April 30, 2019, Sina vaguely disclosed this investment to Sina shareholders in the Company's 2019 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC, which reported that Sina had acquired preference shares in a "private company, which primarily focuses on artificial intelligence of automobile." Leading up to the Class Period, on September 28, 2020, Sina issued a press release entitled "Sina Enters into Definitive Agreement for 'Going Private' Transaction," announcing the take-private merger of Sina (the "Merger"), in an all-cash transaction valued at $43.30 per share. The proposed transaction implied a total equity value of the Company between "book value" and approximately $1.2 billion. During the extraordinary general meeting held on December 23, 2020, the Merger was authorized and approved by a shareholder vote. Thereafter, the Merger closed on March 22, 2021, the last day of the Class Period. This action concerns Defendants' fraudulent scheme to depress the value of Sina ordinary shares to avoid paying a fair price to Sina's shareholders in connection with the Merger. Defendants executed this scheme by misrepresenting and/or omitting material information within and from Sina's proxy materials in connection with the Merger that were necessary for shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to vote in favor of the Merger. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants concealed the true value of the Company's investment in TuSimple at the time of the Merger; (2) in turn, the offer of $43.30 per ordinary share as consideration for the Merger substantially shortchanged the true value of Sina ordinary shares; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contrary to Defendants' repeated assurances as to the fairness of the Merger for Sina shareholders, Defendants' fraudulent scheme was revealed during the discovery process of the Section 238 shareholder appraisal action related to the Merger. During discovery, dissenting shareholders obtained documents that showed that Defendants knowingly concealed the true value of Sina's investment in TuSimple at the time of the Merger. As a result, Sina shareholders were misled into accepting consideration for the Merger that was below fair value for their Sina ordinary shares. If you sold Sina ordinary shares during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than November 18, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact David J. Schwartz (dschwartz@saxenawhite.com), Of Counsel at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION David J. Schwartz, Esq. dschwartz@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, New York 10606 Tel.: (914) 200-4311 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] SMG FOOD: Ordono Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to extend class certification deadlines: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is Nov. 14, 2025. 2. The Defendant's deadline to oppose is Dec. 12, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to the Defendant's opposition is now Jan. 7, 2026. 4. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until Feb. 16, 2026, subject to change depending on this Court's availability. On Jan. 18, 2024, the Court entered an order establishing a schedule for class certification briefing. SMG was founded in 1999. The Company line of business includes providing management consulting services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9w743 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW, P.C. 6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 845-7801 E-mail: skroll@krollpc.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Continues to Defend Montana Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Snowflake Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the data breach lawsuit pending in a Montana court. "On June 13, 2024, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Montana against us alleging that we failed to take reasonable measures to secure systems that contained consumer data, thereby allowing threat actors to access and exfiltrate personally identifiable information. In the months that followed, numerous additional class actions making the same or similar allegations were filed in the United States and Canada against us and/or our customers whose consumer or employee data was exfiltrated. Among other claims, the complaints assert common law claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, as well as statutory claims, and seek an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief. On October 4, 2024, an order was issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combining the class actions filed in the United States into a multidistrict litigation in the District of Montana. On February 3, 2025, plaintiffs filed their representative complaint on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs. On February 14, 2025, the Court created a separate financial institution track to represent the interests of certain financial institutions (FI Plaintiffs) and ordered that a separate FI Plaintiff representative complaint be filed. On April 7, 2025, an FI Plaintiff representative complaint was filed. On April 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended representative complaint on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs. On May 16, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended representative complaint on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs. On May 20, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a third amended representative complaint that asserted additional claims against us on behalf of individuals impacted by the breach of a Snowflake customer account containing personally identifiable information from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD Claims). On June 26, 2025, we moved to dismiss the FI Plaintiff representative complaint. On July 30, 2025, we moved to dismiss the LAUSD Claims. Oral argument is scheduled to take place on the three motions to dismiss on October 6, 2025. In addition to the multidistrict litigation, a class action is pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. "We intend to vigorously defend against the claims in these actions," the Company said. SNOWFLAKE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Snowflake Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. "On February 29, 2024, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against us, our former Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. On October 28, 2024, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff. On December 23, 2024, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 29, 2025, the lead plaintiff informed us that it would seek leave to file a second amended complaint rather than respond to the motion to dismiss. On April 7, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed its second amended complaint. On June 6, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 5, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. Our reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss is due on September 19, 2025. In addition, since the filing of the class action lawsuit, five additional complaints containing securities derivative claims have been filed against us and certain of our directors and executive officers alleging similar violations. The derivative claims have been stayed pending resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit. We and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims in these actions," the Company said. SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-09748-GHW-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion seeks to certify a class of: "All persons or entities who, during the period from Feb. 13, 2023 to Oct. 19, 2023, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired securities of SolarEdge and were damaged thereby." The Plaintiffs' class certification motion should be granted because securities class actions are well-suited for class treatment and this case easily fulfills the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Lead Plaintiffs, who are typical of other proposed Class members and adequate to represent the Class, should thus be appointed as Class Representatives, and Pomerantz LLP should be appointed as Class Counsel. We are available at the Court's convenience for a pre-motion conference or to answer any questions that the Court may have. Solaredge develop and scale renewable energy technologies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aNef5L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Calandra, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Discovery Sched Order Entered in Alexander -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ALEXANDER, v. HEIGHTS FINANCE CORPORATION, SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LIFE INS. CO., Case No. 3:24-cv-00393-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin Lindsay entered an order setting the following schedule to establish joint administration of discovery in light of the Court's Order consolidating two cases for discovery purposes: (1) All non-class fact discovery shall be completed within 120 days of the Court's ruling on the pending motions for class certification. (2) Should the Parties deem it necessary to conduct non-class- certification-related expert discovery, they shall move the Court for leave to do so and include a proposed amended schedule in their motion. (3) Counsel for the Parties shall file all dispositive motions and any motions objecting to the admissibility of expert witness testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), no later than 30 days after the close of non-class discovery. Southern is provider of final expense products including life insurance, retirement planning, medicare, & mortgage protection. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j5MDFm at no extra charge.[CC] SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Li Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANG LI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., TOM GENTILE III, and MARK J. SU CHIN SKI, Case No. 1:23-cv-03722-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice: 1. The Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased the publicly-traded Class A common stock of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. between April 8, 2020 and Sept. 7, 2023, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants, the officers and directors of Spirit, members of their Immediate Families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest; (ii) any trust of which an Individual Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of an Individual Defendant and/or member(s) of their Immediate Family; and (iii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) and (ii) hereof. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. 2. The Court certifies the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court also appoints Lead Counsel, the law firms of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Holzer & Holzer, LLC., including Garth A. Spencer, Esq., and Corey D. Holzer, Esq., as Class Counsel for the settlement class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on Jan. 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Spirit is an American manufacturer of aerostructures for commercial airplanes. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EjNTMD at no extra charge.[CC] STACKS ESPRESSO: Parties Must File Status Report by Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Emeline Bard-Hobbs v. Stacks Espresso LLC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00713-LEK-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dancks entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order: -- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before Sep. 29, 2025. -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before Dec. 15, 2025. -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before Dec. 2, 2025. -- Initial Written Class Discovery Demands must be served by Sept. 30, 2025. All class discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before Feb. 27, 2026. All class discovery motions in this matter is to be completed on or before March 13, 2026. Stacks is a coffee shop. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pDIXCF at no extra charge.[CC] STAGECOACH SOUTH: Charity Gets GBP3.7MM Unclaimed Settlement Funds ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Rigby, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ordered that GBP3.7m of unclaimed damages from a GBP25m rail fare settlement be handed to an access to justice charity after expressing concern at the "very low rate of take-up" by the claimant class. The funds will go to national grant-making charity the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF), whose grantees will benefit from the fact that just GBP216,500 of the settlement with Stagecoach South West Trains (SSWT) has been claimed. Meanwhile, the lack of take-up in a case expected to benefit 1.4 million rail passengers prompted the CAT to allow an intervention by the campaign group Fair Civil Justice (FCJ), which opposes collective actions and calls for tighter controls on litigation funding. The case concerns allegations that train companies abused their dominant position by failing to make boundary fares accessible to travelcard holders, effectively double-charging for part of the same journey. The CAT, which had approved a settlement between SSWT and class representative Jason Gutmann in 2024, held a hearing in August to determine the distribution of the unclaimed damages and the correct division of costs. At the time, it indicated it would consider a "substantial payment to charity alongside any claims and representations by stakeholders, to be paid out of any costs, fees and disbursements". Tribunal chair Hodge Malek KC noted the take-up by class members fell "very much short of the level predicted by the class representative". The intervention by the campaign group Fair Civil Justice (FCJ), which was represented by CMS, had been opposed by Gutmann's solicitors, Charles Lyndon, litigation funder Woodsford and its insurers, who claimed it was not an impartial consumer body. The CAT, however, said the FCJ's submissions would be of assistance, as "an important counterpoint" to the "aligned interests" of the claimants and their associated entities. The tribunal said it was "keen to get the balance right between all the interests involved and to reach fair outcomes". Last month, the UK government launched a review of the opt-out collective actions regime under the Consumer Rights Act, which took the profession by surprise, given the publication in June of the Civil Justice Council's long-awaited -- and comprehensive -- review of litigation funding, which called for the 'light touch' regulation of funders. The FCJ's director, former Conservative MP and City solicitor Seema Kennedy, said: "Less than one per cent of the GBP25m settlement has been claimed by class members. This is despite alleged efforts to inform those affected through advertising and the media. The claimant law firms and funders stand to receive millions. This raises the question: 'Was this case truly in the best interests of consumers?'" However, Fieldfisher partner Richard Pike, who acted for the ATJF described the donation as "a significant moment for collective actions in the UK" given that it "demonstrates how such proceedings can deliver tangible public benefit". He added: "We're proud to have supported the foundation in securing this outcome, which ensures that unclaimed damages will be used to improve access to justice for communities across the country." ATJF chief executive Clare Carter said: "The tribunal has recognised our unique position and expertise in making impactful use of unclaimed damages. It's crucial that collective actions deliver real benefits to the public and we're able to work collaboratively to make sure these funds reach the people who need them most." The charity also intervened in the GBP200m Mastercard credit card fees settlement hearing and stands to benefit to the tune of GBP30m in that case, although the funder, Innsworth, has launched a judicial review challenging this potential allocation. In the rail fares case, the tribunal is yet to rule on the division of funds to the claimant lawyers and the litigation funder, with judgment being reserved on that subject at the time of going to press. Litigation in relation to other train companies is ongoing. Gutmann was represented by Philip Moser KC and Stefan Kuppen of Monckton Chambers, instructed by Charles Lyndon. Stagecoach South Western Trains was represented by Sarah Abram KC of Brick Court Chambers, instructed by Dentons, which declined to comment. Charles Lyndon was represented by Ben Smiley, of 4 New Square Chambers; while fellow 4 New Square tenants Roger Mallalieu KC and Simon Teasdale represented Woodsford and the insurers. The ATJF was represented by Gerard Rothschild of Brick Court Chambers. Fair Civil Justice was represented by Geraint Webb KC and Thomas Mallon of Henderson Chambers, and Alexander Hutton KC of Hailsham Chambers. [GN] STAPLES INC: Rubin Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Joshua Rubin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Staples, Inc., Case No. PAS-L-002627-25 was removed from Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-15515 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Staples Inc. -- https://www.staples.com/ -- is an American office supply retail company headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Whitney Morgan Smith, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP One Jefferson Road Parsippany, NJ 07054 Phone: (973) 503-5900 Email: wsmith@kelleydrye.com SURREY REALTY: Suit Seeks to Certify Non-Supervisory Worker Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA MCCAMMON, VANESSA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. SURREY REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC, SURREY PROPCO LLC, CORINTHIA HOTELS LIMITED, and any other related entities, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-03292-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order: (1) Certifying the Displaced Hotel Services Workers Act, section 22-510 of the New York City Administrative Code, claims for relief in the Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint as a class action with respect to the following: "Former non-managerial, non-supervisory employees who were employed at the hotel known as the Surrey Hotel located at 20 East 76th Street ("Hotel") at any time during the period from Dec. 4, 2019 to Dec. 3, 2020 or were on medical leave with recall rights in accordance with the Hotel's policies in effect as of March 2020, and who were not offered, in writing, employment at the Hotel for ninety days at their last hourly wage rate or higher by Defendants Surrey Propco LLC and/or Corinthia Hotels Limited upon the Hotel's re- opening in October 2024 or anytime thereafter"; (2) Appointing the Plaintiffs Donna McCammon and Vanessa Garcia as Class Representatives; (3) Appointing Pitta LLP as Class Counsel; (4) Permitting the Plaintiffs to disseminate notice of this action in the form attached to the Declaration of Joseph Farelli, Esq, as Exhibit I, via regular mail, and permitting a sixty-day opt-out period; and (5) Granting any other further relief that the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YlQS1P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Farelli Esq. PITTA LLP 120 Broadway, 28th Floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 652-3831 Facsimile: (212) 652-3891 E-mail: jfarelli@pittalaw.com TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Crenshaw Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Temple University Health System, Inc. The case is styled as Sylvia Crenshaw, Dana Olita, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Temple University Health System, Inc., Case No. 250901508 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Sept. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Class Action." Temple University Health System, Inc. -- https://www.templehealth.org/ -- offers health care and medical education services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette St. Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: 224-632-4500 Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com TUFT & NEEDLE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Oct. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CHEBUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TUFT & NEEDLE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02707-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting the stipulation to extend deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification. The deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification is extended to Sept. 22, 2025. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-10, the hearing on the motion to certify class is continued to Oct. 10, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. All other Scheduling Order deadlines remain the same. Tuft & Needle is an American bed-in-a-box company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9PKf7Q at no extra charge.[CC] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Superior Court Greenlights Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that the Superior Court of Quebec has officially authorized a class action lawsuit against Uber following allegations that its transportation services are not accessible to individuals with physical disabilities. The claim, filed by Laurent Morissette, an active member of RAPLIQ (Regroupement des activistes pour l'inclusion au Quebec), seeks to recognize the rights of individuals who rely on mobility aids and who have been denied access to Uber's regular services as well as its Uber WAV (wheelchair-accessible vehicle) service. Although Uber's services appear to be accessible, they are effectively unavailable in practice to people with disabilities. The class action aims to obtain financial compensation for those affected, as well as a judgment requiring Uber to improve its transportation practices for persons with disabilities. "I am firmly convinced that this first step will serve as a catalyst for real social change," Morissette said, "allowing us to finally be recognized not only as consumers but as equal citizens worthy of the same respect as everyone else." The decision was rendered on August 7, 2025 by Justice Marie-Christine Hivon. A formal notice explaining the implications of the Court's authorization of this class action on the rights of class members will be issued at a later date in accordance with a future court order. Saro Turner, partner at Slater Vecchio, was pleased with the decision and the opportunity for justice it creates. "I would like to thank Mr. Morissette for taking on the responsibility of representing the interests of the class members in this important litigation. We are fully committed to working diligently to meet the expectations of Mr. Morissette and all members of the class and fighting for the fairness they deserve." [GN] WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Vang Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chang Vang, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV017399 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Sept. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01228. The Complaint contains ten causes of action against Defendants alleging unfair business practices in violation of the UCL; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses; failure to provide wages due at termination; failure to pay sick pay wages; and failure to comply with California quota laws.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tritia M. Murata, Esq. Monica A. Rodriguez, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: TritiaMurata@dwt.com MonicaRodriguez@dwt.com - and - Byung-Kwan Park, Esq. Jinny S. Hwang, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 276-6500 Fax: (415) 276-6599 Email: KwanPark@dwt.com JinnyHwang@dwt.com WELLS CONSULTING: Carr Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS CONSULTING GROUP, Case No. 50-2025-CA-007943-XXXA-MB was removed from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, State of Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Sept. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-81133-XXXX. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains a single Count alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott W. Atherton, Esq. Terence M. Mullen, Esq. ATHERTON GALARDI MULLEN & REEDER PLLC 1641 Worthington Rd., Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: (561) 293-2530 Facsimile: (561) 293-2593 Primary Emails: scott@athertonlg.com terence@athertonlg.com Secondary Emails: cvargas@athertonlg.com; e-service@athertonlg.com WELLS FARGO: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Mortgage Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01358-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Oct. 31, 2025, will move the Court to stay discovery or, alternatively, to stay class discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class action complaint. The Plaintiffs allege Wells Fargo sent plaintiffs and putative class members letters with checks enclosed in 2023. Soon after receiving these payments, the Plaintiffs Curry, Nelson, and Forney filed a putative class action, which was consolidated with an almost identical class action filed by Plaintiff Beloff. On Dec. 6, 2024, the Court granted Wells Fargo's request to consolidate another putative class action, which ultimately resulted in the filing of the SAC on Jan. 9, 2025. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MBSnPR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Amanda L. Groves, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. Angela A. Smedley, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: agroves@winston.com sobi@winston.com asmedley@winston.com WELLS FARGO: Settles DEI Hiring Practices Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- AFROTECH reports that Wells Fargo has settled a DEI lawsuit involving its hiring practices. In 2022, The New York Times published an article detailing the experience of Joe Bruno, a former executive in Wells Fargo's wealth management division. He claimed the bank giant would interview "diverse" candidates for open positions with no plans to actually extend an employment offer. Bruno voiced this observation to higher-ups, but was dismissed. He told the company the "fake interviews" were "inappropriate, morally wrong, ethically wrong." per the New York Times. Wells Fargo fired him in August 2022. The company stated that Bruno was combative with another employee, which led to his termination. Several other employees confirmed Bruno's claims regarding the company's diversity hiring practices, the Times reports. These employees claim that the Wells Fargo's concerns around the interviews were less about hiring diverse candidates and more about passing diversity audits. Their managers or bosses told them to interview diverse candidates, even though roles were already promised to an individual, the Times explains. In 2020, Wells Fargo added a policy that requires open roles earning $100,000 and higher to include diverse candidates, including people from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups, women, veterans, LGBTQ individuals, and people with disabilities. Settlement Details In 2022, SEB Investment Management AB filed a lawsuit on behalf of plaintiffs sharing similar concerns about Wells Fargo's DEI hiring practices. According to the Charlotte Observer, From February 2021 to June 2022, plaintiffs maintained that interviews with diverse candidates were performative. SEB Investment Management AB also said Wells Fargo deceived them about their DEI commitments in hiring, although the bank giant disagreed. "We believe the claims were without merit. Wells Fargo does not tolerate discrimination in any part of our business" Wells Fargo said Wednesday, Sept. 17, in a statement shared with The Charlotte Observer. Wells Fargo attempted to dismiss the case, but a California federal court struck it down in 2024. On Sept. 15, the bank and its shareholders agreed to settle the federal class action lawsuit. A court hearing about the settlement "in principle" is scheduled for November. [GN] WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS: More Time to File Class Cert. Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE MIHOLICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01541-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff intended on including the request for extension in the previous request for continuance of deadlines, but due to an oversight, it was not included. The Parties request the court extend the deadline to file a motion for class certification by ninety (90) days. This extension would amend the deadline as follows: Event or Deadline: Remaining Proposed Dates: Dates: The Plaintiff's motion for Sept. 8, 2025 Dec. 8, 2025 class certification Windstream manufactures radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vjkZg5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Nadir O. Ahmed, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 11510 Eaglesview Ct. San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks Leave to File Amended Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WM WHOLESALE, LLC d/b/a CAKE BRAND, Case No. 8:24-cv-02553-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Oct. 6, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting leave to file an amended motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T5PgwI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com XACTUS LLC: Cinner Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAAKOV CINNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XACTUS, LLC and CREDIT PLUS, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to CREDIT PLUS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04531-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, certifying case as a class action. Xactus is a fintech innovator, specializing in advanced mortgage verification solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vHWbrd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Daniel Zemel, Esq. Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 400 Sylvan Ave., Suite 200 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com nl@zemellawllc.com XACTUS LLC: Cinner Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAAKOV CINNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XACTUS, LLC and CREDIT PLUS, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to CREDIT PLUS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04531-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal material designated confidential in connection with motion for class certification. The Plaintiff Yaakov Cinner, through his undersigned counsel, seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 6, 7, 9, and 10, and portions of Exhibits 1, 11, and 12 to his Memorandum of Law in support of his forthcoming Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff also seeks leave to file under seal those portions of the Memorandum of Law which quote or otherwise reveal the contents of material proposed to be sealed. Exhibit 6 is a document produced in this matter by third party Capital One, N.A. and marked “Confidential” pursuant to the protective order in this matter. Exhibits 7 and 9 are documents produced in this matter by Defendants and marked as “Confidential” pursuant to the protective order. Exhibit 10 is a document produced in this matter by third party United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC and marked “Confidential” pursuant to the protective order. Exhibits 1, 11, and 12 each contain reference to information designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the protective order by Defendants, and only that specific information is proposed to be sealed. Xactus is a fintech innovator, specializing in advanced mortgage verification solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UpXPlJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Daniel Zemel, Esq. Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 400 Sylvan Ave., Suite 200 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com nl@zemellawllc.com XTO ENERGY: Kriley Amended Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY et al., v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-WSS-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman IV entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. Class certification is granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), but it is denied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (23)(b)(2). XTO is an American energy company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V2lIXZ at no extra charge.[CC] YELP INC: Casanova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against YELP INC. The case is styled as Giovanni Casanova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YELP INC., Case No. 25STCV26924 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Yelp Inc. -- https://www.yelp.com/ -- is an American company that develops the Yelp.com website and the Yelp mobile app, which publishes crowd-sourced reviews about businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Harteker, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave. 470, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 818-914-3433 Email: rebecca@frontierlawcenter.com ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Agent Referral Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Brooklee Han, writing for HousingWire, reports that Zillow's Premier Agent and Flex programs are under legal scrutiny for potentially deceiving homebuyers about agent relationships. The lawsuit argues consumers could negotiate better prices if connected directly with listing agents instead of Zillow-affiliated agents. Zillow is facing yet another lawsuit. Filed on Friday, September 19, in U.S. District Court in Seattle, the lawsuit alleges that the portal tricks consumers into using agents affiliated with Zillow through its Flex and Premier Agent programs, resulting in inflated home purchase prices. The suit was filed by Alucard Taylor, who purchased a home in Portland, Oregon, in 2022 using a Zillow-affiliated agent. According to the complaint, when Taylor clicked the "contact agent" button next to the listing he was interested in, he assumed he was contacting the listing agent, but instead he was routed to a Zillow-affiliated agent. Taylor is being represented by Steve W. Berman, a named partner at class action litigation firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, the same firm that represented plaintiffs in the Moehrl commission lawsuit. The suit claims that when a consumer clicks the "contact agent" button on a listing on Zillow, they are directed to a Zillow-affiliated agent and not the listing agent of the property. It says that consumers are then directed to sign Zillow's Touring Agreement, which "promises the buyer that the agent's services are 'free,' but this is deceptive and not true: if the sale goes through, the buyer's agent still receives a commission." "In addition, if the Zillow-affiliated agent is a 'Flex' agent, he or she has to pay Zillow up to 40% of the agent's commission," the filing states. "This cut of the commission paid to Zillow, for no services rendered related to the real estate sale, is never disclosed to the buyer or the seller." The complaint argues that if buyers were directed to the listing agent instead of a Zillow affiliated agent, "they would be better positioned to negotiate a lower purchase price, because the seller would not have to pay commissions to the seller's agent and the buyer's agent." "It also incentivizes Zillow Flex agents to prioritize receiving his/her full commission at all costs, even if the buyer loses the bidding process. Since the Flex agents only effectively receive a 1% commission from the purchase of a home (after paying the Hidden Zillow fees and commissions to their firms), they have no practical flexibility in negotiating a lower commission," the filing states. "Sellers are stuck with paying 6% commission (or more) because the buyer Flex agent is receiving such a paltry sum in return, thereby increasing the purchase price of the home for the buyer. Zillow's scheme has the intent and the effect of unlawfully maintaining high and inflexible commissions that drive up the prices that buyers must pay." According to the complaint, Zillow has furthered its "scheme" through its listing standards policy, which requires sellers to make their property available for display on Zillow within one business day of publicly advertising the property. "This policy effectively requires sellers and their agents to forgo using other initial methods to advertise the home sale. The effect of this policy is to inflate the unjustly earned profits Zillow receives from its deceptive conduct, as it continues to increase its dominance of the market," the filing states. The complaint claims that, through these actions, Zillow has violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and has been unjustly enriched by allegedly profiting from hidden fees. The suit is seeking class-action status for all U.S. consumers who have purchased a property listed on Zillow and were represented by a Zillow-affiliated buyer's agent. Taylor and his counsel are demanding a jury trial and are asking the court for treble damages, disgorgement of Zillow's profits and an injunctive relief preventing Zillow from continuing the practices in question. In an emailed statement a Zillow spokesperson wrote that the company plans to "vigorously defend" itself against the allegations. "This complaint fundamentally misrepresents how Zillow operates and the value we've delivered to buyers, sellers and real estate professionals for nearly two decades. Contrary to its claims, we stand by our long held belief that buyers and sellers deserve to have the choice to work with an agent who is committed to their best interests and only represents them," the spokesperson wrote. In mid-August, Hagens Berman initiated an investigation into real estate agent practices regarding home sale transactions. In a release, the firm claimed that its research had identified "allegedly deceptive practices" that it claims may have impacted consumers nationwide, violating their consumer rights and causing home sellers to overpay. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***