250930.mbx

250930.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 30, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 195 Headlines 326 RESTAURANT: Kaewjino Seeks Proper Wages for Servers 361 DELI: Galindo Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Under FLSA, NYLL 3M COMPANY: La Viola Suit Removed to D. New Jersey 84 LUMBER: Class Certification Discovery Extended to Nov. 17 ADELPHOI USA: Bid to Dismiss Adams Suit Tossed ADVANTAGE SALES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 21, 2026 AETNA INC: $200K Class Settlement in Peters Wins Final Nod AFFINITY INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 9, 2026 AIR FRANCE: Allison Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Gress Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ALLSTATE INSURANCE: $4MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ALLY FINANCIAL: Court Stays All Proceedings in Sheridan ALPINE FUNDING: Bachhuber Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Court Stays Middleton Suit Pending Mediation AMERICAN FUTURE: Vazquez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California AMERICAN HONDA: Alcantara Transferred to S.D. California AMERICAN MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 30, 2026 AMPLE ENERGY: Ohanian Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Filing Amended to Oct. 1, 2026 ARASHI VISION: Bishop Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ARCHERY TRADE: Borreson Sues Over Archery Products' Monopoly ARCHERY TRADE: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, May Suit Alleges AT&T INC: Deadline for Filing Claims Settlement Set November 18 ATALCO GRAMERCY: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to May 28, 2026 ATTALA STEEL: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Initial Nod AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid BAGEL RETREAT: Molina Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BAKER COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Baker Due Dec. 11 BAPTIST HEALTH: Henry Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri BATH PLANET: Margulis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid BEACH BUNNY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 18, 2026 BEECH ACRES: Faces Compton Suit Over Private Data Breach BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Mullins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Nov. 5 BERNICE HASSAN: Vu Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California BH MANAGEMENT: Agrees to Settle Security Deposit Suit for $572,000 BIOGEN INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Bonoan Suit Removed to N.D. California BLUE & CO: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McCoy Says BLUE CROSS: $2.67B Settlement Checks Not Yet Sent, Under Review BLUE Q CORP: Bishop Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BLUE STAR SECURITY: Berta Sues Over Unlawful Collection Biometrics BOUTIQUE RUGS: Ford Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website BRAINSTORM INC: Escobedo Suit Removed to C.D. California BRAND HOUSE: Continues to Defend Miles Labor Class Suit BRAND HOUSE: Continues to Defend Sicard Labor Class Suit in N.Y. BRAND I101: Campbell Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising BRAZOS VALLEY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd BROOKLINEN INC: Anderson Suit Removed to S.D. California BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE: Dixson Suit Removed to C.D. California BUNNIES BY THE BAY: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind C3.AI INC: Faces Securities Suit in California CALIFORNIA BAIL: Court Extends Time to File Docs Under Seal CAMPBELL SOUP: Reich Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling CARE360 HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hamber Says CAREONRX INC: Cleinmark Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin CARETRACKER INC: Maruco Files Suit in W.D. New York CARS.COM INC: Johnston Suit Removed to S.D. California CARTER CREDIT: Gonzalez Sues For Inadequate Data Security Practices CCI FINANCIAL INC: Dewitt Files Suit in D. Utah CCI FINANCIAL INC: Hiatt Files Suit in D. Utah CCI FINANCIAL: Brady Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data CENCORA INC: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Action Suit for $40MM CENTENE CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert Modified to Sept. 18, 2026 CERNER CORPORATION: Lewis Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHARLES BARATTA: Bid for Bifurcation Granted in Vandersloot CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid for 90-Day Trial Continuance OK'd CINQUE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stih Alleges CLARENCE CARTER: Bull Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice CLINT MILLER: Iasella Bid to File Corrected Exhibits Tossed CMS-NY/PA: Class Settlement in Smalt Suit Gets Initial Nod COCA-COLA CO: Jordan Seeks More Time to File Class Certification COLUMBIA DEBT: Parties Seek to Extend Time to File Class Cert Bid COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Gaertner Suit Seeks Class Certification CONCERT PHILMONT: Chalmers Sues Over Unpaid Compensations COOKUNITY INC: Douglass ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class CORCORAN GROUP: Botte Sues Over Unlawful Use of Data Software CORNISH & CAREY: Canchola Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses CORNWELL QUALITY TOOL: Manzo Files Suit in N.D. Ohio CORNWELL QUALITY: Bartch Sues Over Failure to Secure Information COVENANT CARE LODI: Davenport Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CVS CAREMARK: Faces Hamburger Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations CYTOKINETICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 17 DAILYPAY INC: Higuera Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois DANIEL BEERS: Glasgow Seeks to Maintain Class Exhibits Under Seal DELTA STAR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Wilson Extended to Dec. 4 DELTA STAR: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply DENNY'S INC: Chiman Suit Removed to C.D. California DIAMOND FOODS: Zuniga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DISCOVER BANK: $1.225BB Final Court OK Hearing Set May 20, 2026 DNC TRAVEL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid DOUG BURGUM: Wichita and Affiliated Suit Transferred to D. Columbia EAGLE CREEK HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sakowski Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Eibensteiner Says ETTIKA LLC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind EVENING POST: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sosebee Says EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Catalano Balks at Third-Party Lenders' Calls FARMERS PRIDE: Miscalculates Overtime Pay, Cluff Suit Claims FLORIDA NATURAL: Donadio Sues Over Mislabeled Orange Juice FLORIDA: Briefing Schedule on Class Cert Bid Sought FLY-E GROUP: Kurt Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities FORTINET INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit FRANK & EILEEN: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FREEDOM HOLDINGS: Pardo Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property FREEDOM LASER: Faces Esparza Suit Automatic Subscription Renewal FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Williams Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina GFA ALABAMA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response GOOGLE LLC: Discovery Scheduling Order Entered in Cengage Suit GRAHAM PERSONNEL: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over Consumer Report GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Mollins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HAMSKEA ARCHERY: Faces Suit Over Archery Product Price Conspiracy HEALTHCARE HD: Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Class Suit HOME DEPOT: Chiplinsky Sues Over Improper Discount Policy HORIZON VILLAGE: Jackson Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA HOSPITAL SERVICE: Gulley Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII HUSH BLACKWELL: Paetkau Files Suit in W.D. Missouri INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Colbert Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania INTERIOR HOMESCAPES: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Suit Says IONIA CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, Kazakos Says JACKSON COUNTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weeder Alleges JACOBO FARM: Class Settlement in Gomez Gets Final Nod JAPANESE PANTRY: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit JSM FOODS CORP: Silva Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KBR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 18 KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Laboy Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Janitors KEVIN COPPINGER: Filing for Class Response/Reply Extended to Nov. 7 MANAGED LABOR: Guy Sues Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend "Lucas" Suit MEDTRONIC INC: Standing Order Entered in Drinkhouse Class Suit MEDUSIND INC: $5MM Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Dec. 29 MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Steakle Suit Removed to D. Kansas MISS KITTY'S: Jones Partial Summary Judgment Bid Nixed MOBOTREX LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Kasten Says MOLSON COORS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Hensley Class Suit Says MOTHER NATURE: Jackson Sues Over Website's Access Barriers NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Settlement in Pierre Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK: Brougham Fund Files Suit in N.D. New York NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Bid to Dismiss Radford Claims Tossed NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Hawthorne Bid for Default Judgment OK'd NUTEX HEALTH: Bhagavan Files Securities Suit over Short Sell Report OAKLAND, CA: Class Settlement in Curran Gets Initial Nod OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.55-MM OUTLIER INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Claims PENTAGON FEDERAL: Beyard Opposition to Summary Judgment Due Oct. 15 PHREESIA INC: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Zuniga Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California PNC FINANCIAL: Birdsall Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping PRINTING INDUSTRIES: Butler Sues Over Data Breach PROFESSIONAL HOUSEKEEPERS: Farrington Sues Over FRCA Violations PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification PRUITTHEALTH INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1, 2026 PUBMATIC INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit RCI HOSPITALITY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit READING INT'L: Fact Discovery in Berryman Suit Due March 6, 2026 REDPATH USA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gonzales Says RETINA VITREOUS: Seydlitz Sues Over Failure to Secure PII RF INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Pollack Labor Class Suit RHINO LABS: Defranco Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 17 RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Manadero Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines RIVERSIDE, CA: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 19 ROHR INC: $19.9MM Class Settlement in Morgan Suit Gets Final Nod RUGSUSA LLC: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SALESFORCE INC: Acosta Sues Over Data Breach SALESFORCE INC: King Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices SANTA MONICA, CA: Filing for Revised Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 24 SATYA JEWELRY: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SAVARA INC: Faces Ho Suit Over Alleged Securities Fraud SCIPLAY CORP: Agree to $5MM Online Casino Game Class Settlement SEAN DUFFY: Court Dismisses Thomas Suit SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Bid to Dismiss State Law Claims Tossed SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Seeks to Stay Response to Class Cert Bid SEMTECH CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in C.D. Cal. SGL CARBON FIBERS: Ramirez Suit Removed to E.D. Washington SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Class Cert Reply Extended to Oct. 17 SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Class Suit Over Copyrighted Designs SHIMS BARGAIN INC: Villalobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIGNATURE PAYMENTS: Anaru Endeavors Sues Over Breach of Contract SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Thomas SINA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D.N.Y. SKYFI CAPITAL: General Pretrial Management Entered in Kweswani SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ordono Extended to Nov. 14 SMILE DENTAL: Faces Felix Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid for Pre-Motion Conference Granted SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Seeks Denial of Klassen Class Certification Bid SONDER HOLDINGS: Duffaydar Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 8 SOUTHERN GRAPHICS: Davis Sues Over Unprotected Private Information SPARK NETWORKS: Byars Sues Over Data Privacy Violations SPECIALIZED LOAN: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed SPECIALTYCARE INC: Fuchs Allowed to Seal Certain Documents STAN'S DONUTS: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Hamm Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. T-MOBILE USA: Beets Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice TACKLE EXPRESS: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TARGET CORPORATION: Navarro Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TAX LIEN CODE: Vranas Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims TENAGLIA & HUNT: Garo Seeks Response to First Doc Demands TORRANCE HEALTH: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRANS UNION LLC: Sakowski FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TRANS UNION: Bid to File Certain Exhibit Under Seal OK'd TRANS UNION: Court OK's Bid to Seal Exhibits TRANSUNION LLC: Clayton Sues Over Failure to Secure Information TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Todd Alleges TRANSUNION LLC: Kempf Sues Over Data Security Failures TRANSUNION LLC: Lovell Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Class Settlement in Edge Suit Gets Initial Nod TWIN CITIES PAIN: Burns Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. TWIN CITIES PAIN: Gore Sues Over Data Breach TWO SONS INVESTMENTS: Monteagudo Sues Over Inaccessible Property UNDERDOG SPORTS: Kelly Sues Over Operation of Illegal DFS Contests UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Dawkins Class Suit Over Tracking Software UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 1, 2026 UNITED FOOD: Class Cert Filing Modified to March 20, 2026 UNITED PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tabb Alleges UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Arrests UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Parties Seek OK of Sealing Stipulation UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Start Paying Out Breach Settlement Claims UNUM LIFE: Standing Order Entered in Lehrman Class Action USHEALTH GROUP: Carr Suit Removed to S.D. Florida V.F. CORPORATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website V.F. CORPORATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settles NY Wage & Hour Suit VINTAGE HAVANA: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users VONS COMPANIES INC.: Pelayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VUORI INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WALMART INC: Hollingsworth Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia WAND NEWCO: Fordyce Alleges Fiduciary Duty Breaches Under ERISA WAYFAIR LLC: Buggs Sues Over Sales Tax on Toddler Products WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Dec. 29 WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Filing in Miholich Extended WOLFSPEED INC: Court Stays Consolidated Suit ********* 326 RESTAURANT: Kaewjino Seeks Proper Wages for Servers ------------------------------------------------------- TATPONG KAEWJINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 326 RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a JOE ALLEN ), JULIA CRONAUER, TAYLOR CRONAUER, BRIAN SHAFFER and KEVIN SKINNER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07445 (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2025), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Kaewjino ostensibly worked as a server, but was required to spend several hours each day performing non-tipped duties unrelated to server work. He regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay for the hours that he worked. Moreover, Defendants allegedly employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records to avoid paying Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate, and to enable them to pay Plaintiff at the lower tip-credited rate. The 326 Restaurant Corp., doing business as Joe Allen, owns and operates the American restaurant located at 326 W. 46th Street, New York, NY. [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 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 361 DELI: Galindo Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ MARX LENIN GALINDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 361 DELI GROCERY LLC (d/b/a 361 Deli), and AHMED N. AL QAFARI, Case No. 1:25-cv-07485 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff Galindo appropriately for any hours he worked. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Galindo and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Galindo is a former employee of the Defendants 361 Deli Grocery and Ahmed N. Al Qafari. He worked as a general helper, delivery worker, food preparer and porter. Al Qafari serves or served as owner, manager, principal or agent of Defendant Corporation and through this corporate entity operates the deli.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE AND ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 3M COMPANY: La Viola Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeff La Viola, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. MRS-L-912-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on Sept. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-15742. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF"), thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), were contained in Defendants' AFFF, that Plaintiffs regularly used, and were thereby exposed to these substances in training and to extinguish fires during Plaintiffs' careers as members of the military and/or as civilian firefighters. Plaintiffs also allege that they were exposed to these substances through ingestion of drinking water, and that these same substances caused injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Zogby, Esq. Chanda A. Miller, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 67 E. Park Place, Suite 1000 Morristown, NJ 07960 Phone: (973) 775-6101 Email: Michael.Zogby@btlaw.com Chanda.Miller@btlaw.com 84 LUMBER: Class Certification Discovery Extended to Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN, individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No. 2:24-cv-00852-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend deadlines in the court’s scheduling order: -- Class certification discovery set for Sept. 29, 2025, is extended to Nov. 17, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence for Oct. 14, 2025, is extended to Dec. 2, 2025. -- The Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence for Nov. 11, 2025, is extended to Jan. 6, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of Class certification, due by Nov. 25, 2025, is extended to Jan. 20, 2026. -- The Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, due by Dec. 9, 2025, is extended to Jan. 27, 2026. 84 Lumber is an operated American building materials supply company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K6iV1m at no extra charge.[CC] ADELPHOI USA: Bid to Dismiss Adams Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAHMIR ADAMS, et al., v. ADELPHOI USA, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03684-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order as follows: 1. The Motion to dismiss of Defendant Berks County Children and Youth Services is denied; 2. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Adelphoi USA, Adelphoi Village, Adelphoi Education, Inc., Adelphoi Foundation, and Adelphoi Western Region Inc. is denied; and 3. The Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action allegations are denied without prejudice to the Defendants' rights to challenge any future motion for class certification. Adelphoi is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing quality care and services to at-risk children, youth, and families. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YBExty at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANTAGE SALES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 21, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA VALENZUELA, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the ADVANTAGE 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, v. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC; THE ADVANTAGE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 8:24-cv-00460-AB-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge André Birotte Jr. entered an order granting stipulated request for entry of scheduling order for litigation of remaining claims: Event Deadline Completion of fact discovery: May 8, 2026 The Plaintiff's opening expert disclosures: June 22, 2026 Motion for class certification: Aug. 21, 2026 The Defendants’ expert disclosures: Aug. 21, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply expert disclosures: Sept. 18, 2026 Opposition to class certification: Sept. 18, 2026 Reply in support of class certification: Oct. 9, 2026 Completion of expert discovery: Oct. 16, 2026 Motion for summary judgment: Dec. 11, 2026 Opposition to summary judgment: Jan. 11, 2027 Reply in support of summary judgment: Feb. 10, 2027 Advantage provides marketing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RF52ES at no extra charge.[CC] AETNA INC: $200K Class Settlement in Peters Wins Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA, INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Reidinger entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class settlement, and approving the class settlement as set forth in the parties' settlement agreement, and -- granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for award of attorneys’ fees and costs and service award for class representative, and approving the award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel and the service award to the lead Plaintiff as class representative as set forth in the parties' settlement agreement. The parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal with respect to all of the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants within 30days of the entry of this Order. In sum, the Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court further finds that the proposed award of fees and expenses to Class Counsel and the service award to the Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters as the lead Plaintiff to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court finds that a $20,000 service award is warranted for Ms. Peters. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, Aetna agreed to pay $4.6 million for the benefit of the Classes, separate and apart from its payment to Class Counsel. Optum agreed to pay $200,000 for the benefit of the Classes. As for attorneys’ fees and expenses, Aetna agreed to pay $3.55 million for the benefit of Class Counsel, separate and apart from its payment to the Classes. In June 2015, the Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters filed a putative class action complaint the Defendants, challenging the Defendants' imposition of Optum's administrative fees on her chiropractic health care claims. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated ERISA by improperly charging members, and the plans themselves, administrative fees pertaining to chiropractic and physical therapy services performed by Optum’s network of providers. Aetna is an American managed health care company that sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance and related services. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sfd3Ph at no extra charge.[CC] AFFINITY INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Affinity Insurance Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-06347-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order staying action and continuing class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Date Class certification motion and the Jan. 9, 2026 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition, the Mar. 13, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures, and the Defendants' Daubert motions due: Class certification expert Apr. 29, 2026 discovery cut-off: Class certification reply May 15, 2026 and the Plaintiff's Daubert motions due: On July 30, 2024, the Court issued an order setting deadlines for briefing on class certification and has extended those deadlines twice previously. Affinity is the subsidiary of Aon that specializes in developing, marketing and administering customized insurance programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rIBA6P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Raab, Esq. Patrick J. Branson, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 x109 E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com patrick@gutridesafier.com seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com The Defendants are represented by: Aneca E. Lasley, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP 250 West Street Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215-7509 Telephone: (614) 462-1085 Facsimile: (614) 232-6899 E-mail: aneca.lasley@icemiller.com - and - Sonia Martin, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 882-5000 Facsimile: (415) 882-0300 E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com - and - Jeffrey A. Lipps, Esq. Michael H. Beekhuizen, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS LLP 280 Plaza, Suite 1300 280 North High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365 4100 Facsimile: (614) 365-9145 E-mail: lipps@carpenterlipps.com beekhuizen@carpenterlipps.com AIR FRANCE: Allison Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ethan Allison, Arya Soofiani, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Air Francel, Case No. 2:25-cv-04873 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07634-JGK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Air France -- https://wwws.airfrance.us/ -- stylised as AIRFRANCE, is the flag carrier of France, and is headquartered in Tremblay-en-France.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 861-1398 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Email: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Gress Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kim Gress, individually and on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 1:25-cv-01774 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Sept. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-03638-KMM-JFD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: $4MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court grants the request to amend the class definition and certifies the Settlement Class defined as follows: "All California homeowners policyholders of Allstate where: (a) Allstate's internal records reflect the home to have a built-in garage; (b) Allstate included the policy in its corrective action process called Project UIN 203019 ("Project UIN"); and (c) Project UIN increased the square footage of the home in Allstate's internal records to a level that reflects actual or potential double counting of garage space." 2. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Allstate will pay $4,000,000.00 to settle this lawsuit (the "Total Settlement Fund"). From Total Settlement Fund will be Allstate's only payment obligation; it constitutes cash payments to Class Members, service fees to the Class Representative, the costs to administer the Settlement, the costs and expenses Class Counsel incurred in prosecuting this case, and Class Counsel's attorneys' fees. 3. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, each of the 2517 Class Members who do not timely opt-out of the Settlement will receive a monetary award. C 4. The parties will ask Court approval for Tisha Hilario to receive $20,000 out of the Total Settlement Fund for her participation and service in this case. Allstate does not object to or oppose this service award. The Court will consider the propriety of the service award at the Final Approval stage. 5. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Counsel will seek a Fee Award equivalent to one-third of the Total Settlement Fund, or $1,333,333.33 for their extensive work on the case over nearly five (5) years as summarized in the Motion. The Court will consider the Fee Award at the Final Approval stage. Allstate is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ui5ONO at no extra charge.[CC] ALLY FINANCIAL: Court Stays All Proceedings in Sheridan ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Volk entered an order staying all proceedings pending the outcome of Ally's Petition for Leave to Appeal Class Certification Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) On March 7, 2025, Mr. Sheridan filed a motion for class certification under the following definition: "All West Virginia consumers identified by the Defendant with a West Virginia mailing address (1) with an automobile loan securing a vehicle with a Contract and Garage State in West Virginia, (2) where the lender or assignee is Ally, (3) who paid a fee to ACI or CheckFreePay for making a loan payment by telephone or over the internet, by interactive voice recognition (IVR) or by other electronic means, from four years before the filing of the complaint through the date a class is certified." On July 22, 2025, the Court granted the motion for class certification. On Aug. 5, 2025, Ally timely filed its petition for leave to appeal class certification order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Ally offers a full spectrum of financial products. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qhHKm8 at no extra charge.[CC] ALPINE FUNDING: Bachhuber Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALPINE FUNDING PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00907-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Staying only the deadlines associated with class certification briefing pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to compel; and 2. Extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification and expert disclosures to 21 days after the Court issues its ruling on the Motion to Compel, with the Defendant's opposition, the Plaintiff's reply, and all related Daubert deadlines likewise extended by 21 days. On Aug. 26, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking production of outbound call and text detail records necessary to identify putative class members and establish Rule 23 requirements. The Defendant filed its opposition on Sept. 2, 2025, asserting burden and proportionality objections. Alpine specializes in providing small business funding and loan alternatives to support business growth. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lm2H4C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. Alex Phillips, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: cmiller@straussborrelli.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Court Stays Middleton Suit Pending Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Middleton, et al., v. Amentum Government Services Parent Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456 (D. Kan., Filed Oct. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order granting joint motion to stay case pending meditation. On 9/5/25, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties to discuss their joint motion to stay. The Plaintiff was represented by Teresa Shulda, Defendants were represented by Aviva Grumet-Morris Cardelle Bratton Spangler. Prior to the telephone conference, the parties filed their joint mediation notice setting the mediation for Dec. 15, 2025. Following discussion with the parties, the Court granted the motion to stay for good cause pending the parties' Dec. 15, 2025. mediation. The parties are directed to submit an email status report to chambers for the undersigned Magistrate Judge by Dec. 22, 2025. advising the Court of the outcome of the mediation. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Amentum provides global technical and engineering services.[CC] AMERICAN FUTURE: Vazquez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Future Technology. The case is styled as Luis Alfredo Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Future Technology, Case No. 1:25-cv-01205-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Future Technology Corporation wholesales and distributes computer peripheral equipment and computer software.[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 AMERICAN HONDA: Alcantara Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Radley Alcantara, Ashley Bowman, Kevin Lucey, Austin Polson, Tiffany Richardson, Brian Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Motor Company Limited, Case No. 2:25-cv-06009 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02376-TWR-AHG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. -- https://www.honda.com/ -- (sometimes abbreviated as AHM) is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 - and - James Mitchell Williams, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN ET AL 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Adam M. Bucci, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Clay H. Barnett, III, Esq. W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 The Defendant is represented by: Kristyn Wong, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS & LEE 1920 Main Street, Suite 230 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (407) 649-4832 Email: kristyn.wong@kleinthomaslaw.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathyn Boyd v. American Medical Response, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04725-MWF-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael Fitzgerald entered an order setting class certification briefing and hearing schedule: Motion for Class Certification March 30, 2026 (the "MCC") due: Opposition to MCC due: May 4, 2026 Reply in Support of MCC due: May 18, 2026 Hearing on MCC: June 1, 2026, American is a private ambulance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=icRSyM at no extra charge.[CC] AMPLE ENERGY: Ohanian Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA OHANIAN, HENRY SMITH, and MARICELA GUERRERO SANTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMPLE ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07823 (N.D. Cal., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act and the California Labor Code. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or about September 10, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act and the California law. Ample Energy, Inc. is an engineering solution service company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Nassau Street, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Email: stuart@lankmill.com - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 Email: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Filing Amended to Oct. 1, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSA NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; NIHLA OLSEM, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated; and ROES 1 through 100 inclusive, v. APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-06829-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Court entered an order granting amended joint stipulation regarding class certification briefing schedule: Oct. 1, 2026 Motion for class certification Oct. 15, 2026 Opposition to motion for class certification Oct. 23, 2026 Reply in support of motion for class certification Nov. 19, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification Apartment provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WnOVME at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. Justin T. Carter, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 3555 5th Ave., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 238-4720 Facsimile: (619) 238-5260 The Defendants are represented by: R. Ernest Montanari, Esq. Michelle C. Jackson, Esq. COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 2175 N. California Boulevard, Suite 835 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (510) 844-5100 Facsimile: (510) 844-5101 E-mail: emontanari@ccllp.law mjackson@ccllp.law ARASHI VISION: Bishop Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARASHI VISION (U.S.) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07513 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://store.insta360.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC manufactures and distributes consumer electronics, including panoramic and sports cameras, and other intelligent imaging devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ARCHERY TRADE: Borreson Sues Over Archery Products' Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ JON BORRESON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; and PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03578 (D. Minn., Sept. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Defendant in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in coordinated horizontal conduct in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The Defendants' agreement to unlawfully exchange competitively sensitive information amongst Archery Products retailers and producers violates the Sherman Act. The agreement to exchange competitively sensitive information through various ATA-created channels has enabled the Defendants to reduce competition in the market for Archery Products, says the suit. The Archery Trade Association (ATA), is the trade group representing manufacturers, retailers, distributors, sales representatives and others working in the archery and bowhunting industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Joseph N. Roda, Esq. Michele S. Burkholder, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com jnroda@nastlaw.com mburkholder@nastlaw.com ARCHERY TRADE: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, May Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE MAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS INC. d/b/a JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; and PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03651-LMP-ECW (D. Minn., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of archery products, purchased from one or more of the Manufacturer Defendants and/or Retailer Defendants from January 1, 2014, through the present. According to the complaint, the Defendants exchanged competitively sensitive, non-public information concerning, inter alia, seasonal sales numbers, prices, output, percentages of sales by product type, capacity, demand, sales volume, and future sales strategies to carry out their price-fixing conspiracy. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have sustained antitrust injury and damages. Archery Trade Association, Inc. is a trade group focused on the sports of archery and bowhunting with its primary place of business in New Ulm, Minnesota. Bowtech, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Eugene, Oregon. BPS Direct, LLC, doing business as Bass Pro Shops, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Cabela's LLC is a retail company with its primary place of business in Sidney, Nebraska. Hoyt Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. Jay's Sports, Inc., doing business as Jay's Sporting Goods, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Clare, Michigan. Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc. is an archery distributor with its primary place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Mathews Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Sparta, Wisconsin. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Tucson, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 Email: SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Ellen G. Jalkut, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 Email: EJalkut@RobinsKaplan.com AT&T INC: Deadline for Filing Claims Settlement Set November 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Butler, writing for CNET, reports that AT&T has been held responsible for two recent, massive data breaches, and those privacy victims are finally about to receive compensation for their losses. Two data breaches in 2019 and 2024 affected nearly 200 million people, but the window for filing a claim in a class-action lawsuit against AT&T is about to close. On June 20, US District Judge Ada E. Brown granted preliminary approval to the settlement tied to the 2024 breaches. Just weeks later, on Aug. 4, the administrator overseeing the class action began accepting claims from eligible customers. Claimants are divided into two groups based on which breach affected them, but individuals affected by both incidents can file claims in each category. That means depending on your eligibility, you could be entitled to a significant payout once the settlement is finalized. But you'll need to act soon: the deadline for filing claims against AT&T settlement is Nov. 18, 2025. Here's what to know about the AT&T settlement, including how to file a claim, how much money you could receive and the details behind the breaches that triggered the lawsuit. What were these data breaches that prompted the lawsuits against AT&T? The two data breaches related to AT&T's current $177 million settlement occurred in 2019 and 2024, although the company didn't acknowledge the 2019 breach until March 2024, weeks after it detected customer data spreading on the dark web. The 2019 breach involved personal data, including Social Security numbers, birth dates and legal names, and it affected 7.6 million current AT&T customers and 65.4 million former account holders. Soon after the disclosure, AT&T took the dramatic step of resetting passwords for all current customers who were included in the breach. The second data breach covered by the legal settlement happened soon after the disclosure of the first. In April 2024, hackers accessed phone records from 2022 for nearly all of AT&T's US customers (about 109 million) from Snowflake, the company's cloud-based data warehouse. AT&T disclosed the breach in July 2024. Associates of the hacker group ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for similar Snowflake attacks on about 165 companies in mid-2024. Two people were eventually arrested for the AT&T hack. A rash of lawsuits for both data breaches were filed after both of AT&T's disclosures and were consolidated soon after. All parties in both of the breach lawsuits agreed to a settlement in March 2025. The class affected by "AT&T 1 Data Incident" (the 2019 breach) will receive a $149 million payout in the proposed settlement, while the class included in "AT&T 2 Data Incident" (the 2024 Snowflake breach) will receive $28 million. How can people file a claim for part of the AT&T settlement? Kroll Settlement Administration, the organization managing AT&T's legal settlement, has created a website at telecomdatasettlement.com where eligible class members can file claims for compensation. To file a claim for part of the settlement, you'll need to have a "Class Member ID," which should have come in a notification from Kroll, most likely by email. If you cannot find the email, be sure to check your spam folder or other email filters. [GN] ATALCO GRAMERCY: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to May 28, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINA BOSLEY and SHAWN COOK SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATALCO GRAMERCY LLC (f/k/a GRAMERCY HOLDINGS I, LLC) Case No. 2:24-cv-02540-JTM-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jane Triche Milazzo entered an order modifying the class certification discovery and briefing deadlines as follows: Deadline Deadline for completing all fact discovery Dec. 19, 2025 on class certification issues: The Plaintiffs' deadline for disclosing Dec. 12, 2025 class-related expert(s) and CVs: The Defendant's deadline for disclosing Jan. 9, 2026 class-related expert(s) and CVs: The Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class May 28, 2026 Certification: The Defendant's deadline to file opposition June 29, 2026 to motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply to July 20, 2026 Defendant's opposition to class certification: Atalco is a major alumina refinery. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G60AVN at no extra charge.[CC] ATTALA STEEL: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated V. ATTALA STEEL INDUSTRIES, LLC AND MIDDLEGROUND MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No. 4:23-cv-00114-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge David A. Sanders entered an order granting joint motion for preliminary settlement approval: 1. The Motion is preliminarily granted to the extent set forth in this Order. 2. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for Count I (WARN Act), for settlement purposes only and pending a final determination on class certification under Rule 23: "Plaintiff and all other individuals who were employed by Attala that suffered an employment loss as a result of Attala's idling of its Hillsboro facility in November 2022, and subsequent permanent closure of the Hillsboro facility in May 2023." 3. The Plaintiff Betty Brown is appointed as the class representative of the preliminarily approved settlement class. 4. William "Jack' Simpson of Simpson, PLLC is appointed as Class Counsel for the settlement class. 5. The Court approves the proposed Notice Form and approves the proposed method of service the Notice Form by first class mail, postage prepaid, to each Class Member at each Class Member's last known address as shown in the Defendant's records, as updated by Class Counsel, or if no address is known, their last known personal email. 6. The Court schedules a Fairness Hearing to be held on Jan. 8, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Attala specializes in manufacturing domestic structural steel beams, focusing on solar piles and guardrail posts. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fH3TEY at no extra charge.[CC] AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SHAPLLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80770-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: a. Granting the motion to modify pretrial deadlines; and b. Extending the deadline for filing motions for class certification from Sept. 18, 2025 to Dec. 28, 2025. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Court entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order setting forth various deadlines, including a Sept. 18, 2025, deadline for filing motions for class certification. AutoZone is retailer and distributor of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VYuRQS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com BAGEL RETREAT: Molina Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- David Alarcon Molina, Luis Alfredo Santamaria Martinez, and Juan Poblano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAGEL RETREAT INC., and SCOTT SPELLMAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-05190 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising out of Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, uniform maintenance pay and provide proper wage notices and statements. The Plaintiffs were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and/or were not paid the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the wage and hour violations alleged herein and acted willfully in failing to comply with applicable federal and state labor laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as non-exempt hourly employees. The Defendants operates a well-known New York City bagel bakery and sandwich shop founded in 1981 called "Utopia Bagels."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Phone: 718-669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com BAKER COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Baker Due Dec. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAKER v. Baker County, Case No. 2:24-cv-01503 (D. Or., Filed Sept 7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immrgut entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline to file motions to compel fact discovery is now October 20, 2025. -- The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is November 10, 2025. -- Fact discovery is to be completed by November 10, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures are due by December 11, 2025. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by January 12, 2026. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is December 11, 2025. -- The deadline to respond is January 12, 2026. -- Any reply in support of the class certification motion is due February 10, 2026. -- The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is January 19, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act involving Real Property. Baker is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of Oregon.[CC] BAPTIST HEALTH: Henry Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sarah Henry, Joel Gilio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baptist Health South Florida, Inc., Cerner Corporation d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, Case No. 1:25-cv-23528 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Sept. 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00725-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Baptist Health South Florida -- https://baptisthealth.net/ -- is a faith-based not-for-profit healthcare organization and clinical care network in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 200 S Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4832 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com BATH PLANET: Margulis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MARGULIS and MAX MARGULIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BATH PLANET OF ST. LOUIS, LLC, ANGELA MAE TRIPLETT, and LEHAMON LEE TRIPLETT, JR., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:24-cv-01265-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the expert witness deadlines and the class certification deadlines for 30 days. The sought depositions are crucial to identify those persons called who were on the federal do-not-call list, and are crucial for class certification since it forms the basis of many of the necessary elements for class certification such as numerosity or commonality (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1-3), and the amount of TCPA statutory damages each wronged person is entitled to ($500 minimum per call -- 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(3)). Without these depositions, the Plaintiffs will have great difficulty in establishing class certification and cannot engage and present an expert witness on the ultimate issue of the identity and number of called persons who were on the federal do-not-call list. These extensions of time will not delay the trial or resolution of this case since the discovery cutoff is not until Jan. 2, 2026, and these proposed extensions would not move any deadline past the discovery cutoff. Bath offers a wide range of home improvement services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1BQhb5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Schultz, Esq. SCHULTZ LAW GROUP 11775 Borman Drive, Suite 216 Maryland Heights, MO 63146 Telephone: (636) 537-4645 E-mail: Rschultz@sl-lawyers.com BEACH BUNNY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 18, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIN POP, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BEACH BUNNY SWIMWEAR, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04085-MWC-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a civil trial order as follows: Event Date Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings Oct. 31, 2025 or Add Parties: Last Date to File Class Certification Motion: Mar. 18, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: July 24, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 28, 2026 Beach offers a range of one-piece swimsuits, tankinis, and swim dresses. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gdVgM1 at no extra charge.[CC] BEECH ACRES: Faces Compton Suit Over Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- TERI COMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00644-MRB (S.D. Ohio, September 4, 2025) arises out of the data breach that occurred on November 23, 2024. Starting on or about August 22, 2025, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other victims of the Data Breach a Notice of Data Security Incident letter. However, omitted from the notice letter were the identity of the cybercriminals who perpetrated this data breach, the details of the root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these critical facts have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff and Class Members, who retain a vested interest in ensuring that their private information remains protected. The Defendant also waited nearly nine months to inform Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach. Furthermore, Defendant's delay in notifying Plaintiff and Class members of the data breach is in direct violation of Defendants' responsibilities under the data breach notification statute in Ohio, says the suit. Beech Acres Parenting Center provides resources and education to parents and families in the Greater Cincinnati area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Mullins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Behavioral Health Security Services. The case is styled as Trinity G. Mullins, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Behavioral Health Security Services, Case No. 25STCV27419 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Behavioral Health Security Services in Fresno, California, specializes in providing comprehensive security solutions for behavioral health facilities.[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 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Nov. 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirvis, et al., v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02210 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order extending the time to complete discovery: -- The Defendants' consolidated opposition Nov. 5, 2025 to the motion for class certification, Daubert motion as to Plaintiffs' experts, and expert reports must be served by: -- The Plaintiffs' consolidated reply to the Feb. 5, 2026 opposition to the motion for class certification, Daubert motion as to Defendants' experts, opposition to Defendants' Daubert motion, and rebuttal expert reports must be served by: -- The Defendants' consolidated opposition Feb. 20, 2026 to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion and reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Daubert motion must be served by: -- the Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' March 9, 2026 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion must be filed by: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury Berkshire is an American multinational conglomerate holding company.[CC] BERNICE HASSAN: Vu Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bernice Hassan & Assoc, CPA LLC. The case is styled as Qiana Vu, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Future Technology, Case No. 3:25-cv-02397-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Bernice Hassan CPA -- https://www.bernicehassancpa.com/ -- is a specialized tax relief firm focused on assisting real estate professionals, contractors, and individuals burdened by significant tax debt.[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 BH MANAGEMENT: Agrees to Settle Security Deposit Suit for $572,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that BH Management Services has agreed to pay more than $572,000 as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated Florida law with insufficient security deposit notices. The settlement benefits two classes of Florida residents who leased a dwelling unit in a property managed by BH Management Services and did not receive a compliant notice letter when part of their security deposit was withheld. The security deposit class covers residents who do not owe an alleged balance to BH Management or the property owner, while the security deposit balance class includes those who allegedly owe a balance. According to the class action lawsuit, BH Management Services failed to provide proper notice to Florida renters when it withheld their security deposits. Plaintiffs in the case say BH Management sent insufficient notice letters that failed to comply with Florida law. BH Management Services is a property management company that manages more than 60,000 apartments across the country. BH Management has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this $572,851.66 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the BH Management settlement, security deposit class members can receive a cash payment equal to 50% of the security deposit withheld from them. For example, if a class member had a $400 security deposit withheld, they would receive a $200 cash refund. Security deposit balance class members can receive up to 50% of the security deposit amount withheld from them. This payment may be applied to any balance the defendant's records show is owed. If the class member does not apply the full debt relief, they may receive a pro rata refund for the debt relief they did not exercise. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 9, 2025. The final approval hearing for the BH Management settlement is scheduled for Dec. 3, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the BH Management settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible For the security deposit class, Florida residents who leased a dwelling unit in a property managed by BH Management Services, did not receive a compliant notice letter under Florida Statute 83.49(3)(a), had a portion of their security deposit retained and do not owe a balance to BH Management or the property owner. For the security deposit balance class, Florida residents who leased a dwelling unit in a property managed by BH Management Services, did not receive a compliant notice letter under Florida Statute 83.49(3)(a), had a portion of their security deposit retained and owe a balance to BH Management or the property owner. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Change of Address 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 10/09/2025 Case Name Chiodini v. BH Management Services LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-147-CEM-DCI, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Final Hearing 12/03/2025 Settlement Website ChiodiniSecurityDepositSettlement.com Claims Administrator Chiodini v. BH Management Services c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 23489 Jacksonville, FL 32241 info@ChiodiniSecurityDepositSettlement.com Class Counsel Brian W. Warwick Janet R. Varnell Jeffrey L. Newsome Christopher J. Brochu Pamela Levinson VARNELL & WARWICK P.A. Defense Counsel N/A [GN] BIOGEN INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADIA SHASH and AMJAD KHAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, and ALFRED W. SANDROCK, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479-IT (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order permitting portions of their memorandum of law in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel, as well as certain documents submitted therewith, to be filed under seal and impounded until further order of the Court, consistent with the terms of the stipulated protective order governing the confidentiality of discovery materials. The Defendants have filed on the Court's public docket a redacted version of the class certification opposition. The Defendants have also filed on the Court's public docket sealed versions of the following exhibits attached to the Declaration of Audra J. Soloway in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: a. Exhibit C (Doc. No. 189-3) is the transcript of Lead Plaintiff Nadia Shash's August 20, 2025, deposition, which Plaintiffs designated as "Confidential" pursuant to Section IV.5.c of the Protective Order. b. Exhibit D (Doc. No. 189-4) is the transcript of Plaintiff Amjad Khan's August 6, 2025 deposition. Pursuant to Section IV.5.c of the Protective Order, redactions have been applied to all "transcript pages of the deposition testimony dealing with" documents that Plaintiffs have designated as "Confidential" pursuant to Section IV.5.a of the Protective Order. c. Exhibit E (Doc. No. 189-5) is the transcript of Plaintiff Albert Aftoora's August 8, 2025 deposition. Pursuant to Section IV.5.c of the Protective Order, redactions have been applied to all "transcript pages of the deposition testimony dealing with" documents that Plaintiffs have designated as "Confidential" pursuant to Section IV.5.a of the Protective Order. d. Exhibits F, G, and H are brokerage account statements designated as "Confidential" by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Section IV.5.a of the Protective Order. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0OQ3bX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Audra J. Soloway, Esq. Richard C. Tarlowe, Esq. Daniel S. Sinnreich, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Facsimile: (212) 757-3990 E-mail: asoloway@paulweiss.com rtarlowe@paulweiss.com dsinnreich@paulweiss.com - and - William J. Trach, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 948-6000 Facsimile: (617) 948-6001 E-mail: william.trach@lw.com BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Bonoan Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jerome Bonoan, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Corporation; ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV133520 was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court of the State of California, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-07848. Specifically, the Complaint alleges causes of action for: Unfair Competition; 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 Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages; Discrimination and Retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Danielle H. Moore, Esq. Bret Martin, Esq. Jesse D. Borja, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: dmoore@fisherphillips.com bmartin@fisherphillips.com jdborja@fisherphillips.com BLUE & CO: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McCoy Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TRENISE MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE & CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01818-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered in December of 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Blue & Co., LLC is a financial consulting firm based in Carmel, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com BLUE CROSS: $2.67B Settlement Checks Not Yet Sent, Under Review --------------------------------------------------------------- David Bruce, writing for GoErie, reports that the lawsuit claimed the insurance plans illegally agreed not to compete with each other. Settlement administrators are reviewing claims and have not yet set a date for payments to be issued. About six million people are expected to receive payments from the settlement. Even the people who operate the Blue Cross Blue Shield settlement website realize plaintiffs have been waiting an extraordinarily long time for their money. About six million people, including residents of northwestern Pennsylvania, are expecting to receive money as part of a class-action antitrust lawsuit against more than 35 BC/BS health insurance plans, one of which is Highmark. The original $2.67 billion settlement was reached in October 2020 and the final appeals were denied by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024. So, where are the settlement checks? Since early this year, the settlement's administrators have said they are reviewing claims, and sending claim determination notice emails and postcards to people who filed claims. My own claim has been "in review" since February. No date has yet been set for the administrators to issue settlement checks. "We won't begin sending payments until we have reviewed all claims and resolved disputes," administrators said on the website. "This process takes time. Please be patient." Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to dispute the amounts of premiums or administrative fees paid to BC/BS during the time period in question. Messages left with the settlement's administrators, JND Legal Administration, were not returned. What led to the class-action lawsuit? The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association is a national group of independent, community-based and locally operated health insurers. Each insurer has its own territory. For example, Highmark's service area includes Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, and parts of Ohio and New York state. The lawsuit claimed the BC/BS plans illegally entered into an agreement not to compete with each other, and to restrict competition among themselves. Claims were accepted until the Nov. 5, 2021 deadline. Plaintiffs can expect to receive about $333 per claim. This isn't the only large-scale settlement Blue Cross Blue Shield has reached. It also has agreed to pay $2.8 billion to providers, including health systems and physicians. The providers had claimed in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2012 that Blue Cross Blue Shield plans conspired not to compete with each other in an effort to control the amount of money they paid hospitals and physicians for their services. [GN] BLUE Q CORP: Bishop Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE Q CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07514 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.blueq.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Blue Q Corporation is a leading designers and manufacturers of a wide range of t-shirts, socks, personal care, bags, and kitchen products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BLUE STAR SECURITY: Berta Sues Over Unlawful Collection Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabriel Berta, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLUE STAR SECURITY, LLC, SECURITY SERVICES HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a PROTOS SECURITY and CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11138 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 15, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's unlawful collection, retention, storage and use of Plaintiff and Class members' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing consumers with data retention and destruction policies. Specifically, the Chicago Cubs collect biometric identifiers and biometric identifiers from the guests who attend Chicago Cubs games at the historic Wrigley Field located in the Wrigleyville neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois. In order to do this, The Chicago Cubs contract with Blue Star and Protos to collect facial recognition templates from baseball fans at Wrigley Field so that they may be identified through biometric processing systems – namely, Protos' proprietary facial recognition software. The Defendants failed to comply with their critical privacy duties under Illinois law. The Defendants do not and does not adequately disclose its biometric data collection practices to its visitors, never obtained written consent from any of its visitors regarding biometric data practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction policies to any of its visitors. Moreover, Defendants invaded Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy through the unauthorized collection, retention, and use of their biometric data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Gabriel Berta attended a Chicago Cubs game at Wrigley Field in the Wrigleyville neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant Blue Star is a security contractor which employs over 850 active and retired police officers and has provided security services for baseball games hosted by the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field since as late as 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON LLC 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (202) 557-1221 Facsimile: (973) 232-0887 Email: byagman@shnlegal.com BOUTIQUE RUGS: Ford Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ PH SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boutique Rugs, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10831 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website https://boutiquerugs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Boutiquerugs.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Boutiquerugs.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Boutique Rugs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law BRAINSTORM INC: Escobedo Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Escobedo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BrainStorm Inc., Case No. 25STCV23832 was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08853 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. BrainStorm -- https://www.brainstorminc.com/ -- helps software vendors and software customers drive adoption with personalized learning, communication, and analytics.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Pooja L. Shah, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 623-9300 Fax: (213) 623-9924 Email: pooja.l.shah@dentons.com BRAND HOUSE: Continues to Defend Miles Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Brand House Collective Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending August 2, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2025, that the Kirkland's Stores Inc., the Company's previous name, continues to defend itself from the Miles labor class suit in United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case was removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal. The appeal was argued before the Ninth Circuit on November 13, 2023, and on January 8, 2024, the Court issued its opinion affirming the District Court in part and reversing in part. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of certification as to the subclasses related to the security bag check and reversed as to the rest break claim. The Ninth Circuit did not find that there is liability nor that the rest break claim is certified. On February 28, 2025, the District Court dismissed this case in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 2, 2025, a complaint was refiled in this matter in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company filed its answer in June 2025, and continues to believe the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. The Brand House Collective, Inc., formerly known as Kirkland's, Inc., is a multi-brand merchandising, supply chain and retail operator, managing a portfolio of iconic home and family brands including Kirkland's Home and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.'s, formerly known as Beyond, Inc., Bed Bath & Beyond Home, Bed Bath & Beyond, buybuy Baby and Overstock. The Company operated 309 stores in 35 states as of August 2, 2025, as well as e-commerce websites, www.kirklands.com and www.bedbathandbeyondhome.com. BRAND HOUSE: Continues to Defend Sicard Labor Class Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brand House Collective Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending August 2, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2025, that the Kirkland's Stores Inc., the Company's previous name, continues to defend itself from the Sicard labor class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in August 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages on a bi-weekly basis. Plaintiff claims the putative class is entitled to recover from the Company the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously defending itself against the allegations. The Brand House Collective, Inc., formerly known as Kirkland's, Inc., is a multi-brand merchandising, supply chain and retail operator, managing a portfolio of iconic home and family brands including Kirkland's Home and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.'s, formerly known as Beyond, Inc., Bed Bath & Beyond Home, Bed Bath & Beyond, buybuy Baby and Overstock. The Company operated 309 stores in 35 states as of August 2, 2025, as well as e-commerce websites, www.kirklands.com and www.bedbathandbeyondhome.com. BRAND I101: Campbell Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Tawana Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brand i101, LLC d/b/a Valitic, Case No. 1:25-cv-07725-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant false and misleading advertising, unjust enrichment, and violations of federal and state consumer protection laws arising from the marketing and sale of "VALITIC Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap Bars" (the "Product"). The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells its "Valitic Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap Bars" (the "Product") throughout the United States, including in New York. Because consumers purchase the Product in hopes of treating stubborn skin concerns, Defendant prominently markets it as a "Dark Spot Remover" and "Dark Spot Corrector" that can remove "dark spots and blemishes," "revive skin from sunburns, fine lines, and wrinkles," "reduce scarring," "repair sun damage," and "help clear up acne breakouts." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the Product is scientifically incapable of providing those benefits. In fact, the Product's formulation poses a risk of further deteriorating skin conditions. Worse still, Defendant's marketing of the Product as a safe treatment of "dark spots" and "acne" is not only false and misleading but violates the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations. Both "dark spots" and "acne" are diseases that can only be treated by FDA-approved over-the-counter medications or prescription drugs. Because the Product is an unapproved new drug that cannot be legally sold in the United States or New York, it is worthless as a matter of law. Plaintiff and the proposed class members would not have purchased the Product had they known it was illegal to sell and therefore valueless. In addition, the Product commands a price premium due to its false and misleading health benefits. As a result of its deceptive conduct, Defendant is, and continues to be, unjustly enriched at the expense of its customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Product for her personal use directly from Defendant through Defendant's official Amazon.com while residing in New York. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells the Product throughout New York and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com BRAZOS VALLEY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAZZINO INVESTMENTS, LP for itself and all others similarly situated, v. BRAZOS VALLEY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Case No. 6:25-cv-00001-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Oct. 13, 2025. The Plaintiff does not oppose such extension, and the Defendant does not seek this extension for the purpose of delay, but so that justice may be done. The Plaintiff filed its motion to certify class on Aug. 22, 2025. Brazos is a not-for-profit local government that was created with a directive to protect and conserve the groundwater resources of Brazos and Robertson counties. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qJxZ2U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin W. Jones, Esq. C. Brantley Jones, Esq. SPROUSE SHRADER SMITH PLLC 701 S. Taylor, Suite 500 Amarillo, TX 79105 E-mail: marty.jones@sprouselaw.com brantley.jones@sprouselaw.com - and - Richard L. Coffman, Esq. THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM 3355 West Alabama, Suite 240 Houston, TX 77098 E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jose E. de la Fuente, Esq. James F. Parker, Esq. Gabrielle C. Smith, Esq. LLOYD GOSSELINK ROCHELLE & TOWNSEND, P.C. 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-5800 Facsimile: (512) 472-0532 E-mail: jdelafuente@lglawfirm.com jparker@lglawfirm.com gsmith@lglawfirm.com BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. NEWTON SR., Individually and on behalf of a Class of Individuals Similarly Situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02001-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court certifies the following class: "All persons who, as of May 8, 2015, owned a universal life insurance policy issued by Brighthouse or its predecessors-in- interest on Forms ULXP86 and ULXP88, with a state of issuance of Georgia, and who were subject to at least one monthly deduction." Richard A. Newton Sr. is named as the Class Representative and his counsel, Roy E. Barnes and J. Cameron Tribble will serve as Class Counsel. On behalf of the class, Newton will pursue the following claims in the Third Amended Complaint: Counts I & II (breach of contract), Count III (declaratory relief), Count VI (Georgia RICO, based only on the predicate acts of theft by taking and theft by conversion); Count VII (interest) and Count VIII (attorney's fees). The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding next steps in this case and to file a joint status report by Sept. 19, 2025. The status report will address: (1) whether the parties believe mediation would be productive; (2) whether either party believes additional discovery is necessary and if so, the additional time for discovery requested; (3) a proposed timeline for filing motions for summary judgment; and (4) any other topics the parties deem pertinent. With the class narrowed, individual issues have been sufficiently limited to ensure streamlined and efficient resolution of common claims. The Court is also not aware of any other litigation pending on behalf of the class members and is satisfied that it would be desirable and not unduly burdensome to concentrate the litigation of the class claims in this forum. Thus, Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement is met. The Plaintiff alleges that Brighthouse improperly inflated the "cost of insurance" component of the policyholders' premiums, and that this conduct constitutes breach of contract, fraud, and violations of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. Brighthouse is a major provider of annuities and life insurance in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fY9Ubq at no extra charge.[CC] BROOKLINEN INC: Anderson Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Parker Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BROOKLINEN, INC., AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 24CU024312C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California from the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Sept. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02446-RSH-KSC. The Complaint contains three asserted causes of action for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200; Violation of California's false Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500; and Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: George Chikovani, Esq. Traci M. Keith, Esq. Kellen A. Furlin-Faber, Esq. PUTTERMAN | YU | WANG LLP 345 California Street, Suite 1160 San Francisco, CA 94104-2626 Phone: (415) 839-8779 Fax: (415) 737-1363 Email: gchikovani@plylaw.com tkeith@plylaw.com kfurlin@plylaw.com BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE: Dixson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ronald Dixson, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC, Case No. 25STCV23483 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. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08675. The lawsuit is a civil action for injunctive relief and money damages against Defendants in which Plaintiff has alleged three causes of action: violations of the Unruh Act, California Civil Code ("Unruh Act"); violations of the California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code ("CDPA"); and violations of California Civil Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amber L. Roller, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: amber.roller@ogletree.com BUNNIES BY THE BAY: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUNNIES BY THE BAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10834 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bunniesbythebay.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bunnies by the Bay, Inc. creates soft, collectible baby gifts and products, including books, loveys, and stuffed animals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (929) 442-2154 Email: achan@ealg.law C3.AI INC: Faces Securities Suit in California ---------------------------------------------- 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 in August 2025 it was named a defendant in a putative securities class action complaint filed with a California court. On August 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint (captioned John Liggett Sr. v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-7129) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Siebel, our Executive Chairman, and our chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements during February to July 2025, regarding the status of the health of Mr. Siebel and its impact on the Company's business operations. The complaint asserts causes of action for violations of 1) Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, and 2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors who acquired C3.ai securities between February 26, 2025 and August 8, 2025. The complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants have not filed a response to the complaint. CALIFORNIA BAIL: Court Extends Time to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00717-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order extending the deadline to submit omnibus administrative motions to file under seal regarding the class certification materials by 32 days to Monday, Oct. 13, 2025. The Parties agree neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants will be prejudiced by the proposed extension, and the Court has set a hearing date of November 13, 2025, for the class certification motion and related Daubert motions, thus, there are no deadlines before October 13, 2025, that would be affected by the requested extension. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cGIoWW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq. Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. Emily N. Harwell, Esq. Miriam E. Marks LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com kbenson@lchb.com mlamy@lchb.com eharwell@lchb.com mmarks@lchb.com - and - Benjamin David Elga, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 25 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, NY Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org - and - Stephanie Carroll, Esq. Ghirlandi Guidetti, Esq. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA, 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 201-4722 E-mail: scarroll@publiccounsel.org gguidetti@publiccounsel.org - and - David Seligman, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1410 High Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 Facsimile: (303) 957-2289 E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org - and - Shennan Kavanagh, Esq. Jennifer Wagner, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1245 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 Facsimile: (617) 542-8028 E-mail: skavanagh@nclc.org jwagner@nclc.org The Defendants are represented by: Beatriz Mejia, Esq. Michael A. Attanasio, Esq. Timothy W. Cook, Esq. Max Sladek de la Cal, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover St Palo Alto, CA 94304 - and - Darryl Anderson, Esq. Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5562 E-mail: darryl.anderson@nortonrosefulbright.com joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Rachel S. Brass, Esq. Julian Wolfe Kleinbrodt, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 E-mail: JKleinbrodt@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - John P. Marino, Esq. Kristen Wenger, Esq. RIVKIN RADLER LLP 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, 10th Floor Jacksonville, FL Telephone: (904) 792 8925 E-mail: john.marino@rivkin.com kristen.wenger@rivkin.com - and - Anne K. Edwards, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 358-7210 E-mail: aedwards@sgrlaw.com - and - David F. Hauge, Esq. Todd H. Stitt, Esq. Vincent S. Loh, Esq. MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 - and - Spencer Y. Kook, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3476 Telephone: (213) 680-2800 Facsimile: (213) 614-7399 E-mail: skook@hinshawlaw.com - and - Gary A. Nye, Esq. ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE & ADREANI, LLP 5900 Canoga Ave UNIT 450 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 - and - Brendan Pegg, Esq. Lindsay Cooper-Greene, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRENDAN PEGG CORPORATION 201 E. Ojai Avenue #1505 Ojai, CA 93024 Telephone: (805) 302-4151 E-mail: brendan@bpegglaw.com - and - Paul J. Riehle, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 551-7521 E-mail: paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com - and - John Sebastinelli, Esq. Howard Holderness, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-3668 Telephone: (415) 650-1300 E-mail: sebastinellij@gtlaw.com holdernessh@gtlaw.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Reich Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY REICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08501 (C.D. Cal., September 8, 2025) alleges breach of express warranty and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law in connection with Defendant's deceptive marketing and labeling practices. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated consumers who purchased V8 Energy Plus Energy Drinks. Defendant markets these products as being a "naturally flavored plant-based drink." However, unbeknownst to reasonable consumers, these products contain multiple of the following synthetic additives: ascorbic acid, citric acid, malic acid, sucralose, niacin, pyridoxine hydrochloride, and cyanocobalamin. As a result of these artificial flavoring ingredients, Defendant's "Naturally Flavored" labeling statement is false and misleading, says the suit. Headquartered in New Jersey, Campbell Soup Company produces soups, simple meals, snacks, and beverages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC. 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com CARE360 HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hamber Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA HAMBER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARE360 HOSPICE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01016-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, September 8, 2025) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff Angela Hamber worked for the Defendant as a salaried, non-exempt employee with the job title of On-Call Nurse from approximately April 2023 to July 2025. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant allegedly did not pay Plaintiff and its other similarly situated employees any overtime wages for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to track, keep, or transmit the hours accurately worked each day by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, says the Plaintiff. Based in Ohio, Care360 Hospice, LLC offers full-time access to nursing care, pain management, and therapy, among other services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com CAREONRX INC: Cleinmark Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Careonrx, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Cleinmark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Careonrx, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00777 (W.D. Wis., Sept. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CarelonRx, Inc. -- https://www.carelonrx.com/ -- is an independent company providing pharmacy benefit management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CARETRACKER INC: Maruco Files Suit in W.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caretracker, Inc. The case is styled as Tina Maruco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caretracker, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00884-JLS (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract. CareTracker -- https://www.caretracker.com/default.asp -- is widely used by physician practices and healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5856 Fax: (646) 293-7937 Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com CARS.COM INC: Johnston Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Bianca Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARS.COM INC., Case No. CIVSB2522452 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California from the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Sept. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02446. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action, including: Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion upon Seclusion; Wiretapping in Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); Use of Pen Registre in Violation of CIPA; Common Law Fraud, Deceit, and/or Misrepresentation; Unjust Enrichment; Breach of Contract; and Trespass to Chattels.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erik K. Swanholt, Esq. Troy S. Tessem, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411 Phone: 213.972.4500 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: eswanholt@foley.com ttessem@foley.com - and - Emily Lang, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 301 East Pine St., Ste. 1200 ORLANDO, FL 32801 Phone: 407.423.7656 Facsimile: 407.640.1743 Email: elang@foley.com CARTER CREDIT: Gonzalez Sues For Inadequate Data Security Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- CORINA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARTER CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01303 (W.D. La., September 4, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The Defendant's investigation determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its network and gained access to its files between June 25, 2025 and July 2, 2025. The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals potentially accessed and/or acquired files containing the sensitive personal information of 68,934 individuals. Moreover, the Defendant breached its duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and for declaratory judgment/injunctive relief. Carter Credit Union is a financial services corporation headquartered in Springhill, LA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tom Kherkher, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: tkherkher@eksm.com service@eksm.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com CCI FINANCIAL INC: Dewitt Files Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCI Financial Inc. The case is styled as Chelsey Dewitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCI Financial Inc. doing business as: CheckCityCashing.com Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00817 (D. Utah, Sept. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CCI Financial Inc. doing business as Check City -- https://www.checkcitycheckcashing.com/ -- offers convenient check cashing with extended hours, cashes all kinds of checks, has over 70 locations, and provides fast service with low rates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Fax: (801) 364-7697 Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com CCI FINANCIAL INC: Hiatt Files Suit in D. Utah ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCI Financial Inc. The case is styled as Johnathon Hiatt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CCI Financial Inc. doing business as: Check City or Checkcity.com, Case No. 2:25-cv-00819-JCB (D. Utah, Sept. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CCI Financial Inc. doing business as Check City -- https://www.checkcity.com/ -- offers convenient check cashing with extended hours, cashes all kinds of checks, has over 70 locations, and provides fast service with low rates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com CCI FINANCIAL: Brady Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Brady, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CCI FINANCIAL, INC., d/b/a CHECK CITY or CHECKCITY.COM, Case No. 2:25-cv-00809-HCN (D. Utah, Sept. 16, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of thousands of Defendants' customers. The data breach lasted for at least thirteen days, from March 21 to April 3, 2025 (the "Data Breach") before Defendant noticed it. It is not clear when Defendant stopped it. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned that the compromised data included personally identifiable information ("PII"). While the information impacted varies depending on the individual, the type of information potentially exposed includes full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, government issued ID numbers (i.e., passport and/or state ID cards), and financial account information (i.e., account numbers, debit card numbers, credit card numbers). The Defendant's Notice intentionally obfuscates the nature of the Data Breach and the threat it posed. The Notice failed to disclose how many people were impacted, how the Data Breach happened, who perpetrated the breach, whether a ransom was demanded or paid, exactly when the Data Breach occurred, whether it was able to secure its systems during or after the breach, or why it took the Defendant approximately 173 days before it finally began notifying some victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information. The Defendant's deliberate failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect its current and former customers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Check City is a registered financial company based in Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UY 84111 Phone: 801.456.7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com ahoidal@mohtrial.com - and - Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Email: bresch@straussborrelli.com CENCORA INC: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Action Suit for $40MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $40 million settlement will end a class action lawsuit against Cencora, The Lash Group and their affiliates over a February 2024 data breach that exposed patients' personal information to unauthorized third parties. The Cencora/Lash Group class action settlement received preliminary court approval on August 22, 2025. The settlement covers all United States residents whose data was involved in the Cencora/Lash Group data breach and who received mailed notice of the incident or substitute notice of the breach from Cencora's website or media press release. The Cencora settlement also covers those who were on "inquiry notice" because of circumstances that occurred on or after September 1, 2023 through August 5, 2025 that suggested that the consumer is aware of harm potentially stemming from the unauthorized use of their personal information due to the data breach. The court-approved website for the Cencora/Lash Group settlement can be found at CencoraIncidentSettlement.com. Cencora settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive either up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented losses related to the data breach or, alternatively, a pro rata (equal share) cash payment from the $40 million settlement fund. In order to claim loss reimbursement, the settlement website states, a consumer's losses must be related to the data breach and cannot have been already reimbursed by another source, such as the credit monitoring and identity theft protection Cenora offered to victims after the incident. Additionally, class members seeking reimbursement for these losses must provide reasonable supporting documentation, such as bank statements, insurance statements, credit card statements, telephone records, invoices, receipts or screenshots, the settlement site says. Per the website, loss reimbursement through the class action settlement is mutually exclusive from the pro rata cash payment, and Cencora/Lash Group settlement class members can choose only one of these options. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page and log in with the unique class member ID 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 second page of the form. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 19, 2026. Additionally, as part of the settlement, Cencora has agreed to update and strengthen its information and data security protocols to better protect patients' data. A hearing is scheduled for February 5, 2026 to determine whether the 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 Cencora class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare company neglected to properly protect patients' information from a February 2024 data breach that gave unauthorized third parties access to personally identifying information. [GN] CENTENE CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert Modified to Sept. 18, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA SAMUEL SAMPSON AND ORLANDO SAMUEL, personal representative of the Estate of HARRY SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CENTENE CORPORATION, CENTURION OF DELAWARE LLC, VITALCORE HEALTH STRATEGIES, & MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. AWELE MADUKA-EZEH, Case No. 1:23-cv-01134-GBW-SRF (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation regarding modifications to the scheduling order: Event Deadline Class certification document production Nov. 19, 2025 substantial completion deadline: Class certification fact discovery deadline: Aug. 14, 2026 Class certification disclosure of expert Feb. 13, 2026 testimony Disclosures for party with initial burden: Class certification rebuttal expert testimony: May 15, 2026 Class certification reply expert reports: July 15, 2026 Daubert Motions: Sept. 18, 2026 Motion for class certification: Sept. 18, 2026 Centene is an American for-profit healthcare company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=twBC8U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Ralli, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-9447 E-mail: Andrew.Ralli@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. Susan L. Burke, Esq. WHITEFORD TAYLOR PRESTON LLC Courthouse Square 600 North King St., Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801-3700 Telephone: (302) 357-3254 E-mail: dgriffith@wtplaw.com sburke@wtplaw.com - and - Dwayne Julian Bensing, Esq. ACLE-DE 100 W. 10 Street, Suite 706 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (215) 200-50205 E-mail: dbensing@aclu-de.org The Defendants are represented by: Dawn C. Doherty, Esq. Brett T. Norton, Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-6538 E-mail: Ddoherty@moodklaw.com Bnorton@moodklaw.com - and - Michael J. Bentley, Esq. Erin D. Saltaformaggio, Esq. BRADLEY, ARANT, BOULT, CUMMINGS LLP 188 E. Capitol St. Suite 100, One Jackson Place Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 E-mail: Mbentley@bradley.com - and - James D. Taylor, Jr., Esq. Ryan M. Jerome, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1201 N. Market St., Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 421-6800 E-mail: james.taylor@saul.com ryan.jerome@saul.com CERNER CORPORATION: Lewis Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Alyson Lewis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health, Inc., Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-23695 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Sept. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00709-WBG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - ORLANDO FL Sun Trust Ctr-Ste 2300 200 S ORANGE AVE Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4832 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com CHARLES BARATTA: Bid for Bifurcation Granted in Vandersloot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW VANDERSLOOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHARLES BARATTA LLC, doing business as PRIME MARKETING, Case No. 2:24-cv-07096-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Wicks entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for bifurcation. All discovery relevant to the Plaintiff's individual direct liability claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") shall conclude by Nov. 7, 2025, and the parties are directed to file a joint status report, on or before Nov. 3, 2025, advising the Court as to the progress of discovery. Class discovery is stayed until further order by the Court. Under the circumstances presented, where limited discovery (i) does not substantially overlap with class discovery, (ii) would ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action, and (iii) would not prejudice Plaintiff based on the status of this litigation, the 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. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant allegedly called the Plaintiff's residential phone number repeatedly despite the Plaintiff's 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, the Defendant initiated calls to the Plaintiff over one hundred times without the Plaintiff's consent in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff filing a potential Camp Lejeune claim. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C6LTd7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 The Defendant is represented by: Laura Kogan, Esq. David Krueger, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF 127 Public Square, Suite 4900 Cleveland, OH 44114 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid for 90-Day Trial Continuance OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ASC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC. DBA SPECTRUM, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-10436-WLH-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order granting joint stipulation for 90-day trial continuance and continuance of corresponding pre-trial deadlines. Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S71oSK at no extra charge.[CC] CINQUE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stih Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- REINHARD STIH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CINQUE RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A OSTERIA BAROCCA); and LYAD HAMSHO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07559 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Stih was employed by the Defendants as a chef. Cinque Restaurant, Inc. owns, operates, or controls an Italian Restaurant, located at 133 Mulberry Street, New York, NY 10013 under the name "Osteria Barocca". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CLARENCE CARTER: Bull Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN BULL, et al., v. CLARENCE H. CARTER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00041 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying without prejudice to refiling the Plaintiffs' class certification motion after the Special Master issues his report and recommendation. Because the Special Master's report and recommendation is likely to impact the parties' class certification briefs and the Court's analysis of class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: 1. An "Application Delay Class" consisting of: "All Tennessee residents who since Dec. 10, 2023, have applied, are applying, or will apply for SNAP benefits through an initial or recertification application and who have not or will not receive an eligibility determination from DHS within the legally required timeframes." 2. An "Appeals Delay Class" consisting of: "All Tennessee residents who since Nov. 10, 2023, have filed an appeal, are filing an appeal, or will file an appeal for SNAP benefits through DHS's administrative process and have not or will not receive an eligibility determination within the legally required timeframes." 3. A "Restoration of Lost Benefits Class" consisting of: "All Tennessee residents who since Jan. 10, 2024, and within one year of an action by DHS adversely affecting their SNAP benefits, requested or will request restoration of SNAP benefits from DHS but were or will be denied a hearing because the request for restoration was or will be made more than 90 days after their loss of benefits." Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4PPJU7 at no extra charge.[CC] CLINT MILLER: Iasella Bid to File Corrected Exhibits Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN IASELLA, for himself and for others similarly situated, v. CLINT MILLER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00032-HRH (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge H. Russel Holland entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to file corrected exhibits. Counsel for plaintiff John Iasella has filed an unopposed motion to file corrected exhibits related to his motion for class certification filed September 1, 2025. The motion for class certification is a filing of some 127 pages with thirteen individual exhibits. It is not possible to reopen a docket entry, a public record, to substitute some corrected exhibits. The Plaintiff's motion to file corrected exhibits is denied. Upon receipt of this order, plaintiff may serve and file an amended motion for class certification, including the pertinent, corrected exhibits. The Defendant's response time shall be reckoned from the date of the filing of plaintiff's amended motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zX4cet at no extra charge.[CC] CMS-NY/PA: Class Settlement in Smalt Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY SMALT, VICTORIA WALTER, and JACQUELINE GEIST, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CMS-NY/PA, LLC et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01441-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brindisi entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the collective and class action settlement is granted 2. The Court certifies the FLSA Collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the NYLL Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 3. The proposed FLSA Collective1 and FLSA Collective Members shall consist of: "all persons who worked in the State of new York at any time from Nov. 27, 2021, through Aug. 15, 2025, as stylists or stylist-managers for CMS NY/PA, LLC, who timely return a consent to join before the consent to join deadline pursuant to Section 2.6(A) to join the FLSA Collective"; 4. The proposed NYLL Class and NYLL Class Members shall consist of: "all persons who worked in the State of New York at any time from Feb. 15, 2020, through Aug. 15, 2025, as stylists or stylist-managers for CMS NY/PA, LLC, except those persons who timely submitted or submits a valid Opt-Out Statement pursuant to Section 2.5 [in the Settlement Agreement] shall not be included in the NYLL Class"; 5. The Court appoints named plaintiffs Stacy Smalt, Victoria Walter, and Jacqueline Geist as representatives of the FLSA Collective and NYLL Class; 6. The Court appoints the Law Office of Matthew D. Carlson as counsel for the FLSA Collective and NYLL Class; and 7. The Plaintiff shall submit a Motion for Final Approval, as well as any Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, Named Plaintiffs’ Service Award, and Settlement Administrator Payment, no later than January 2, 2026. CMS-NY/PA operates a franchise of family hair salons, including Cost Cutters and Smartstyle. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nDqjDA at no extra charge.[CC] COCA-COLA CO: Jordan Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN JORDAN, SANDRA FOX, COURTNEY FULLER, and LESLIE FRARACCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the expert discovery and class certification deadlines as follows, adding approximately 45 days to each deadline: a. Deadline for the Plaintiffs' expert disclosures and class certification motion: Nov. 10, 2025. b. Deadline for the Plaintiffs' expert's deposition, the Defendant's expert disclosures and opposition to class certification: Dec. 18, 2025 c. Deadline for the Defendant's expert's deposition and the Plaintiffs' reply: Jan. 12, 2026. d. Deadline for completing discovery: Jan. 19, 2026 The Plaintiffs' experts require additional time to review the Defendant's responses and production. The Plaintiffs propose this extension of time in good faith and without purpose of delay. On May 7, 2025, the Court issued the Amended Case Management Order. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Parties agreed to attend mediation on September 19, 2025, with the assigned neutral, Judge Ronnie L. White. Coca-Cola manufactures, sells and markets soft drinks. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cHqOit at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC 75 W Lockwood Ave Ste 1 Webster Groves MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 550-3717 E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com COLUMBIA DEBT: Parties Seek to Extend Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYCE ABBINK, v. COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY, LLC d/b/a GENESIS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00557-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order granting an extension of the Class Certification deadlines as follows: (1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed by Oct. 17, 2025, and (2) dispositive motions must be filed by Dec. 1, 2025. The Parties ask the Court to extend the deadline to file class certification from September 5, 2025, to December 17, 2025. They also ask the Court to extend the dispositive motion deadline from November 17, 2025, to December 17, 2025. Columbia specializes in collections for the multi-family industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z4wGgC at no extra charge.[CC] COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Gaertner Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GAERTNER and CARSON KOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02452-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Class, appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class, and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of: "All individuals depicted in photos taken by GradImages in the State of Illinois and submitted for facial recognition on or after July 14, 2018." Excluded from the Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) the Defendants, the Defendants' subsidiaries, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who timely request exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendants' counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Plaintiffs allege that GradImages' facial recognition extracted their facial biometrics, yet GradImages failed to obtain their informed consent (in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act's (BIPA's) Section 15(b)(1)–(3)) and profited from its use of their biometrics (in violation of the BIPA's Section 15(c)). Commemorative manufactures and sells commemorative jewelry and memorabilia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ErMBo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Limoli, Esq. John J. Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 434 Fayetteville Street, Ste. 560 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 582-6516 Facsimile: (314) 932-3233 E-mail: matthew@thedriscollfirm.com john@jjlegal.com CONCERT PHILMONT: Chalmers Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Allyson Chalmers, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. CONCERT PHILMONT, LLC (d/b/a "Philmont Country Club"), Case No. 250901814 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, seeking all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment as a result of unpaid compensations. The Defendant's events customers are charged an "Admin Fee" service charge equaling 22% of the "Beverage" and "Food" cost line items on its standardized "Banquet Event Order" agreements (or "BEOs"). Depending on the event, the Admin Fee service charge can total upwards of several thousand dollars. The Plaintiff and other servers are paid their hourly wage plus a pro rata portion of the Admin Fee service charge paid by Defendant's event customers. However, Defendant retains for itself a portion of the Admin Fee service charge paid by event customers. The standardized BEOs provided to Defendant's event customers does not indicate that Defendant retains a portion of the Admin Fee service charge and does not include a separate line where event customers can include an additional "tip" for the servers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed as a server at the Club since 2019 and was paid an hourly wage below $7.25/hr. until November 2023. The Defendant owns and operates the Philmont Country Club that has bars and a restaurant in addition to event space where it provides, inter alia, accommodations for weddings, parties, banquets, and other catered events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo (93041) WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com COOKUNITY INC: Douglass ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COOKUNITY INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01270-DSC (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 Website from the United States." In January 2024, the Plaintiff attempted to access the Defendant's online store, located at https://www.cookunity.com/. The Plaintiff could not access the Website because it was not compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, which the Plaintiff uses to access digital content because he is blind. The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on Aug. 19, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate policies and practices to cause the Website to be accessible to blind persons, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 12181, et seq., and its implementing regulations. CookUnity develops platform for food delivery. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LvgZAG 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 CORCORAN GROUP: Botte Sues Over Unlawful Use of Data Software ------------------------------------------------------------- Corinne Botte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORCORAN GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-08739 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2025), is brought under the violation of the California Trap and Trace Law as a result of the Defendants' systematic violations of using data broker software without consent. The Defendant uses data broker software on its website--https://corcoran.com/ (the "Website")--to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' website. The Defendant offers real estate brokerage services to individuals and entities seeking to buy and sell real estate throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com CORNISH & CAREY: Canchola Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Canchola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CORNISH & CAREY COMMERCIAL, a California corporation dba CORNISH & CAREY COMMERCIAL, INC.; NEWMARK GROUP, INC., a New York corporation dba NEWMARK; and DOES I through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV143464 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants' failure to reimburse business expenses and Unfair Business Practices in violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at worksites throughout California, including in Alameda County. Labor Code section 2802 has applied to Plaintiff, Class Members, and Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, through common practices, policies and/or schemes, Defendants had failed to reimburse employees for out-of-pocket expenses for work-related use of their personal cell phones. The Defendants regularly require Plaintiff and the Class Members to use their personal cell phone devices as a direct consequence of the discharge of their duties and/or in obedience to Defendants' direction. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff or Class Members with a cellular device to use to access Microsoft Authenticator. The Defendants have not reimbursed or indemnified Plaintiff or Class Members for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the work-related use of their personal cell phones, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Graphic Designer from July 2022 to February 2025. The Defendants operate a real estate brokerage, portfolio and property management, consultancy, advisory, and facilities management service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter Pyle, Esq. Katie Fiester, Esq. HUNTER PYLE LAW, PC 505 14th Street, Suite 600 Oakland CA 94612 Phone: (510) 444-4400 Facsimile: (5 IO) 444-4410 Email: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com kfiester@hunterpylelaw.com CORNWELL QUALITY TOOL: Manzo Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornwell Quality Tool Company. The case is styled as Leopoldo Manzo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cornwell Quality Tool Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01927-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cornwell Quality Tools is an American privately held company manufacturing tools for the automotive and aviation industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emmett E. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON LAW 6600 Lorain Avenue, Ste. 731 Cleveland, OH 44102 Phone: (216) 505-6900 Fax: (216) 649-0508 Email: erobinson@robinsonlegal.org CORNWELL QUALITY: Bartch Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Bartch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01969 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 16, 2025), is brought against Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information stored within Defendant's information network. Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive and personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information"). As a result of this Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information of remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Bartch received notice of the Data Breach dated September 4, 2025. The Defendant "manufactures quality tools and storage equipment" for sale to the automotive industry through tool dealer franchises across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513.345.8297 Fax: 513.345.8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com COVENANT CARE LODI: Davenport Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covenant Care Lodi, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lillian Davenport, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Covenant Care Lodi, LLC, Covenant Care, LLC, Covenant Care Encinitas, LLC, Covenant Care Courtyard, LLC, Covenant Care Capitola, LLC, Covenant Care California, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0013425 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Covenant Care -- https://www.covenantcare.com/ -- offers Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Centers and Residential Care/Assisted Living Centers that offer short term and long term care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq. CHRZAN LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 367 Avenida De Royale Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 CVS CAREMARK: Faces Hamburger Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Hamburger, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CVS Caremark and Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03000 (D.D.C., September 4, 2025), challenges Defendants' standard practice of categorically excluding all coverage for ZEPBOUND to treat obstructive sleep apnea in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the plain terms of the plans Defendants jointly administer. Plaintiff Hamburger has been diagnosed with moderate obstructive sleep apnea since 2015. Mr. Hamburger requires Zepbound to treat his obstructive sleep apnea. However, Mr. Hamburger has been wrongfully denied coverage for this medically necessary prescription drug by Defendants. The Defendants' failure to respond to Mr. Hamburger's specific references in his internal appeal to the medical necessity of Zepbound to treat obstructive sleep apnea and CVS Caremark's failure to process his internal appeal as a non-formulary drug exception request deprived him of his rights under ERISA to a full and fair review that takes into account all comments, documents, records, and other information submitted by the claimant relating to the claim, without regard to whether such information was submitted or considered in the initial benefit determination, says the suit. Headquartered in Washington, DC, Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc is a not-for-profit healthcare insurer in the Mid-Atlantic region. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Baldwin III, Esq. VIRTUE LAW GROUP 1250 Connecticut Ave., Suite 700 Washington, District of Columbia 20036 Telephone: (916) 779-9215 E-mail: robert@virtuelawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Patricia C. Dana, Esq. Cole A. Birkeland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: lukas@nka.com bspecht@nka.com pdana@nka.com cbirkeland@nka.com CYTOKINETICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Cytokinetics, Incorporated (NASDAQ:CYTK) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, visit the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/cytokinetics-incorporated-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=168611&wire=1&utm_campaign=23 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Cytokinetics, Incorporated that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between December 27, 2023 and May 6, 2025. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the timeline for the New Drug Application ("NDA") submission and approval process for aficamten. Specifically, defendants represented that the Company expected approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for its NDA for aficamten in the second half of 2025, based on a September 26, 2025 PDUFA date, and failed to disclose material risks related to the Company's failure to submit a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ("REMS") that could delay the regulatory process. On May 6, 2025, during an earnings call, it was revealed that the Company had multiple pre-NDA meetings with the FDA discussing safety monitoring and risk mitigation but chose to submit the NDA without a REMS, relying on labeling and voluntary education materials. This confirmed defendants' awareness of potential REMS requirements and their reckless decision to omit it from the initial submission, misleading investors about the regulatory timeline. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, class members purchased Cytokinetics' common stock at artificially inflated prices and suffered significant losses when the truth was revealed. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Cytokinetics stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/cytokinetics-incorporated-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=168611&wire=1&utm_campaign=23 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] DAILYPAY INC: Higuera Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Higuera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAILYPAY, INC., and DAILYPAY, LLC,, Case No. 2025-CH-08291 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11059. The Complaint filed in the Action alleges, among other things, that DailyPay's ODP product violates the Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act.[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 DANIEL BEERS: Glasgow Seeks to Maintain Class Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCHELLE GLASGOW, et al., v. DANIEL J. BEERS, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to maintain under seal certain exhibits and redactions to certain pages to the Defendants briefs in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an Order maintaining under seal: 1) The following pages and exhibits to Defendant Druzilla J. Abel's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification: the redactions to pages 10, 17, 22, and 25; Exhibit B, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff Donna Landry's Deposition, dated June 23, 2025; Exhibit C, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff William Rooker’s Deposition Transcript, dated July 2, 2025; and Exhibit D, excerpts from Plaintiff Rochelle Glasgow’s Deposition Transcript, dated June 25, 2025; 2) The following pages and exhibits to Defendant Dale Bellis’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 193): the redactions to pages 1, 6, 7,10, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 29, and 34; Exhibit E, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff Rochelle Glasgow's Deposition Transcript, dated June 25, 2025; Exhibit F, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff Donna Landry's Deposition Transcript, dated June 23, 2025; Exhibit G, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff William Rooker’s Deposition Transcript, dated July 2, 2025; and Exhibit H, Plaintiff Rochelle Glasgow's Deposition Exhibit 11; 3) The following pages and exhibits to Defendants Cost Sharing Solutions, LLC, Daniel J. Beers, Ronald S. Beers, and Daniel J. Beers II"s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification: the redactions to pages 1, 8, 9, 25, 26, and 27; Exhibit A, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff Donna Landry's Deposition Transcript, dated June 23, 2025; Exhibit B, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff Rochelle Glasgow's Deposition Transcript, dated June 25, 2025; Exhibit B.1, Plaintiff Rochelle Glasgow's Deposition 10; Exhibit C, transcript excerpts from Plaintiff William Rooker's Deposition Transcript, dated July 2, 2025; and Exhibit C.1, Plaintiff William Rooker ’s Deposition Exhibit 10; and 4) The following pages and exhibits to Defendant Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan d/b/a Liberty Healthshare's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification: the redactions to pages ii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 33, 35, and 38; Exhibit 1, Declaration of Wendy Kuhl, Exhibit 1.A, Declaration of Wendy Kuhl Exhibit A, Plaintiff Rochelle Glasgow's medical bills; Exhibit 1.B, Declaration of Wendy Kuhl Exhibit B, Plaintiff Donna Landry's medical bills; Exhibit 1.C, Declaration of Wendy Kuhl Exhibit C, Plaintiff Rooker's medical bills; Exhibit 2, Plaintiff Rochelle Glasgow's unredacted Deposition transcript, dated June 25, 2025; Exhibit 3, Plaintiff Donna Landry's unredacted 2 3 Deposition transcript, dated June 23, 2025, and Exhibit 4, Plaintiff William Rooker's unredacted Deposition transcript, dated July 2, 2025. Daniel Beers is an ophthalmic surgeon specializing in laser vision correction and cataract surgery. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FVns4q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. William W. Stone, Esq. Oliver S. Tum Suden, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, PLLP 40 Powder Springs Street Murray House Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (619) 363-8326 E-mail: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com WilliamS@johnsonfistel.com OliverT@johnsonfistel.com - and - George W. Cochran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN 1981 Crossfield Circle Kent, OH 44240 Telephone: (330) 607-2187 Facsimile: (330) 230-6136 E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com DELTA STAR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Wilson Extended to Dec. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order approving the joint stipulation extending the time for the Plaintiff to file his reply in support of his motion for class certification, the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and a 90-day extension for trial-related deadlines. 1. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Nov. 7, 2025. 2. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be on Dec. 4, 2025. 3. The parties agree to continue the trial-related deadlines as follows: Non-expert discovery completion date: Jan. 5, 2026 Expert discovery completion date: Apr. 2, 2026 Last hearing date for dispositive May 7, 2026 motions and/or further case-management conference: Final pretrial conference: July 30, 2026 Trial: Aug. 10, 2026 Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YqWOYD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 13000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com - and - R. Patrick Bolling, Esq. Raven C. Burks, Esq. WOODS ROGERS 101 West Main Street 500 World Trade Center Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (540) 330-9132 E-mail: patrick.bolling@woodsrogers.com DELTA STAR: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Plaintiff to file the reply in support of motion for class certification and continuing the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Nov. 7, 2025. 2. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be on Dec. 4, 2025. 3. The parties agree to continue the trial-related deadlines as follows: Non-expert discovery completion date: Jan. 5, 2026 Expert discovery completion date: Apr. 2, 2026 Last hearing date for dispositive May 4, 2026 motions and/or further case-management conference: Final pretrial conference: June 15, 2026 Trial: Aug. 10, 2026 Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=86bAw6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 13000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com - and - R. Patrick Bolling, Esq. Raven C. Burks, Esq. WOODS ROGERS 101 West Main Street 500 World Trade Center Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (540) 330-9132 E-mail: patrick.bolling@woodsrogers.com DENNY'S INC: Chiman Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashley Chiman, and others similarly situated v. DENNY'S, INC., Case No. 21STCV21463 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California from the Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02106. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid overtime; failure to pay minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements; failure to produce records; failure to produce records; violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200; and violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew E. Farmer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: mfarmer@littler.com DIAMOND FOODS: Zuniga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Foods, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Zuniga, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Diamond Foods, LLC, Diamond Foods, Inc., Diamond Foods Holdings, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0013425 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Diamond Foods, Inc. -- https://www.diamondnuts.com/ -- was an American packaged food company based in San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com DISCOVER BANK: $1.225BB Final Court OK Hearing Set May 20, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Discover agreed to pay up to $1.225 billion to resolve claims it misclassified certain credit cards as commercial cards, resulting in excessive interchange fees for merchants. The Discover settlement benefits end merchants, merchant acquirers and payment intermediaries involved in processing or accepting a misclassified card transaction between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2023. Discover is a credit card company that offers a variety of cards to consumers and businesses, claiming more than 50 million cardholders around the world. According to the class action lawsuit, some businesses may have been charged excessive fees by Discover when the company misclassified certain consumer credit cards as commercial credit cards. Discover has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.225 billion class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Discover settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they overpaid in interchange fees as a result of the misclassification. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the amount each class member overpaid. All class members are guaranteed to receive at least $10 from the settlement. However, if the total of all base payments exceeds $50 million, base payments will be reduced on a pro rata basis. Likewise, payments will be increased on a pro rata basis until the total equals $540 million. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 25, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Discover settlement is scheduled for May 20, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 18, 2026. Who's Eligible All end merchants, merchant acquirers and payment intermediaries involved in processing or accepting a misclassified card transaction between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2023. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Documentation requirements vary as detailed on the settlement website. 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 05/18/2026 Case Name CAPP Inc., et al. v. Discover Bank et al., Case No. 1:23-CV-4676, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 05/20/2026 Settlement Website DiscoverMerchantSettlement.com Claims Administrator Discover Merchant Settlement c/o Epiq Class Action P.O. Box 5370 Portland, OR 97228-5370 Info@DiscoverMerchantSettlement.com (888) 655-3176 Class Counsel Roger N. Heller LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Catherine Pratsinakis DILWORTH PAXSON LLP Taras Kick THE KICK LAW FIRM APC Defense Counsel Andrew Soukup COVINGTON & BURLING LLP [GN] DNC TRAVEL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haydee Mendoza et al., v. DNC Travel Hospitality SVCS et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11233-WLH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order granting Ex Parte Application for extension of time to file class certification. The Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file the motion for class certification by 90 days – from Oct. 10, 2025, until Jan. 9, 2026 – citing discovery disputes which have impacted the ability to prepare for class certification. DNC is engaged in hospitality and food service management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NedFvw at no extra charge.[CC] DOUG BURGUM: Wichita and Affiliated Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Wichita And Affiliated Tribes, Washoe Tribe Of Nevada And California, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION; Case No. 1:25-cv-00909 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03235-DLF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. Douglas James Burgum is an American businessman and politician who has served as the 55th United States secretary of the interior since 2025 under President Donald Trump.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martin Francis Cunniff, Esq. FIELDS HAN CUNNIFF PLLC 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 257-7834 Email: martincunniff@fhcfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Angela Ellis, Esq. DOJ-ENRD 150 M Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 305-0466 Email: angela.ellis@usdoj.gov - and - Samuel R. Vice, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044-7611 Phone: (202) 353-5540 Email: samuel.vice@usdoj.gov EAGLE CREEK HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eagle Creek Holdings, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03695 (D. Minn., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.eaglecreek.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers luggage and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, suitcases, packing cubes, duffel bags, backpacks, totes, wallets, locks and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sakowski Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lance Sakowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services LLC, LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., NEWREZ LLC doing business as: SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. OCN L 002235 25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-15756-ZNQ-JTQ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Colleen Fox, Esq. Ryan L. DI Clemente, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 378-5794 Fax: (202) 378-2319 Email: colleen.fox@huschblackwell.com ryan.diclemente@huschblackwell.com ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Eibensteiner Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS EIBENSTEINER; KARON ALONZO JEFFERSON; and WESLEY GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA INC. f/k/a ESSILOR OF AMERICA, INC.; THE ESSILORLUXOTTICA ERISA COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02443-X (N.D. Tex., Sept. 9, 2025) alleges Defendants' violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; (2) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping and administration costs; and (3) engaging in prohibited transactions. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of their fiduciary duties. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit. Essilorluxottica USA Inc. f/k/a Essilor Of America, Inc. manufactures eyewear. The Company offers sun glasses, lenses, and other eye care products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. White, Esq. WARD + WHITE PLLC 114 1/2 E. Louisianna Street Suite 206 McKinney, TX 75069 Telephone: (469) 941-0040 Email: dwhite@wardwhitepllc.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com ETTIKA LLC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ETTIKA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10887 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.ettika.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ettika, LLC is an online jewelry and accessories retailer specializing in trendy fashion pieces for women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Facsimile: (929) 442-2154 Email: achan@ealg.law EVENING POST: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sosebee Says -------------------------------------------------------- WENDY SOSEBEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENING POST PUBLISHING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025CP1005132 (S.C. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., Sept. 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, credit card information, and driver's license numbers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattack. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to the Defendant and thus the Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that information in a dangerous condition. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and class members suffered ascertainable loses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably expended to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, says the suit. Evening Post Publishing, Inc. operates as an information and marketing company. The Company provides marketing services through newspaper, television, interactive, real estate and forestry investments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Catalano Balks at Third-Party Lenders' Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY CATALANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08382 (C.D. Cal., September 4, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Experian has exploited consumer information through the unauthorized sale and sharing of telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members via "trigger leads" in violation of the FCRA and state law. After Plaintiff verified that Experian performed a hard-credit inquiry as part of her construction loan application by going to https://www.annualcreditreport.com/index.action, she was immediately inundated and overwhelmed with spam telephone calls. In addition, the Plaintiff received more than 150 telephone calls from third-party lenders within the first 24 hours alone. In the days and months that followed, the Plaintiff continued to be harassed by an overwhelming number of telephone calls and text messages. As a result of the spam calls, her ability to use her phone for business and personal purposes was substantially impaired, violating her property rights, says the suit. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a credit bureau headquartered in Costa Mesa, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. Marion C. Passmore , Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-7735 Facsimile: (212) 214-0506 E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com passmore@bespc.com FARMERS PRIDE: Miscalculates Overtime Pay, Cluff Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ KAMI CLUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS PRIDE, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01654-JPW (M.D. Pa., September 4, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately January 1, 2024, through June 20, 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's perfect attendance bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Farmers Pride, Inc. is a poultry company headquartered in Fredericksburg, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com FLORIDA NATURAL: Donadio Sues Over Mislabeled Orange Juice ---------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA DONADIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA NATURAL GROWERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06473-MAV (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's mislabeled Orange Juice products. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing that the Products are made exclusively of premium Florida orange juice. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Products are actually blended with juice from Mexico and Brazil and are not in fact made exclusively from Florida oranges. The Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased the Products, or would not have paid as much as they did to purchase them, had they know the Defendant's representation were false. Florida's Natural Growers, Inc. manufacturers and markets beverages. The Company produces and retails orange, grapefruit, cranberry cocktail, apple, lemonade, rasberry lemonade, orange pineapple, orange strawberry, cranberry ruby, and orange mango juices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey Ann van Malden, Esq. GOLDBERGER & DUBIN, PC 401 Broadway, Ste 306 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 431-9380 Facsimile: (212) 966-0588 Email: stacey111@optonline.net - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. 28 Geary Str Suite 540 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com FLORIDA: Briefing Schedule on Class Cert Bid Sought --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.A., on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, et al., v. KEVIN GUTHRIE, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00765-JLB-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1) setting forth a briefing schedule on Plaintiff's pending Time-Sensitive Motion for Class Certification and forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction; and (2) staying all other proceedings until the foregoing motions are resolved. Under the Parties' proposed briefing schedule: -- The Plaintiff files a motion for preliminary injunction on or before Sept. 29, 2025 -- State Defendants file a consolidated response to the motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction within three weeks (21 days) of the filing of the motion for a preliminary injunction. -- The Plaintiff files a consolidated reply in support of his motions limited to 20 pages due within 10 days of State Defendants' consolidated response. Good cause exists for staying proceedings pending resolution of these motions because the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class certification is likely to significantly affect the contours of the case moving forward and to produce an appeal. Staying State Defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint and all discovery deadlines will conserve the Parties’ and the Court’s resources. The Plaintiff, MA, has filed a petition for writ of habeas and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief challenging the Defendants' authority to hold him in the facility known as "Alligator Alcatraz." The Plaintiff seeks relief on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative "class of similarly situated current and future detainees at Alligator Alcatraz." A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2RJ0rd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Amdur, Esq. Michael K.T. Tan, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Eunice H. Cho, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: samdur@aclu.org m.tan@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org hsteinberg@aclu.org ckendrick@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org echo@aclu.org   - and - Amy Godshall, Esq. Daniel Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA  4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400  Miami, FL 33134  Telephone: (786) 363-2714  E-mail: agodshall@aclufl.org  dtilley@aclufl.org   - and - Miriam Haskell, Esq. Alana Greer, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT, INC. 3000 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 106 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 907-7697 E-mail: miriam@communityjusticeproject.com alana@communityjusticeproject.com - and - Mark Fleming, Esq. Mark Feldman, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1628 E-mail: mfleming@immigrantjustice.org mfeldman@immigrantjustice.org The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey P. Desousa, Esq. Jason Muehlhoff, Esq. Robert S. Schenck, Esq. William H. Stafford III, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 Facsimile: (850) 410-2672 E-mail: jeffrey.desousa@myfloridalegal.com jason.muehlhoff@myfloridalegal.com robert.schenck@myfloridalegal.com william.stafford@myfloridalegal.com FLY-E GROUP: Kurt Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities --------------------------------------------------------------- DINO KURT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FLY-E GROUP, INC., ZHOU OU, and SHIWEN FENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05017 (E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2025) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fly-E securities between July 15, 2025, to August 14, 2025, inclusive. Throughout the said period, Defendants allegedly provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the safety of Fly-E's lithium battery which in turn took a material toll on its E-vehicle sales revenue, despite making lofty long-term projections, Fly-E's forecasting processes fell short as sales continued to decline and operating expenses increased, ultimately, derailing the Company's revenue projections. The Plaintiff purchased Fly-E common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud, says the suit. Headquartered in Flushing, NY, Fly-E Group, Inc. designs, installs, and sells smart electric motorcycles, electric bikes, electric scooters, and related accessories under the Fly E-Bike brand in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company's common stock traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol "FLYE." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com FORTINET INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Fortinet, Inc. ("Fortinet" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:FTNT) securities during the period of November 8, 2024 through August 6, 2025, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Fortinet investments, you have until November 21, 2025 to request lead plaintiff appointment. What Happened? On August 6, 2025, Fortinet released its second quarter 2025 financial results, revealing that the Company was "approximately 40% to 50% of the way through the 2026 [firewall] upgrade cycle at the end of the second quarter based on the remaining active units and service contracts." Additionally, the Company issued weaker than expected revenue guidance for the upcoming third quarter, projecting revenue between $1.67 billion and $1.73 billion. On this news, the price of Fortinet shares declined by $21.28 per share, or approximately 22%, from $96.58 per share on August 6, 2025 to close at $75.30 on August 7, 2025. What Is The Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the business impact and sustainability of a purportedly "record" round of FortiGate unit upgrades. Defendants represented that this "refresh cycle" was "by far the largest we've seen probably ever," would generate "around $400 million to $450 million in product revenue" in 2025 and 2026, and would create strong opportunities to cross-sell additional products and services. Defendants also represented that the refresh cycle would "gain momentum" in the second half of 2025 and beyond. These statements were materially false and misleading. In truth, Defendants knew that the refresh cycle would never be as lucrative as they represented because it consisted of old products that were a "small percentage" of the Company's business. Moreover, Defendants misrepresented and concealed that they did not have a clear picture of the true number of FortiGate firewalls that could be upgraded. And while telling investors that the refresh would gain momentum over the course of two years, Fortinet misrepresented and concealed that it had aggressively pushed through roughly half of the refresh in a period of just a few months, by the end of 2Q 2025. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fortinet securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com investigations@kmllp.com [GN] FRANK & EILEEN: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Tanisia Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Frank & Eileen, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11252 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.frankandeileen.com (hereinafter "Frankandeileen.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Frankandeileen.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Frank & Eileen provides to the public a website known as Frankandeileen.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of clothing, including shirts, tees and tanks, sweatshirts, sweaters, pants, jeans, shorts, skirts, bottoms, dresses, jackets, blazers, and travel sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law FREEDOM HOLDINGS: Pardo Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property ------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM HOLDINGS LEHIGH LLC, and LEHIGH FOODS LLC, D/B/A SAVE A LOT, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00800 (M.D. Fla., September 4, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' commercial property and commercial market business violated ADA by failing to remove architectural barriers. Moreover, 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. Freedom Holdings Lehigh LLC owns and operates a commercial property at 1209-1239 Homestead Road, N. Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FREEDOM LASER: Faces Esparza Suit Automatic Subscription Renewal ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FREEDOM LASER THERAPY, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.IRESTORELASER.COM, Case No. 8:25-cv-02053 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2025) is a class action suit arising from the Plaintiff for his purchase of an automatically renewing paid subscription from Freedom Laser Therapy Inc. via its website at: https://www.irestorelaser.com/, which caused the Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from the Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. The Defendant allegedly made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and failing to provide acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendant from the ongoing violations of California law, as well as seek damages, punitive damages, restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Freedom Laser was a pioneering company established in 2003 to offer low-level laser therapy for smoking cessation and later transitioned to the iRestore Hair Growth System, a home-use hair loss treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Williams Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Brittany Williams, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-12599-JDA (D.S.C., Sept. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Freedom Mortgage -- https://www.freedommortgage.com/ -- is a family-owned-and-operated mortgage lender that was founded in 1990.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com GFA ALABAMA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY MARTINEZ-LOPEZ and ROSA LINDA SORIANO-TORRES, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. GFA ALABAMA INC. and GLOVIS GEORGIA, LLC d/b/a HYUNDAI GLOVIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-02676-JPB-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend deadlines to respond to complaint, file class certification motion, conduct rule 26(f) conference, and submit joint preliminary report and discovery plan: (1) the deadline for the Defendants to file their respective answers to the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint be extended through and including Oct. 9, 2025; (2) the deadline for the Parties to confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) be extended through and including Oct. 27, 2025; (3) the local rule deadline to file a motion for class certification be stayed pending dates to be proposed by the Parties in their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan; and (4) the deadline for the Parties to file their joint preliminary report and discovery plan be extended through and including Nov. 10, 2025. Due to current and previous commitments and the voluminous nature of the first amended complaint, the Defendants require additional time to file their respective answers. Furthermore, the Parties seek to set accompanying deadlines to confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) and submit their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan consistent with the Court’s local rules. On March 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On Nov. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed its motion for partial dismissal of the first amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of Feb. 4, 2025. GFA provides furnishing automotive services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a7sPCF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. James Radford, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com jradford@radfordscott.com - and - Rachel B. Benjamin, Esq. Brian J. Sutherland, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLINE & BROWN 2200 Century Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (404) 688-3800 E-mail: rachel@beal.law brian@beal.law - and - Julia Solorzano, Esq. Abigail R. Kerfoot, Esq. CENTRO DE LOS DERECHOS DEL MIGRANTE, INC. 711 W. 40th Street, Suite 412 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (855) 234-9699 E-mail: abigail@cdmigrante.org The Defendants are represented by: Sarah M. Phaff, Esq. Timothy Boughey, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 230 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30303-1557 Telephone: (404) 525-8622 Facsimile: (404) 525-6955 E-mail: sphaff@constangy.com tboughey@constangy.com - and - John D. Bennett, Esq. Michael M. Hill, Esq. William H. Buechner, Jr. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (678) 996-9056 Facsimile: (833) 330-3669 E-mail: jbennett@fmglaw.com mhill@fmglaw.com bbuechner@fmglaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Discovery Scheduling Order Entered in Cengage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CENGAGE LEARNING INC. et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04274-JLR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a general pretrial management and discovery scheduling order as follows: Judge Moses will hear argument regarding each of the outstanding discovery motions at an in-person discovery conference on October 8, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. However, the parties are directed to continue to meet and confer in good faith to resolve or narrow their discovery disputes. They must then file a joint status letter, no later than October 1, 2025, confirming that that have complied with this Order and identifying any disputes that remain for judicial resolution. If and when a revised discovery schedule is issued, all additional discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. Google is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=llxBBc at no extra charge.[CC] GRAHAM PERSONNEL: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over Consumer Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTO HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GRAHAM PERSONNEL SERVICES, Case No. 5:25-cv-00574-M (E.D.N.C., Sept. 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, the Defendant obtained information concerning the Plaintiff from a Consumer Reporting Agency named Priority Background Solutions. The Defendant paid a fee for the information it obtained concerning the Plaintiff. The information obtained concerning the Plaintiff was a Consumer Report. The Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding the Plaintiff, including in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the The Defendant is a staffing firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Jayson Watkins, Esq. Richard Parks, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 525 North Tryon Street, Suite 1600 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 533-4616 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com rparks@sirillp.com GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Mollins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grubhub Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth M. Mollins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Commercial - Business Entity." Grubhub Inc. -- https://about.grubhub.com/ -- is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] HAMSKEA ARCHERY: Faces Suit Over Archery Product Price Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER FIORENTINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HAMSKEA ARCHERY SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02834-WJM (Sept. 7, 2025) is an antitrust class action brought against the Defendants pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and common law. The Plaintiff is a direct purchaser of archery supplies. This action is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class of persons and entities who directly purchased from any Defendant or current or former subsidiary or affiliate, archery products, including bows, arrows, arrowheads, targets, and accessories (Archery Products) for their own personal use in the United States from at least Jan 1, 2014, through such time as the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct ceases. The Defendants include the dominant manufacturers of Archery Products sold in the United States, collectively, controlling more than 80% of this more than $1.2 billion per year market. The Defendants also include several prominent Archery Products retailers in the United States. Leveraging that market control, beginning no later than 2014, Defendants conspired to raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices above competitive levels during the Class Period, including through the widespread adoption, implementation, and enforcement of minimum advertised price (MAP) policies, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff on several occasions during the Class Period he purchased Archery Products from directly from the Defendant Cabela's LLC in Massachusetts. The Defendants include HUNTER'S MFG. CO., INC. d/b/a TENPOINT CROSSBOW TECHNOLOGIES; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY’S SPORTS, INC. d/b/a/ JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; NEUINTEL LLC d/b/a PRICESPIDER f/k/a ORIS INTELLIGENCE; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT LLC; and TRACKSTREET, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Lillian Grinnell WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone:(212) 545-4600 E-mail: burt@whafh.com grinnell@whafh.com - and - Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq. ISQUITH LAW PLLC 103 East 84th Street New York, New York 10028 Telephone: (718) 775-6478 E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com - and - Richard J. Vita VITA LAW OFFICES, P.C. 100 State Street Suite 900 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Telephone: (617) 426-6566 E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com HEALTHCARE HD: Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT LEWIS, JR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE HD LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02756-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered a Scheduling Order as follows: The Plaintiff's request for a 13-month discovery period is also denied. The parties will instead proceed with a 10-month discovery period. If the Plaintiff wishes to move for class certification, he must do so by Jan. 16, 2026. Motions for summary judgment may be filed at any time until 30 days after the close of discovery. See Local Rule 56.1(D). As requested, the expert disclosure schedule will be as follows: The Plaintiff will disclose expert(s) by February 2, 2026. The Defendant will disclose expert(s) and/or any rebuttal expert(s) by March 4, 2026. The Plaintiff will disclose any rebuttal expert(s) by April 2, 2026. HD provides health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iOnROP at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Chiplinsky Sues Over Improper Discount Policy --------------------------------------------------------- KATE CHIPLINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08550 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the California's False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the Products Ms. Chiplinsky purchased were being offered at a discount from the purported regular prices that Defendant advertised. And based on Defendant's representations, Ms. Chiplinsky believed that she was purchasing Products whose regular prices and market values were the purported list prices that Defendant advertised, and that she was receiving substantial discounts. These reasonable beliefs are what caused Ms. Chiplinsky to buy from Defendant when she did. The representations Ms. Chiplinsky relied on, however, were not true. The purported regular prices were not the true regular prices that Defendant sells the Products for, and the purported discounts were not the true discounts. Had Defendant been truthful, Ms. Chiplinsky and other consumers like her would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores. The Company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn, garden, kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com HORIZON VILLAGE: Jackson Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- QUIASHONDA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HORIZON VILLAGE, INC., HORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and HORIZON HEALTH ALLIANCE, LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-00838 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2025) is a proposed class action against the Defendants arising from Horizon's practice of improperly compensating its per diem hourly employees for overtime hours worked by "not counting" holiday hours worked when determining whether overtime is owed. Accordingly, Horizon does so ostensibly because the applicable premium rates of pay for holiday hours and overtime hours are the same. But this practice runs afoul of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires all hours worked to be included for purposes of calculating overtime. The Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. The Plaintiff and Class/Collective Members are hourly, non-exempt per diem employees who have been employed by Defendants during the relevant time period. Horizon is a New York State company in the business of operating substance use disorder withdrawal and residential programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON 3959 N. Buffalo Road, Suite 29 Orchard Park, NY 14127 Telephone: (716) 242-1234 E-mail: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com HOSPITAL SERVICE: Gulley Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Juanita Gulley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT #1 OF TANGIPAHOA PARISH D/B/A NORTH OAKS HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:25-cv-00830-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' demographic information including names and dates of birth, health insurance information and clinical information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, 6,243 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on June 4, 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept under-protected (the "Data Breach"). While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as June 4, 2025, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until September 2, 2025. The Notice stated that "an unauthorized person accessed a subset of emails and attachments within certain employee email accounts between May 28 and June 5, 2025." The Defendant acquired, collected and stored Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that Representative Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential Private Information. By obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal duties to those individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a government entity that operates the North Oaks Health System based in Hammond, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William F. Kendig, Jr., Esq. RICE & KENDIG, LLC 912 Kings Highway Shreveport, LA 71104 Phone: (318) 222-2772 Facsimile: (318) 222-2770 Email: wfkendig@ricekendig.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com HUSH BLACKWELL: Paetkau Files Suit in W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hush Blackwell LLP, et al. The case is styled as Tyler M. Paetkau, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hush Blackwell LLP, Executive Board of Husch Blackwell LLP, Joe Glynias, Jamie Lawless, Jen Dlugosz, Julie Miceli, Joe Geraci, Hayley Hanson, Phil Koutnik, Ann Maher, Nikelle Meade, Sonni Nolan, Tom Shorter, Rudy Telscher, Ed Wilson, Jai Khanna, J.Y. Miller, Does 1-30, Case No. 4:25-cv-00721-FJG (W.D. Mo., Sept. 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. for Employee Retirement. Husch Blackwell -- https://www.huschblackwell.com/ -- provides full-service legal representation for a variety of healthcare and life sciences businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Field, Esq. Myounghee Choung, Esq. 7911 Herschel Ave., Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (619) 577-4252 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com dchoung@sanfordheisler.com - and - Robert B. Sullivan, Esq. 5704 W. 128th Terrace Overland Park, KS 66209 Phone: (816) 309-6840 Email: rbsullivan13@gmail.com INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Colbert Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Michael Colbert, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES; INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC; INSITUFORM OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND STANDARD PIPE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 250800674 was removed from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05343. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for failure to pay wages in accordance with the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Delaware Prevailing Wage Act, the Maryland Prevailing Wage Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. Ex. A. Plaintiff also alleges breach of contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wayne E. Pinkstone, Esq. Lee E. Tankle, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 995-2831 Email: wayne.pinkstone@ogletree.com lee.tankle@ogletree.com INTERIOR HOMESCAPES: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- James Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Interior Homescapes, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11226 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.interiorhomescapes.com (hereinafter "Interiorhomescapes.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Interiorhomescapes.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Interior Homescapes provides to the public a website known as Interiorhomescapes.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a curated selection of furniture, lighting, home decor, rugs, outdoor living items, and wall treatments designed to enhance both interior and exterior spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SPOHN, individually, and as representative of plan participants and plan beneficiaries of the IBM Personal Pension Plan, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., as Plan Administrator and Sponsor; IBM RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE, as Plan Administrator; and STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS TRUST COMPANY, as independent fiduciary of the IBM Personal Pension Plan, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12475 (D. Mass., Sept. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, on September 13, 2022, IBM entered into a group annuity contract involving approximately $16 billion in plan assets with the Prudential Insurance Company of America ("PICA") that resulted in approximately 100,000 of these retirees losing all of the uniform protections intended by Congress under ERISA, including the Federal backstop provided to all ERISA protected plans by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Then, on September 11, 2024, IBM entered into a second group annuity contract involving approximately $6 billion in plan assets with PICA2 that resulted in an additional 32,000 retirees losing all of the uniform protections intended by Congress under ERISA, including the Federal backstop provided to all ERISA protected plans by the PBGC. The combination of unique risks posed by the IBM/PICA transactions are contrary to the best interests of the impacted IBM retirees and have resulted in less secure pension benefits for those retirees, says the suit. International Business Machines Corp operates as an IT services and consulting company. The Company, through its platform, offers analytics, IT infrastructure, cloud, business operations and automations, cybersecurity, data storage, application development, asset management, blockchain, software, and consulting solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com - and - Edward S. Stone, Esq. EDWARD STONE LAW P.C. 205 East 42nd Street, Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (203) 504-8425 Facsimile: (203) 348-8477 E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com IONIA CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, Kazakos Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS KAZAKOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IONIA CORP. (D/B/A GREEK ISLANDS) GEORGE SARAFOGLOU, and EVANGELINE SARAFOGLOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05149 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, tip misappropriation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful deductions. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server from approximately June 2022 until on or about June 5, 2024. Ionia Corp., doing business as Greek Islands, is a Greek restaurant owner and operator in Little Neck, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 679-9660 Email: ctucker@saccofillas.com JACKSON COUNTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weeder Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON WEEDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON COUNTY MEDICAL CARE FACILITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-12807-LJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., Sept. 5, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Jackson County Medical Care Facility offers health care services. The Company provides skilled and restorative nursing, respite, hospice, extended custodial, occupational and speech therapy, social, beauty, short term rehabilitation, activities and recreation, social, and podiatry and child care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com JACOBO FARM: Class Settlement in Gomez Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. J. JACOBO FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-01489-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order granting the Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the class settlement and approving the requests for attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs, and litigation expenses The Court finds the proposed class settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The factors set forth under Rule 23 and Ninth Circuit precedent weigh in favor of final approval of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Court orders: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Settlement is granted. 2. Certification of the Settlement Class is granted, and the class is defined as follows: "All individuals who have been employed or are currently employed by the Defendant J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor Inc. as a non-exempt "field worker" or agricultural laborer who worked at any time from Sept. 30, 2011 to Nov. 5, 2019." 3. Pursuant to their timely and valid "Elections Not to Participate in Settlement,” Angelica Levya, Sofia Rafael- Pascual, Bladimir Quiroz-Talavera, Jesus Saldana, Erik Leon, and Shirley L. Paul are excluded from the Settlement Class. 4. The parties' "Stipulation to Remove Minimum Payment Language from Settlement Agreement" dated September 13, 2024, is approved, and Section III.E.3 is stricken from the Settlement Agreement. 5. Legal Aid at Work is appointed as the cy pres beneficiary. 6. The request for a class representative service payment for Gomez is granted in the modified amount of $500.00. 7. Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees is granted in the amount of 25 percent of the gross settlement, which totals $25,000.00 including: a. b. Payment to the firm of Mallison & Martinez in the amount of $15,000.00; and Payment to Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc. in the amount of $10,000.00. 8. Class Counsel's request for litigation costs and expenses is granted in the amount of $32,800.00. 9. Payment to the Settlement Administrator in the amount of $25,000 for settlement administration costs is approved. 10. The Settlement Administrator SHALL distribute all approved payments, including to Class Members and Class Counsel, within 15 days of receipt of the final installment of the settlement funds. 11. The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees except as otherwise provided by the Settlement and ordered by the Court. The Defendant provides farm labor services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6V03R at no extra charge.[CC] JAPANESE PANTRY: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE JAPANESE PANTRY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10998 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://thejapanesepantry.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Japanese Pantry, LLC specializes in providing artisanal Japanese ingredients to both professional and recreational cooks in North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. ("Jasper" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:JSPR) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 25-cv-08010, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Jasper securities between November 30, 2023 and July 3, 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 Jasper securities during the Class Period, you have until November 18, 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. Jasper, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on developing therapeutics targeting mast cell driven diseases such as Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria ("CSU"), Chronic Inducible Urticaria ("CIndU"), and Asthma. The Company's lead product candidate is briquilimab, a monoclonal antibody designed to block stem cell factor ("SCF") from binding to and signaling through the CD117 ("c-Kit") receptor on mast and stem cells. According to Jasper, the "SCF/c-Kit pathway is a survival signal for mast cells and [the Company] believe[s] that blocking this pathway may lead to depletion of these cells throughout the body, including in the lungs and in the skin, which could lead to significant clinical benefit for patients with mast-cell driven diseases such as asthma and chronic urticarias" and "to that end, [Jasper is] focusing on advancing a portfolio of clinical programs in mast cell driven diseases." In 2024, to "strengthen [its] balance sheet and support development of briquilimab," Jasper completed an oversubscribed $50 million financing "with a syndicate of leading life science investors," purportedly "extending [its] cash runway through the third quarter of 2025." In November 2023, the Company commenced a Phase 1b/2a clinical study of subcutaneous briquilimab for the treatment of CSU (the "BEACON Study"). When announcing the first patient dosing in the BEACON Study, Jasper's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Ronald Martell stated, in relevant part, that he was "confident in the ability of our clinical organization to continue to execute at a high level as we advance briquilimab into clinical trials in CIndU and other mast cell-driven diseases." In December 2024, the Company commenced a Phase 1b/2a clinical study evaluating briquilimab in allergic asthma (the "ETESIAN Study"). In addition, Jasper has attempted to develop briquilimab as a one-time conditioning therapy for severe combined immunodeficiency ("SCID") patients undergoing a second stem cell transplant. Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act -a law enacted by Congress in 2013 designed to improve and ensure the safety of the U.S pharmaceutical supply chain-all prescription drugs must be labeled with a unique product identifier that includes, among other things, a "lot number." Drug "lots" are batches of a product that are manufactured, processed, packaged, or stored under the same conditions. If a medication is compromised, pharmaceuticals companies can use lot numbers to trace the affected batches and alert healthcare providers. According to the Company, "[t]he manufacture of pharmaceuticals is subject to extensive [current Good Manufacturing Practices ("cGMP")] regulations, which impose various procedural and documentation requirements and govern all areas of record keeping, production processes and controls, personnel and quality control." Because Jasper does not currently own or operate any manufacturing facility, the Company relies on third-party contract manufacturing organizations to produce its drug candidates in purported "accordance with cGMP regulations for use in [its] clinical studies." The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Jasper lacked the controls and procedures necessary to ensure that the third-party manufacturers on which it relied were manufacturing products in full accordance with cGMP regulations and otherwise suitable for use in clinical trials; (ii) the foregoing failure increased the risk that results of ongoing studies would be confounded, thereby negatively impacting the regulatory and commercial prospects of the Company's products, including briquilimab; (iii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of disruptive cost-reduction measures; (iv) accordingly, the Company's business and/or financial prospects, as well as briquilimab's clinical and/or commercial prospects, were overstated; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 7, 2025, Jasper issued a press release reporting updated data from the BEACON Study. The press release stated that "results from the 240mg Q8W and the 240mg followed by 180mg Q8W dose cohorts appear to be confounded by an issue with one drug product lot used in those cohorts, with 10 of the 13 patients dosed with drug from the lot in question," that "[t]he Company is investigating the drug product lot in question and expects to have the results of that investigation in the coming weeks," and that Jasper was "taking steps to ensure that drug product from the lot in question is returned to the Company and that sites have drug product from other lots to continue dosing." Further, the press release revealed that the Company "has also determined that the drug product lot in question was used to treat participants enrolled in the ETESIAN [Study]. As a result, and in order to focus resources on advancing briquilimab in CSU, the Company is halting the study and pausing development in asthma." Finally, the press release stated that "the Company is halting development in SCID" and, contrary to its prior representation of having a strong balance sheet and a cash runway extending "through the third quarter of 2025," that Jasper "will be implementing a number of other cost cutting measures including a potential restructuring, to extend runway and reduce expenses." On this news, Jasper's stock price fell $3.73 per share, or 55.1%, to close at $3.04 per share on July 7, 2025. Market analysts were quick to comment on the Company's announcement. For example, on July 7, 2025, BMO Capital Markets published a report downgrading Jasper to market perform and lowering its price target from $6.77 per share to $4.00 per share (the "BMO Report"). The BMO Report stated, in relevant part, that "potential Briquilimab drug lot issues, coupled with existing uncertainty around dose-response [], will pressure the [Jasper] story moving forward" given, among other things, Jasper's "financing overhang" and market competition. After the end of the Class Period, on July 9, 2025, the Company issued a press release entitled "Jasper Therapeutics Announces Corporate Reorganization and Other Cost Cutting Measures to Extend Cash Runway." The press release revealed that Jasper was reducing its workforce by approximately 50%, that "[i]n order to focus resources on the development of briquilimab in chronic urticaria, Jasper is halting its other clinical and preclinical programs," and that Defendant Edwin Tucker was departing his role as the Company's Chief Medical Officer effective 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. Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] JSM FOODS CORP: Silva Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Bravo Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JSM FOODS CORP. d/b/a CASA MIA RISTORANTE, and CHRIS MORRISSEY, Case No. 7:25-cv-07689 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought against Defendants' unlawful actions and to recover their unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Defendants paid them a salary instead of paying them an hourly rate as required by the FLSA and NYLL. By doing so, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff his overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay. Defendants also failed to furnish Plaintiff with a wage notice upon hire, and wage statements at the end of each pay period reflecting his full wages paid, hourly wage rates, and hours worked., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from January 2024 to July 9, 2025. JSM Foods Corp. is a New York corporation that owns, operates, and does business as Casa Mia Ristorante, a restaurant located in Yonkers, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com KBR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR) between May 6, 2025 and June 19, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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 in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased KBR securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: 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. 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. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. 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 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially 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. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: 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 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Laboy Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Janitors ------------------------------------------------------------------ NELSON ORTIZ LABOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01278-AJB-DJS (N.D.N.Y., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid minimum and overtime wages due under New York's Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff performed janitorial services at the Amazon facility in Hudson, New York between June 2021 until June 2023. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC is a facility service provider, with its principal place of business in Oceanside, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Harwick, Esq. HACKER MURPHY, LLP 28 Second Street Troy, NY 12180 - and - Larry Bendesky, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Adam J. Pantano, Esq. Scott Fellmeth, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3986 KEVIN COPPINGER: Filing for Class Response/Reply Extended to Nov. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caron, et al., v. Coppinger, Case No. 1:25-cv-11075 (D. Mass., Filed April 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge George A. Otoole, Jr. entered an order granting first motion for extension of time to Nov. 7, 2025, to File Response/Reply to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] MANAGED LABOR: Guy Sues Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports -------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE GUY on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01679 (D. Nev., September 8, 2025) seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated FCRA by taking the adverse employment action without first providing a copy of the consumer report to him. Moreover, the Defendant's failure to timely provide the consumer report prevented Plaintiff from addressing misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information, says the suit. Managed Labor Solutions, LLC provides outsourced labor services, particularly for the rental car industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 888-SIRI-LAW E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com Website: sirillp.com [BN] MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend "Lucas" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The Marygold Companies, Inc., 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 continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit filed by shareholder Robert Lucas. On June 19, 2020, USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney’s fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. MEDTRONIC INC: Standing Order Entered in Drinkhouse Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT DRINKHOUSE, v. MEDTRONIC INC., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02098-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered a standing order as follows: Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5−3.1. Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve and electronically lodge a proposed order which sets forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations Motions shall be filed and set for hearing in accordance with L.R. 6−1. Motions will be heard on Mondays commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion noticed for a holiday shall automatically be set to the next Monday without further notice to the parties. Medtronic is an American-Irish medical device company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2CeaQ3 at no extra charge.[CC] MEDUSIND INC: $5MM Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Dec. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $5 million class action settlement ends litigation against revenue management company Medusind over a December 2023 data breach that exposed the sensitive personal information of its healthcare provider clients' patients. The Medusind data incident settlement received preliminary approval from the court on July 22, 2025 and covers all United States residents who were sent notice of the data breach by Medusind. The court-approved website for the Medusind settlement can be found at MedusindDataIncidentSettlement.com. Medusind settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive either up to $5,000 in reimbursement for losses related to the data breach or a flat cash payment of $100, as well as two years of credit monitoring. Class members who were California residents as of December 29, 2023 can submit a claim for an additional payment estimated to be about $100. Cash payments from the Medusind settlement may be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis, depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed, the website states. Per the settlement website, loss reimbursement through the deal is mutually exclusive from the flat cash payment of $100, as class members can choose only one of the two options. However, the credit monitoring and, if applicable, California resident payment available through the class action settlement can be claimed alongside any other settlement benefit, the website for the deal states. In order to claim reimbursement, losses must be related to the Medusind data breach, and class members must submit reasonable documentation of each loss. The settlement website relays that a loss cannot be claimed if it has already been reimbursed by another source, such as through the identity protection and credit monitoring services provided in the original data breach notification from Medusind. Examples of potential data breach-related expenses and losses, as well as what may be provided as reasonable documentation, are listed here. The two years of credit monitoring services offered by the settlement include: -- Web-based monitoring of personal identifiable information such as banking information, Social Security numbers, credit/debit information, email addresses, medical ID numbers and phone numbers; -- Real-time monitoring of credit files; and -- Access to fraud consultation and identity theft restoration services, including access to agents to help investigate and resolve instances of identity theft. To submit a claim form online, Medusind settlement 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 form. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than December 29, 2025. Additionally, Medusind has agreed, as part of the settlement, to implement additional cybersecurity measures to its systems to better protect the personal and private data it possesses. A hearing is scheduled for January 12, 2026 to determine whether the 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 Medusind class action lawsuit claimed that the medical and dental billing and software company failed to properly safeguard the personal data in its possession against a cyberattack in which unauthorized third parties accessed the medical, personal and billing data of the patients of several healthcare providers. [GN] MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Steakle Suit Removed to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kimberly Steakle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, v. USHEALTH GROUP, INC., Case No. JO-2025-CV-002011 was removed from the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on Sept. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02541. The Plaintiff alleges that MAPS failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines. The Plaintiff further alleges that MAPS failed to comply with industry standards. Further, the Plaintiff claims that Defendant's alleged failures caused a security breach which allowed highly sensitive data, including PII and PHI, to be stolen and used for fraudulent purposes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Fisher Enyeart, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Facsimile: (816) 292-2001 Email: kathleen.fisherenyeart@lathropgpm.com MISS KITTY'S: Jones Partial Summary Judgment Bid Nixed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIS JONES, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. MISS KITTY'S, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01327-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Beatty entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiff filed this putative class / collective action in April 2023 on behalf of herself and other exotic dancers against Miss Kitty's Inc., alleging that Miss Kitty's failed to pay dancers any wages for the hours they worked, unlawfully required dancers to relinquish a portion of the tips they earned, and unlawfully charged dancers a stage fee for each shift that they worked. The Plaintiff asserted claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL"). A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AUyw79 at no extra charge.[CC] MOBOTREX LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Kasten Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOAN KASTEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOBOTREX LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00100-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 9, 2025) alleges that MoboTrex failed to fulfill its obligation to secure Private Information concerning Plaintiff and Class members, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached MoboTrex's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to MoboTrex's employees. As part of its operations, MoboTrex collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal and medical information belonging to its current and former employees, including, but not limited to their full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers (PII), health insurance information, and other protected health information (PHI), as well as financial account/payment card information (financial account information). On Sept. 6, 2024, MoboTrex experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members (the Data Breach). Because MoboTrex stored and handled Plaintiff's and Class members' highly-sensitive Private Information, it had a duty and obligation to safeguard this information and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing this data. As a result of MoboTrex's negligent, reckless, intentional, and/or unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy its contractual, statutory, and common-law obligations, Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries, but not limited to:, MoboTrex is a company that manufactures, distributes, and services traffic control products nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IO 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com MOLSON COORS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Hensley Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WINSTON HENSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA LLC, MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA LLC GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA LLC BENEFIT PLAN INVESTMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:25-cv-01371 (E.D. Wisc., Sept. 9, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Employees' Retirement and Savings Plan's fiduciaries for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plan is a defined contribution plan, established pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1002(2)(A) and section 1002(34) of ERISA, that enables eligible participants to make tax-deferred contributions from their salaries to the Plan. With regard to the Plan's investments, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by selecting and/or maintaining a certain guaranteed income fund with lower crediting rates when compared to available similar investments with higher crediting rates. The crediting rate is the guaranteed rate of return for the investment fund. Specifically, the Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Plan to be invested in the Fidelity Stable Value Fund (Fidelity SVF), a "synthetic investment contract." During his employment, Mr. Hensley invested in the Fidelity SVF in the Plan and suffered injury to his Plan account due to the significant underperformance of the Fidelity SVF. The Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to receive benefits in the amount of the difference between the value of his account currently, or as of the time his account was distributed, and what his account is or would have been worth, but for the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty. Molson Coors is the sponsor of the Plan and a named fiduciary of the Plan with a principal place of business at 3939 West Highland Boulevard, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 MOTHER NATURE: Jackson Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTHER NATURE ORGANICS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07342 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Moreover, the Defendant failed to remove website's access barriers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. Headquartered in Dripping Springs, TX, Mother Nature Organics Corp. owns and operates the website, https://mothernatureorganics.com, which offers herbal supplements for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Settlement in Pierre Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURBRAN PIERRE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, TD BANK N.A., DUANE READE INC., B & H PHOTO VIDEO PRO AUDIO LLC, BLOOMBERG L.P., TRIHOP 14TH STREET LLC, DOES NOS. 1-10, SILVERSEAL CORPORATION d/b/a S.E.A.L. SECURITY LLC and GARDAWORLD SECURITY CORPORATION d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Case No. 1:20-cv-05116-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. 1. The Court grants the Parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, certification of the settlement class, appointment of class counsel, and approval of the Plaintiff's notice of settlement and claim form. 2. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who provided services for, relating to, or in connection with Seal, through the Paid Detail Program ("PDP"), at any Bloomberg location in New York State, at any time from July 3, 2014 through May 14, 2025." 3. For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who provided services for, relating to, or in connection with Seal, through the PDP, at any Bloomberg location in New York State, at any time from July 3, 2017 through May 14, 2025." 4. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Burbran Pierre, Albert Piney, Desmond Grant, Stephen Theophile, Dominick Cutrone, Roman Diaz, Julissa Flores, Jose Martinez, and Denis Gamez to represent the Class. 5. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Feb. 24, 2025, at 2 p.m., On Aug. 26, 2025, the Plaintiff with the consent of Defendant Silverseal Corporation d/b/a S.E.A.L. Security LLC filed his motion for preliminary approval of a settlement between the Parties. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRTplv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com NEW YORK: Brougham Fund Files Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of New York. The case is styled as Brougham Fund I Trust doing business as: Christiana Trust, by its Trustee, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as the Trustee, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State of New York, Case No. 1:25-cv-01304-MAD-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. New York City -- https://www.ny.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Roman, Esq. HLADIK ONORATO & FEDERMAN LLP 7 Skyline Drive-Suite 350 Hawthorne, NY 10532 Phone: (215) 855-9521 Email: jroman@hoflawgroup.com - and - Steven K. Eisenberg, Esq. STERN & EISENBERG, PC 1581 Main Street, Suite 200 Warrington, PA 18976 Phone: (215) 572-8111 Email: seisenberg@sterneisenberg.com NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Bid to Dismiss Radford Claims Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN RADFORD, v. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-08118-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order denying Nexstar's motion to dismiss and to strike. At minimum, Radford alleges that certain hours he worked—during meal and rest breaks and before and after clocking in—were not reflected on his wage statement. Therefore, he has alleged both a violation and an injury under section 226. The motion to dismiss claim six is denied. The details concerning Nexstar's policies and practices with regard to overtime and meal and rest breaks are within Nexstar’s exclusive control and are better suited to be developed through the discovery process. Furthermore, a motion to strike is not the proper mechanism for challenging a type of relief as unavailable as a matter of law. Nexstar characterizes claims one and eight through nine as derivative of Radford’s other California Labor Code claims, and argues that these claims rise and fall with the underlying claims. (Motion at 19–20.) Nexstar does not raise any independent challenges as to these claims. (Id.) Therefore, the 4 Case 3:24-cv-08118-RFL Document 46 Filed 09/08/25 Page 5 of 5 motion to dismiss is denied as to the derivative claims. The case is a wage and hour class action brought by Mr. Radford against the Defendants. Radford alleges that Nexstar failed to provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, furnish timely and accurate wage statements, and pay overtime and minimum wage. He brings suit on behalf of himself and a putative class for violations of California's Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and also seeks civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Nexstar owns America's largest local television broadcasting group. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vx99rD at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Hawthorne Bid for Default Judgment OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN HAWTHORNE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated; v. NORTHVIEW VILLAGE, INC. d/b/a NORTHVIEW VILLAGE, HEALTHCARE ACCOUNTING SERVICES, LLC, and NORTHVIEW VILLAGE CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; Case No. 4:23-cv-01711-SRW (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Welby entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The Court, in reviewing the complaint and merits of the Plaintiff's claim, accepts the allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint as true. The Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements to assert a violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The Court finds, based on the affidavit of Samuel Gladney and exhibits attached thereto, including payroll information, dues reports, and seniority lists for the class, that Plaintiff is entitled to the amount of $1,945.866.24 in damages. On Dec. 22, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated employees against the Defendants alleging the Defendants violated the WARN Act. The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2024, and the Defendants answered shortly thereafter. The Plaintiffs were granted class certification on December 16, 2024. Northview provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lIAFvC at no extra charge.[CC] NUTEX HEALTH: Bhagavan Files Securities Suit over Short Sell Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nutex Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the Quarterly Period Ended July 4, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 13, 2025, that on August 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Harris County captioned "Anjana Bhagavan v. Nutex Health Inc.," (Case No. 4:25-cv-03999). The allegations in the complaint track a recent short seller report. The complaint named Nutex Health Inc., its Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and President and Director as defendants and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Nutex Health owns, develops and operates health care models, including micro-hospitals, specialty hospitals and is based in Houston, Texas. OAKLAND, CA: Class Settlement in Curran Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CURRAN, NICOLE BROWN BOOKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, Case No. 3:23-cv-02354-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order as follows: (1) granting preliminary approval of settlement; (2) granting certification of settlement class; (3) directing notice to the class; and (4) setting date for fairness hearing The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying a class for declaratory and injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2): "All persons (including residents of and/or visitors to the City of Oakland) with any Mobility Disability, who, at any time prior to court judgment granting final approval to this Consent Decree or during the Term of the Consent Decree have been denied full and equal access to the City's pedestrian right of way due to the lack of a Curb Ramp or a Curb Ramp or Pedestrian Walkway that was damaged, in need of repair, not Accessible, or otherwise in a condition not suitable or sufficient for use." The proposed Consent Decree requires the City to install accessible curb ramps or remediate curb ramps that are non-compliant with federal and state disability access standards at 12,738 curb ramp locations by the end of the fiscal year 2050 and remediate sidewalks at approximately 78,531 locations (affecting approximately 2,075,000 square feet of sidewalks) that the City identified in 2021-22 as being damaged. In order to ensure steady progress, the Decree requires the City to comply with Annual Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Commitments that specify the minimum number of accessible curb ramps and square feet of accessible sidewalks that the City must install or remediate each fiscal year. The Plaintiffs Curran and Brown-Booker release all of their monetary claims related to their personal encounters with Non-Compliant Curb Ramps and sidewalks in exchange for a damages payment of $35,000 each. The Court preliminarily approves the Decree. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Decree is fair, adequate and reasonable to all potential Settlement Class Members. The Fairness hearing shall be held on Dec. 4, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. Oakland is a city in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area in the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LwN44U at no extra charge.[CC] OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.55-MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Octapharma Plasma agreed to a $2.55 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised donor information. The settlement benefits individuals who received a notice from Octapharma Plasma informing them that their personal information may have been compromised in the April 2024 data breach. The Octapharma Plasma data breach occurred in April 2024 and compromised sensitive information, such as names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, health information and donor eligibility information. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Octapharma Plasma could have prevented the data breach with reasonable cybersecurity measures. The company's alleged failure to protect consumer data was a breach of its fiduciary duty, the class action lawsuit contends. Octapharma Plasma is a plasma donation center with locations across the United States. Octapharma Plasma has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.55 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Octapharma Plasma settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses related to the data breach. These losses could include fraudulent charges, identity theft and other damages. Class members who did not experience any losses as a result of the data breach can receive a flat-rate payment of $100. All class members are eligible for three years of free credit monitoring services. California class members are eligible for an additional flat-rate payment of $50. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Octapharma Plasma data breach settlement is scheduled for Dec. 4, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 14, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who were sent a data breach notice by Octapharma informing them their personal information may have been compromised in an April 2024 data breach. Potential Award Up to $5,000 for documented losses related to the data breach or a flat cash payment (estimated at $100), three years of credit monitoring services and a $50 cash payment for California residents. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, bills, invoices or other statements. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 11/14/2025 Case Name Woodall v. Octapharma Plasma Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00424, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Final Hearing 12/04/2025 Settlement Website OPIDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Woodall v. Octapharma Plasma Inc. Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 (888) 777-5989 Class Counsel Jean S. Martin MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Daniel Srourian SROURIAN LAW FIRM P.C. Defense Counsel Lance Y. Murashige Darnesha Carter Foli HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP [GN] OUTLIER INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Outlier Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10765 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allegedly, the Defendant failed and refused to remove access barriers to its website. These barriers prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, says the suit. Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Outlier Incorporated own and operates the website, Outlier.nyc, which offers clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PENTAGON FEDERAL: Beyard Opposition to Summary Judgment Due Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE BEYARD, et al., v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01063-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order regarding stipulation setting motion for summary judgment briefing schedule; vacating Dec. 10, 2025, hearing; staying the motion for class certification; and vacating Nov. 5, 2025, hearing. 1. The Plaintiffs shall have through Oct. 15, 2025, to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 2. The Defendant shall have through Nov. 21, 2025, to file a reply, if any, in support of the motion for summary judgment. 3. Pursuant to the Hon. Jennifer L. Thurston's civil standing order, and Local Rule 230(c), the Dec. 10, 2025, hearing on the motion for summary judgment is vacated. 4. The Court finds that resolution of the motion to certify class will necessarily depend on the outcome of the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court stays the motion to certify class pending the resolution of the motion for summary judgment. 5. In light of the foregoing, the Nov. 5, 2025, hearing on the motion to certify class is vacated. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class with a hearing date set before the undersigned on November 5, 2025. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to certify class and concurrently filed a motion for summary judgment. On Sept. 3, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the briefing schedule on the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 123.) PenFed is a federal credit union. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O5Nf93 at no extra charge.[CC] PHREESIA INC: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------- Phreesia, 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 data breach lawsuit. On May 12, 2024, the Company learned of a cybersecurity incident impacting the ConnectOnCall service, an application created by a subsidiary the Company acquired in October 2023. All systems have been restored, and the Company believes that it maintains a sufficient level of insurance coverage related to such events, and the related incremental costs incurred to date are not material. Between December 24, 2024 and the date of this report, 14 related putative class action complaints were filed against ConnectOnCall.com, LLC and Phreesia, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The cases have been consolidated as In re ConnectOnCall.com Data Breach Litigation. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class and state-specific subclasses of individuals who allegedly had personally identifiable information and personal health information stolen because of the ConnectOnCall incident. Plaintiffs assert a variety of common law claims seeking monetary damages, disgorgement, restitution, attorneys' fees, interest, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief related to the incident. The Company expects to incur legal and professional services expenses associated with this litigation in future periods. The Company will recognize these expenses as services are received, net of probable insurance recoveries. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time, as the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of the cases being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. The Company has not recorded a loss contingency liability for the above litigation as of July 31, 2025. PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Zuniga Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. The case is styled as Carlie Zuniga, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. doing business as: Playboy, Case No. 1:25-cv-01224-BAM (E.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. doing business as Playboy -- https://www.playboy.com/ -- is an American men's lifestyle and entertainment magazine, available both online and in print.[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 PNC FINANCIAL: Birdsall Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------ Leslie Birdsall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. GD-25-009654 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the wiretapping of electronic communications of visitors to Defendant's website, www.pnc.com ("Website"), and all of the Website's subpages. The Defendant procures third-party vendors, such as LinkedIn, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code (the "Code") on the Website, which then deploys on each Website visitor's internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the Website visitor's electronic communications with the Website. The Code intercepts Website visitors' page views, URLs of web pages visited, browser information, IP address, demographic information, form submissions, and/or other electronic communications in real-time (collectively, "Website Communications"). The Code procured by Defendant surreptitiously and instantaneously intercepted, stored, and recorded everything Plaintiff and the Class Members did on the Website, e.g., what they searched for, what they looked at, the information they input, and what they clicked on for the entire duration of their visit. LinkedIn creates and deploys the Code at Defendant's request, and captures and stores the Website Communications of each Website visitor. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, and intentionally procured the interception of, and used, the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff or the Class Members. Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in violation of Plaintiff's and the Class Members' substantive legal privacy rights under state wiretapping laws and common law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Phone: 412.322.9243 Email: NickC@lcllp.com PRINTING INDUSTRIES: Butler Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Richard Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF ST. LOUIS, INC. d/b/a PRINT MEDIA ASSOCIATION, Case No. 4:25-cv-01393 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information, on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII or "Private Information) and Protected Health Information ("PHI", and collectively, "Private Information") that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). On September 10, 2025--more than four months after Defendant was made aware of the Data Breach--Defendant issued a public disclosure about the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a St. Louis, Missouri based, non-profit trade association catering specifically to the graphic communications industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com PROFESSIONAL HOUSEKEEPERS: Farrington Sues Over FRCA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVELL FARRINGTON on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL HOUSEKEEPERS, INC. d/b/a R.D. MCMILLEN BUILDING SERVICE CONTRACTORS, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02240-CSB-EIL (C.D. Illinois, September 4, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff applied online for employment with Defendant in or about November of 2024 through Indeed.com. However, the Plaintiff was denied the job based on his background check. Moreover, Defendant’s failure to timely provide the consumer report prevented the Plaintiff from addressing misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information. Thus, the Plaintiff was denied the benefit of the opportunity to contest, correct, or explain his report by the Defendant's actions, says the suit. Based in Decatur, IL, Professional Housekeepers, Inc. provides maintenance products and services for buildings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dewanna Johnson, Sheilla Nathan, Alonzo Tutson, Evora Sykes, Chanell Hobbs, Revisha Silas, Evette Townsend, v. Providence Homeowners Association, FirstService Residential Texas, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of two classes that they seek to represent: 1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class of: "all aggrieved persons who were injured by the Defendants' Section 8 ban on leasing to Housing Choice Voucher (voucher) tenants and other rental restriction policies and racial hostility actions for whom injunctive and declaratory relief is sought," and 2) Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3) class of: "voucher tenants residing in PHOA and injured by the Defendants' policies and actions for whom an award of damages is sought." The proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class includes 51 of the 53 aggrieved parties identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Charge of Discrimination (Charge) plus additional aggrieved parties. The proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class includes the 40 voucher tenants from the Charge along with additional aggrieved voucher tenants. After the Charge was issued on January 14, 2025, and parties elected to have the case proceed in federal court, the U.S. Attorney General was required to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Complainants pursuant to the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Two Plaintiffs, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Nathan seek to be the class representatives for the two proposed classes. Since Plaintiffs and the class members have standing and the Rule 23 elements of class certification are met for both proposed classes, the Plaintiffs request that the motion for class certification be granted and the two classes certified. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TEVrH2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura B. Beshara, Esq. Michael M. Daniel, Esq. DANIEL & BESHARA, P.C. 3301 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226-1637 Telephone: (214) 939-9230 Facsimile: (214) 741-3596 E-mail: laurabeshara@swbell.net daniel.michael@att.net PRUITTHEALTH INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA CLAYTON, v. PRUITTHEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02960-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting the request for an extension of the discovery deadline as follows: Scheduled Event Parties' Proposed Deadline Close of fact discovery: May 21, 2026 Parties' initial expert disclosures: June 1, 2026 Close of expert discovery: Sept. 1, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Oct. 1, 2026 certification and Daubert motions: The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Nov. 20, 2026 motion for class certification and Daubert motions, the Defendant's Daubert motions The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion Dec. 20, 2026 for class certification and Daubert motions, opposition to Defendant's Daubert motions: The Defendant provides health care, including senior living, in-home health care, hospice and skilled nursing. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=juxtWA at no extra charge.[CC] PUBMATIC INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in PubMatic, Inc. ("PubMatic, Inc." or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PUBM) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of PubMatic, Inc. investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 27, 2025 and August 11, 2025. Visit the link to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/pubmatic-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=168156&wire=3 PUBM investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) a top demand side platform buyer was shifting a significant number of clients to a new platform which evaluated inventory differently; (2) as a result, PubMatic was seeing a reduction in ad spend and revenue from this top demand side platform buyer; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in PubMatic, Inc. during the relevant time frame, you have until October 20, 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Quanex Building Products Corporation ("Quanex" or the "Company") (NYSE: NX) securities between December 12, 2024 and September 5, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Quanex investors have until November 18, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO SUFFERED A LOSS IN QUANEX BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION (NX), CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. Contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss your legal rights by email at howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, by telephone at (215) 638-4847 or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. What Happened? On September 4, 2025, after the market closed, Quanex announced financial results for the third quarter of the 2025 fiscal year. Among other things, the Company disclosed "operational issues related to the legacy Tyman window and door hardware business in Mexico that are ongoing" which "impacted results more than expected during the third quarter of 2025." Specifically, the Company reported a diluted EPS of ($6.04), compared to $0.77 in the prior year period and an adjusted EBIDTA of $70.30. The Company further disclosed that it was "adjusting for lower expected volumes and pushing out the timing of when [it] expect[s] to realize procurement savings" from the integration of the Tyman business. Then, on September 5, 2025, the Company held an earnings call pursuant to the Company's third quarter 2025 financial results. During the earnings call, Chief Executive Officer, George Wilson ("Wilson") explained "operational challenges" in the Tyman facility in Mexico "negatively impacted EBITDA in the Hardware Solutions segment by almost $5 million in the third quarter alone." Wilson further explained that the issue was previously "identified midyear" as it got "deeper into the integration" with Tyman, and described how the systems used to "anticipate and plan for tooling repairs" were significantly deficient, indicating it was near "nonexistent." Wilson stated because Quanex was "underinvested" in "the tooling condition and the equipment condition" it "had to make some changes and fix some things before it was catastrophic." On this news, Quanex's stock price fell $2.73, or 13.1%, to close at $18.18 per share on September 5, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline on the subsequent trading day, falling $1.98 or 10.9%, to close at $16.20 per share on September 8, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's procedures and policies regarding tooling and equipment maintenance in its Tyman Mexico facility were significantly "underinvested"; (2) as a result, the Company's tooling and equipment conditions had significantly degraded to near "catastrophic" levels; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to incur significant costs, "pushing out the timing" of expected benefits from the Tyman integration; (4) that Quanex had previously identified the foregoing issues; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Quanex securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] RCI HOSPITALITY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ 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 RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RICK) between December 15, 2021 and September 16, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for RCI Hospitality Holdings investors under the federal securities laws. To join the RCI Hospitality Holdings class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=44953 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) Defendants engaged in tax fraud; (2) Defendants committed bribery to cover up the fact that they committed tax fraud; (3) as a result, defendants understated the legal risk facing the Company; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its 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 20, 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=44953 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. 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 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] READING INT'L: Fact Discovery in Berryman Suit Due March 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than March 6, 2026. Depositions to be completed by March 6, 2026. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 8, 2026. The next Case Management Conference, which will take the form of oral argument on the class certification motion, is scheduled for June 15, 2026. Reading is an entertainment and real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=32n2Hv at no extra charge.[CC] REDPATH USA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gonzales Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ISIAH GONZALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDPATH USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00470 (D. Nev., September 4, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Redpath USA Corporation for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law. Redpath employed Plaintiff Gonzales from approximately June 2024 until March 2025. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, Redpath does not pay Gonzales and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. In addition, Redpath’s pre/post shift off the clock policy violates Nevada Law by depriving Gonzales and the other hourly employees of timely payment of earned wages for all hours worked upon termination of their employment, says the suit. Redpath USA Corporation is a full-service global underground mining contractor headquartered in Sparks, NV. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com - and - Alyssa J. White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: awhite@mybackwages.com RETINA VITREOUS: Seydlitz Sues Over Failure to Secure PII --------------------------------------------------------- Annette Seydlitz, and Bern Dervan, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RETINA VITREOUS CONSULTANTS, LLP d/b/a RETINA GROUP OF FLORIDA ("RVC"), Case No. CACE-25-014086 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought against RVC for its failure to secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI" and together with the PII, "Private Information") that was entrusted to RVC. On September 3, 2025, RVC reported to the United States Department Of Health and Human Services that it experienced a cyberattack, which resulted in the breach of current and former patients' Private Information (the "Data Breach"). The actions of RVC related to this Data Breach are unconscionable. Upon information and belief, RVF failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by RVC's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiffs and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs received medical services from RVC. RVC is a Florida based ophthalmology practice which serves 22 treatment centers across Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Homer, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 561-289-9016 Email: mhomer@dynamisllp.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam. M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.harris@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com RF INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Pollack Labor Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- R F Industries Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q 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 Pollack labor class suit in the San Diego County Superior Court. On July 24, 2024, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary C Enterprises, Inc., in San Diego County Superior Court. The case is before the Honorable Gregory W. Pollack, and asserts allegations of California state law violations pertaining to: (1) straight time wages; (2) overtime wages; (3) meal periods; (4) rest periods; (5) business expense reimbursement; (6) timely payment of wages at termination; (7) provision of accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) California's unfair competition law. This action seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of non-exempt employees who worked for the Company in California at any time from July 24, 2020, through the present. On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff provided notice of the alleged violations of law above to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). On or about October 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which amended her class complaint to include a cause of action under PAGA, whereby Plaintiff seeks penalties on behalf of the State of California and other similarly situated employees for the period of August 14, 2023, through the present. As of September 11, 2025, no class certification deadline or trial date has been set. The parties attended private mediation on August 7, 2025. The parties thereafter reached a settlement in principle, for which the parties are currently negotiating a long-form settlement agreement. Any settlement will be subject to Court approval. A case management conference is scheduled for December 19, 2025. RF Industries specializes in designing and manufacturing advanced interconnect solutions and complex cable assemblies for a broad range of fast-growing markets. RHINO LABS: Defranco Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- COLE DEFRANCO, individually and behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RHINO LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-013396 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., 17th Judicial, September 4, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant is engaged in telemarketing at unlawful times. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. Headquartered Dover, DE, Rhino Labs, Inc. offers data security, networking, and data infrastructure solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL MANADERO, individually and for others similarly situated, v. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00051-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Jamar K. Walker entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for filing a motion for class certification. The plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification not later than February 9—approximately 60 days after expiration of the stay in this case. Riverside is a healthcare facility that specializes in acute medical care and inpatient rehabilitation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wuzabp at no extra charge.[CC] RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 17 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL MANADERO, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00051-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion and extending the Plaintiff's deadlines to move for conditional and class certification until 60 days after the expiration of the stay period if the Court grants the Parties' joint motion to stay, toll, and mediate. a. Motion for Conditional Certification: Sept. 5, 2025 b. Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 17, 2025 c. Expert Deadlines: Nov. 7, 2025 d. Fact Discovery: Jan. 23, 2026 In the alternative, if the Court denies the Parties' joint motion to stay, toll, and mediate, the Plaintiff moves the Court to extend the Plaintiff's deadlines to move for conditional and class certification until 60 days after the Court rules on the Parties' joint motion to stay, toll, and mediate. Manadero filed this class and collective action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Virginia Overtime Wage Act (VOWA) on May 7, 2025. The operative scheduling order was entered on July 1, 2025, and provides for the following deadlines: On Aug. 8, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay, Toll, and Mediate this case. Riverside is a healthcare facility that specializes in acute medical care and inpatient rehabilitation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NAgg4v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa J. White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Manadero Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL MANADERO, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00051-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiff's deadlines to move for conditional and class certification until 60 days after the expiration of the stay period if the Court grants the Parties' joint motion to stay, toll, and mediate. In the alternative, if the Court denies the Parties' joint motion to stay, toll, and mediate, the Plaintiff moves the Court to extend the Plaintiff's deadlines to move for conditional and class certification until 60 days after the Court rules on the Parties' joint motion to stay, toll, and mediate. Riverside is healthcare facility that specializes in acute medical care and inpatient rehabilitation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YUp74t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa J. White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RIVERSIDE, CA: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Riverside All of Us or None et al., v. City of Riverside et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to renew the motion for class certification and continue related case deadlines. The Court modifies the dates in the scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for filing renewed motion for class certification: Nov. 19, 2025 -- Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 11, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. -- Trial: Mar. 3, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. All other dates that have expired in the scheduling order shall remain expired. Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VNiVb2 at no extra charge.[CC] ROHR INC: $19.9MM Class Settlement in Morgan Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; and ANTONEE HARRIS; individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Curiel entered an order granting motion for final approval of the class action settlement, and granting motion for award of attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses and award to lead plaintiff. 1. The Court certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only: "all individuals whom Defendant Rohr, Inc. employed in California as hourly paid, non-exempt union employees at any time during the Settlement Period." 2. The Court finds that the Gross Settlement Amount of $19,900,000.00, the Net Settlement Amount, and the methodology used to calculate and pay the Individual Class Payments are fair and reasonable and authorizes the Settlement Administrator to make these payments in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. 3. The Court finds that the FLSA Amount of $100,000.00 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and that a bona fide dispute exists regarding the existence and extent of the Defendants' liability under the FLSA. The Court directs the Settlement Administrator to pay the Individual Collective Payments to the Participating Collective Members in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. 4. The Court finds that the PAGA Settlement in the amount of $500,000.00 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and consistent with PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, to deter future violations, and to benefit the public through enforcement of state labor laws. The Court directs the Settlement Administrator to pay $375,000.00 (75%) of the PAGA Settlement to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency for penalties under PAGA and to distribute the remaining $125,00.00 (25%) to the members of the Settlement Class as Individual PAGA Payments in accordance with terms of the Settlement. 5. The Court finds that the payment of the employer's payroll taxes would create a de minimis difference in the Net Settlement Amount and, thus, deducting the payroll taxes from the GSA is reasonable. The Court decides that Rohr's share of payroll taxes should be paid from the GSA in the estimated amount of $130,412.59. 6. The amount of attorneys' fees awarded, $5,970,000, which is 30% of the non reversionary Gross Settlement Amount, is reasonable as a percentage of the common fund. 7. Matern Law Group, PC is also awarded litigation costs in the amount of $349,360.88 to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. 8. The Court awards Plaintiffs Class Representative Service Payments in the amount of $20,000.00 each, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. Rohr is an aerospace manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XjkaEn at no extra charge.[CC] RUGSUSA LLC: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Sandra Ford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rugsusa, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11269 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.rugsusa.com (hereinafter "Rugsusa.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Interiorhomescapes.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Rugsusa provides to the public a website known as Rugsusa.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of rugs including area rugs, washable, outdoor, custom-sized, runners, round, and accent styles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SALESFORCE INC: Acosta Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------- Katherine Acosta, Edward Duarte, and Jamie Knighton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALESFORCE, INC., ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS NEW WORLD INSURANCE CO., TRANSUNION LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-07888 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought seeking to remedy harms on individuals whose Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") was accessed during the Data Breach. This is a "hub-and-spoke" data breach case. The "hub" in this case is Salesforce, which is a company that specializes in cloud-storage technologies to warehouse and secure sensitive data, as well as other software products. Salesforce sells its software services to numerous companies, or "spokes," who store information using Salesforce's cloud-based software. These spokes include Farmers, Allianz, TransUnion and numerous other entities, the names of which are not yet known but are included as Doe Defendants 1-100. All allegations regarding Defendants generally include and apply to each and every one of the "spoke" Doe Defendants. Despite knowing how valuable customer information is, Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"). This PII was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach, including Plaintiffs and class members, will remain for their respective lifetimes. As a result of the Data Breach, through which their PII was compromised, disclosed, and obtained by unauthorized third parties, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of years, if not decades. Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, at their own expense. Consequently, Plaintiffs and the other Class Members will incur ongoing out-of-pocket costs (e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been a customers of the Defendants. Salesforce is a cloud-based software company providing its services to various corporate clients throughout the country in sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Rd #200, Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.697.6000 SALESFORCE INC: King Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC. and TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07507 (N.D. Cal., September 4, 2025) arises out of Defendants' failure to adequately secure and safeguard his and millions of other individuals' personally identifying information including names, Social Security Numbers, and dates of birth. On August 26, 2025, Defendant TransUnion, one of Salesforce's clients, notified Plaintiff and other affected individuals about a data breach involving a third party application serving its U.S. consumer support operations. The data breach affected 4,461,511 customers. However, TransUnion fails to disclose in its data breach notice when the data breach occurred. Despite knowing that the data breach occurred, and many of its other spokes have faced data breaches involving Salesforce's cloud-based services, the Defendant Salesforce has not publicly disclosed any information regarding its role in these data breaches, exacerbating the damages and risks to Class Members, and in violation of various state data breach notification statutes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied of contract, and for injunctive/declaratory relief. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Salesforce is a cloud-based software company providing its services to various corporate clients throughout the country in sales, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law SANTA MONICA, CA: Filing for Revised Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA, et al., v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order discharging order to show cause and setting deadline for the Plaintiffs' revised motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class settlement. On Aug. 18, 2025, the court order Plaintiffs Reyes Contreras Murcia and Sherman A. Perryman to show cause in writing why the court should not dismiss this action for lack of prosecution ("OSC'). The Plaintiffs filed a timely response on Sept. 2, 2025. The court, having considered the Plaintiffs' response, discharges the OSC. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their revised motion for class certification and preliminary approval of proposed class settlement is set to Oct. 24, 2025. Santa Monica is a city situated along Santa Monica Bay on California's South Coast. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSy2o1 at no extra charge.[CC] SATYA JEWELRY: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Satya Jewelry II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10769 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Headquartered in New York, NY, Satya Jewelry II, LLC owns and operates the website, Satyajewelry.com, which offers jewelry and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SAVARA INC: Faces Ho Suit Over Alleged Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------- RONDOLPH HO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAVARA INC., MATTHEW PAULS, and DAVID LOWRANCE, Defendants, 2:25-cv-05147 (E.D. Pa., September 8, 2025) seeks 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 the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Savara securities between March 7, 2024 and May 23, 2025, both dates inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the MOLBREEVI BLA lacked sufficient information regarding MOLBREEVI's chemistry, manufacturing, and/or controls; (ii) accordingly, the Food and Drug Administration was unlikely to approve the MOLBREEVI BLA in its current form; (iii) the foregoing made it unlikely that Savara would complete its submission of the MOLBREEVI BLA within the timeframe it had represented to investors; and (iv) the delay in MOLBREEVI's regulatory approval increased the likelihood that the Company would need to raise additional capital. Headquartered Langhorne, PA, Savara is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on rare respiratory diseases. The Company's common stock trades in an efficient market on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "SVRA." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C. Finestone, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com SCIPLAY CORP: Agree to $5MM Online Casino Game Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Individuals who spent money to play Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, Quick Hit Slots, 88 Fortunes, Monopoly Slots or Bingo Showdown while located in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey or Massachusetts, may be eligible to receive up to 25% of their total app spend from a class action settlement. SciPlay Corp. and SciPlay Games LLC have agreed to pay to settle a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that SciPlay violated state gambling laws by selling virtual chips in several of its social casino-style games. The settlement includes virtual currency and up to $5,000,000 in cash payments. Who is eligible for a casino app settlement payout? Class members are individuals who spent money to play any of the listed games during specific time periods while located in one of the qualifying states. Qualifying games: -- Jackpot Party Casino -- Gold Fish Casino -- Hot Shot Casino -- Quick Hit Slots -- 88 Fortunes -- Monopoly Slots -- Bingo Showdown Qualifying states and class periods: -- Alabama: Any of the games from Aug. 25, 2022, through Aug. 5, 2025 -- Ohio: Any of the games from Dec. 16, 2021, through Aug. 5, 2025 -- New Jersey: Any of the games from Dec. 19, 2021, through Aug. 5, 2025 -- Massachusetts: Any of the games from July 25, 2022, through Aug. 5, 2025 -- Tennessee: Any of the games from Nov. 13, 2022, through Aug. 5, 2025 -- Kentucky: --Jackpot Party Casino: Dec. 2, 2019, through July 29, 2023 --Gold Fish Casino: Dec. 3, 2019, through June 29, 2023 --Hot Shot Casino: May 12, 2020, through June 29, 2023 --Quick Hit Slots: Jan. 22, 2020, through June 29, 2023 --88 Fortunes Slots: Dec. 3, 2019, through June 29, 2023 --Monopoly Slots: Dec. 3, 2019, through June 29, 2023 --Bingo Showdown: Aug. 22, 2019, through June 29, 2023 How much is the class action payment? Each class member will receive 25% of the total amount they spent on the eligible games during the qualifying periods, minus deductions for platform fees, administrative expenses, attorneys' fees and incentive payments to class representatives. -- Virtual currency benefit: Class members who do not submit an election form will receive a virtual currently benefit for the game or games played. --Virtual in-app currency will be issued in installments over two or five years. --Class members owed less than $500 in virtual currency will receive installments over two years from the settlement final approval date. --Class members owed more than $500 in virtual currency will receive installments over five years from the settlement final approval date. -- Cash payment: Class members who submit an election form will receive a cash payment instead of virtual game currency. --If the total of cash election forms exceeds the settlement fund amount, the remaining amount will be issued as virtual game currency to each class member. How to claim a class action rebate Class members that want to receive virtual currency in the apps they played do not need to submit a claim. To receive a cash payment, an election form must be submitted by Nov. 4, 2025. Class members submit the online election form or print and mail the PDF election form to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: SciPlay Settlement Administrator, PO Box 1548, Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Class members can also update their contact information or their payment election using the update my contact/payment information online form on the settlement website. Required claim information -- Class members submitting an election form online must provide the Settlement Claim ID from their official settlement notice or all Player IDs for each eligible game, and all email addresses associated with the games and platforms used for purchases -- Class members mailing an election form to the settlement administrator must include all Player IDs for each eligible game, and all email addresses associated with the games and platforms used for purchases -- Claim ID from settlement notice required to submit the online update my contact/payment information form. Class members can find information on how to locate Player IDs under Find My Game ID on the settlement website. Payout options Class members who submit an election form can select one of the following: -- Paper check mailed to the address provided -- Zelle -- PayPal -- Venmo Casino app class action settlement fund The settlement fund will include -- Settlement administration costs: At least $200,000, remaining costs to be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Not to exceed $9,000,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be presented to the court at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $15,000 each -- Payments to class members: Up to $5,000,000 and virtual currency in the qualifying apps Important dates -- Election form deadline: Nov. 4, 2025 -- Exclusion/opt-out deadline: Nov. 4, 2025 -- Fairness hearing: Nov. 26, 2025 When is the SciPlay casino game in-app purchases settlement payout date? Cash payments to eligible class members will be issued approximately 90 days after the settlement is granted final approval. Virtual in-app currency will be issued to class members in installments over two years or five years, depending on the amount owed. The first distribution of virtual currency to class members will take place within 90 days of the final approval date. Why was there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged that SciPlay violated gambling laws in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts by selling virtual chips in its casino-style games. SciPlay denied all claims and any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense of continued litigation and the risk of a possible trial. [GN] SEAN DUFFY: Court Dismisses Thomas Suit --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRETCHEN THOMAS, et al., v. SEAN DUFFY, Acting NASA Administrator, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01634-RDM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Randolph Moss entered an order as follows: -- granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss; -- denying as futile the Plaintiffs' motion to amend; and -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time and motion to certify a class. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eRFyuu at no extra charge.[CC] SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Bid to Dismiss State Law Claims Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- 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 the Defendants request to dismiss the state law claims on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court does not consider any arguments regarding whether Plaintiffs have alleged plausible claims because the time for Rule 12(b)(6) motions has long since passed. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sellan is the on-site steel erection component of Sellan.[CC] SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Seeks to Stay Response to Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONEJO et al., v. SELLAN STRUCTURAL ERECTORS, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02930-SKC-STV (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay response to the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion and allow them 14 days after the Court rules on the motion to dismiss to respond to the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Motion. Alternatively, if the Court denies the Motion, the Defendants request that the Court allow the Defendants seven days to file their response to the Rule 23 motion. On Aug. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Rule 23 motion. On Sept. 8, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class action. Sellan is a steel erection service that is part of Sellan, LLC. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R6HWOM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Penn A. Dodson, Esq. ANDERSON DODSON, P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 961-7639 E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com The Defendants are represented by: Stacey A. Campbell, Esq. Brett A. Whitley, Esq. Bayan Biazar, Esq. CAMPBELL LITIGATION, P.C. 1410 N. High Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 536-1833 E-mail: stacey@campbell-litigation.com brett@campbell-litigation.com bayan@campbell-litigation.com SEMTECH CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Semtech Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that it is facing a consolidated complaint asserts Exchange Act violations related to the Company's disclosure surrounding its "CopperEdgeTM" products. Lead plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. The company, Hou and Lin filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on August 11, 2025. On February 20, 2025, February 25, 2025 and March 7, 2025, three Company stockholders filed separate, but substantively identical, putative class action complaints against the Company and certain of its current officers, Hong Q. Hou and Mark Lin, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired company securities between August 27, 2024 and February 7, 2025. On June 9, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the three actions, appointing Luis Collazos as Lead Plaintiff, and Block & Leviton, LLP as Lead Counsel. On July 14, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the company, Hou and Lin, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired company securities between October 10, 2024 and February 7, 2025. Semtech Corporation is a provider of high-performance semiconductor, Internet of Things systems and cloud connectivity service solutions. SGL CARBON FIBERS: Ramirez Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Misael Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SGL CARBON FIBERS AMERICA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-00837-13 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Grant, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on Sept. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00360-SAB. The Plaintiff purports to allege, on behalf of himself individually, and on behalf of a putative class of individuals, that Defendant committed unlawful compensation practices in violation of Washington State law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James M. Shore, Esq. Karin D. Jones, Esq. Aaron R. Doyer, Esq. Emily L. Seibold, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.624.0900 Facsimile: 206.386.7500 Email: jim.shore@stoel.com karin.jones@stoel.com aaron.doyer@stoel.com emily.seibold@stoel.com SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Class Cert Reply Extended to Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of time to file briefing on class certification and motions to exclude: Case Event Amended Deadline The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Oct. 17, 2025 for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: The Defendant's reply in support of motions Nov. 21, 2025 to exclude: A hearing on Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification shall be set by the Court following the close of the Parties' briefing should the Court determine to hold a hearing pursuant to LCR 7(b)(2)(4). A schedule addressing any remaining deadlines for the close of merits fact discovery, dispositive motions, pretrial conference, and any trial shall be set by the Court, if needed, following the Court's decision on class certification. Shade offers a selection of window treatments, shades, blinds, curtains, and drapes. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eKFHK4 at no extra charge.[CC] SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Class Suit Over Copyrighted Designs ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Chinese e-commerce heavyweight Shein uses artificial intelligence to find copyrighted designs, art pieces and other works online and then sells the protected works without credit or compensation to the original artists. According to the 42-page Shein lawsuit, the global fashion and lifestyle company uses proprietary online surveillance technologies -- including data mining and AI programs, various algorithms and other automated methods -- to track consumer trends in real time, especially on social media, and identify existing products, designs or other works that it thinks will be commercially successful for Shein. This digital surveillance system, the suit says, once focused solely on tracking popular online trends so that Shein could produce products based on those trends. However, the complaint claims that the company has progressed to tracking users' behavior on its own web pages and elsewhere on the internet, vacuuming up popular, copyrighted works in the process. "[. . .] Shein's core business model is based on the systemic theft of intellectual property," the class action lawsuit charges. In its own privacy policy, the filing says, Shein admits that it tracks users' personally identifying information, such as device and IP details, names, phone numbers, email addresses, network and browser activity, browsing data and payment information. The lawsuit alleges that Shein uses the data it collects from consumers to identify the products that users view on other platforms so that it can then manufacture and offer counterfeits on its website and app. "[U]nlike apparel companies and brands that let fashion trends inspire their own designs," the lawsuit says, "Shein's systems duplicate the work of other designers, stealing those designs for Shein's use and benefit." Shein's business model relies on copyright infringement, lawsuit alleges Per the lawsuit, Shein uses copyrighted works scraped from the internet by its AI and data tracking programs to produce and offer thousands of "new" products on a daily basis without ever obtaining proper licensing to do so or offering compensation -- or even credit -- to original creators and copyright owners. The filing relays that Shein has a long history of copyright infringement and related lawsuits from both independent designers and major fashion retailers, such as Oakley and Ralph Lauren. According to the complaint, the defendant's apparent practice of copyright infringement is such that Shein "treats the costs of litigating and settling copyright infringement claims as a necessary business expense, which it builds into its financial models." Per the lawsuit, small or independent designers, businesses and artists are most vulnerable to Shein's alleged intellectual property theft and copyright infringement, given that they are often the ones creating the pieces that define or are on the cutting edge of the trends Shein's algorithms determine will be profitable. Additionally, per the lawsuit, independent designers often do not have the means to comb through the entire internet, or even just Shein's massive catalogue, for instances of infringement. Even in cases where artists do discover Shein's alleged infringement, the filing claims, it is often difficult or impossible for them to front the costs of individual litigation. As such, they are frequently unable to combat Shein's allegedly illegal use of their work, the suit says. Further, the case contends that Shein's alleged copyright infringement also diminishes the value of the original works and makes it more difficult for artists to profit, both in their own independent sales and in the potential to sell a genuine license to use that art to other buyers or retailers, from what is rightfully theirs. The Shein class action lawsuit alleges that not only is the multi-billion-dollar fast-fashion giant aware that its products are created from theft or copyright infringement, and that its catalogue contains a vast amount of counterfeit items, but that it knows exactly which products, designs and other works it has copied or otherwise stolen because its business relies on the careful identification and categorization of such works. "Accordingly, Shein has experienced massive growth in annual revenue, from about $3 billion in 2019, to nearly $10 billion in 2020 (as the global pandemic set in), to more than $30 billion in 2023," the complaint states. Case claims Shein intentionally attempts to skirt liability The lawsuit alleges that Shein and its parents and subsidiaries, in spite of the allegedly systematic, willful and serial nature of its supposed copyright infringement, have regularly attempted to avoid any legal consequences or accountability. According to the complaint, Shein has previously attempted to blame its suppliers for its pervasive copyright infringement, claiming that, "[suppliers must] certify their products do not infringe third-party IP." However, the filing alleges that Shein gives its suppliers the designs it wants them to manufacture based on data from its surveillance and scraping programs, and the manufacturers do not independently choose the products they create for Shein. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that, in order to operate at the pace and level of success it has enjoyed, Shein must have some form of electronic record or database of stolen or infringed works, including the original sources, the time at which Shein sent the work to its suppliers for manufacturing, how much Shein paid for the manufacture of the item and each instance of the sale of an infringed, counterfeit or otherwise illegally produced work, including customer and order data. Shein also attempts to evade legal accountability, the class action contends, by operating through a complicated corporate network the suit describes as "designed to obfuscate responsibility for intellectual property theft and avoid liability." Per the complaint, the name "Shein" refers to a large, international conglomerate, whose entities each play a very specific role in the Shein business, structured in such a way that victims of the defendant's copyright infringement and IP theft are impeded or prevented from identifying exactly which entity in the chain can be held responsible for the theft or infringement. Who can join the Shein lawsuit? The Shein class action lawsuit seeks to represent any individuals or entities who owned a U.S. copyright that was used in a Shein product or products within the applicable statute of limitations period. How can I sign up for the Shein lawsuit? Generally, you don't need to do anything to sign up for or join a class action lawsuit when it is first filed. In the event of a class action settlement, the settlement class -- meaning the people covered by the deal -- will likely receive notice from the court by mail and/or email, along with instructions on the next steps and information about their legal rights. It is important to remember that many class action lawsuits can take months or years to resolve. If you think your work has been stolen or infringed upon by Shein, or you just want to stay in the loop with similar class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] SHIMS BARGAIN INC: Villalobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shims Bargain, Inc. The case is styled as Israel Villalobos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shims Bargain, Inc. dba JC Sales, Case No. 25STCV27458 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Shims Bargain, Inc. doing business as JC Sales -- https://www.jcsalesweb.com/ -- is the leading full-service wholesaler in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rachmann, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Email: mike@frontierlawcenter.com SIGNATURE PAYMENTS: Anaru Endeavors Sues Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anaru Endeavors, Inc., a California corporation; Pabby Co Inc., a California corporation; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SIGNATURE PAYMENTS, LLC, a California corporation; MERRICK BANK CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:25-cv-08861 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought asserts claims for breach of contract against the Defendants, who offer payment processing services to businesses to enable them to accept debit and credit card payments from their customers. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a Class of businesses that applied to and contracted with Defendants for payment processing services. This case arises out of Defendants' serial breaches of contract in connection with Defendants' withholding of substantial "reserve funds" following conclusion of the processing relationship with Plaintiffs and subsequent withholding of the subject amounts notwithstanding the fact that all available risk periods under the operative agreements and the incorporated Card Brand Rules had lapsed and the release of the held funds to the Plaintiffs and the other Class members was warranted. By this action, and on behalf of the other Class members, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages from Defendants based on Defendants' serial breaches of contract, along with injunctive relief barring Defendants from continuing to engage in these practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs applied through a SIGNATURE sales agent for a merchant account with SIGNATURE and MERRICK SIGNATURE PAYMENTS, LLC is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Thousand Oaks, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Rome, Esq. Bradley O. Cebeci, Esq. ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 282-0690 Facsimile: (310) 282-0691 Email: erome@romellp.com bcebeci@romellp.com SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas v. Silvergate Capital Corporation et al. (RE SILVERGATE CAPITAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00043-JES-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Simmons, Jr. entered an order as follows: 1. The Court certifies for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "(a) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Silvergate Capital from Nov. 7, 2019 through March 21, 2023, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, and (b) all persons and entities who purchased Silvergate Capital securities in and/or traceable to any of Silvergate Capital's securities offerings during 2021, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) Defendants; (b) directors and officers of Defendants (at all relevant times); (c) Defendants' Immediate Family Members and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (d) any entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; provided, however, that no Investment Vehicle shall be excluded from the Settlement Class. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are the persons listed on Exhibit 1 hereto, who have excluded themselves by submitting a timely, complete, and valid request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court. 2. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and appoints Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Silvergate is a provider of various financial infrastructure solutions and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tKfyS5 at no extra charge.[CC] SINA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 (defined below), 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. [GN] SKYFI CAPITAL: General Pretrial Management Entered in Kweswani -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as POONAM KESWANI, v. SKYFI CAPITAL PARTNERS INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-07108-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: The complaint was filed on August 27, 2025. Summonses were issued as to each defendant that same day. Plaintiff is reminded that she must serve the summons and complaint on each defendant no later than November 25, 2025. The Plaintiff is reminded that she 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, plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the court of each change in her address or electronic contact information. The Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Skyfi provides business loans, equipment leasing, invoice factoring, funding, credit, and asset-based lending services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5NZ5i5 at no extra charge.[CC] SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ordono Extended to Nov. 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order approving the Parties' joint stipulation as follow: The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is now Nov. 14, 2025. The Defendant's deadline to oppose is Dec. 12, 2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to the Defendant's opposition is now Jan. 7, 2026. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until Feb. 19, 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 provides management consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HmmYXO 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 SMILE DENTAL: Faces Felix Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA FELIX, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. SMILE DENTAL GROUP INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08571 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to the Plaintiff and the Class members. . The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of 6 themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "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 21 period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m.[BN] The Defendant provides dental care The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. . THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 19 1515 NE 26th Street 20 Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid for Pre-Motion Conference Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-09748-GHW-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered an order granting the Plaintiff's request for a pre-motion conference. The Court will hold a teleconference regarding the Plaintiff's proposed motion for class certification on Sept. 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The parties are directed to the Court's individual rules of practice in civil cases, which are available on the court's website. Rule 2 of the Court's individual rules contains the dial-in number for the conference and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(C) of the Court's individual rules. The counsel for the lead and named plaintiffs in this action ("Plaintiffs") and submit the pre-motion letter regarding Plaintiffs' proposed motion for class certification pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules of Practice and May 21, 2025, Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order Plaintiffs' 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." Solaredge develops and scales renewable energy technologies. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7UktED 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 SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLNO) resulting from allegations that Soleno Therapeutics may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Soleno Therapeutics securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43959 https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=41168or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On August 15, 2025, Investing.com published a story entitled "Soleno Therapeutics stock falls after Scorpion Capital short report." The article stated that Soleno Therapeutics stock had fallen "following a short report from Scorpion Capital that raised serious concerns about the company's recently approved Prader-Willi syndrome treatment, VYKAT XR." It further stated that the Scorpion Capital report "highlighted personal safety issues," and that it "suggested the drug may be at risk of being withdrawn from the market or facing a significant decline in new prescriptions." On this news, Soleno Therapeutics' stock fell 7.4% on August 15, 2025. It fell a further 4.9% on the next trading day. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time 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 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: 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 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Seeks Denial of Klassen Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a/ UNDERGROUND ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing class treatment is appropriate. As a threshold matter, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification fails to ascertain valid members of the proposed classes. The Motion also fails to establish the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, presenting individualized issues that predominate the analysis, including the Plaintiff's own unique claim that does not align with class members' interests. The Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of presenting a sufficient record on either proposed class. Denial, not modification, is the appropriate result. SolidQuote is an insurance technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GG0dPz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7030 E-mail: paul.rosenthal@faegredrinker.com SONDER HOLDINGS: Duffaydar Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonder Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2023, that on April 11, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit titled "Duffaydar v. Sonder Holdings Inc., et al.," Case No. 24-cv-2952 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California naming the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. A lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed on December 23, 2024. The amended complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between March 16, 2023 and March 15, 2024, and alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's financial results and condition, including the company's valuation of operating lease right of use assets, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 21, 2025 and the Central District Court took the defendant's motion to dismiss under submission. Sonder Holdings Inc., provides short and long-term accommodations to travelers in various cities across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. It also operates boutique hotels. SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ALEXANDER, v. SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LIFE INS. CO., Case No. 3:24-cv-00393-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin Lindsay entered an order that 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 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=HFxXW4 at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN GRAPHICS: Davis Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHANE DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN GRAPHICS, INC. d/b/a SGS & CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00563-CHB (W.D. Ky., September 4, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Southern Graphics, Inc. The case arises from Defendant's failure to safeguard certain personally identifying information and protected health information of thousands of its current and former employees. The Defendant's network systems were being unauthorizedly accessed on or around November 18, 2024. However, on or around September 3, 2025 -- more than nine months after the data beach first occurred -- Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the data breach. Moreover, the Defendant failed to timely and accurately disclose to Plaintiff and Class members the scope, nature, and occurrence of the data breach, says the suit. Headquartered in Louisville, KY, Southern Graphics, Inc., operates as a brand consulting agency that provides services in brand strategy, marketing, AI automation solutions, and audience analytics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone :(615) 254-8801 E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SPARK NETWORKS: Byars Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- ARISHA BYARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPARK NETWORKS USA, LLC d/b/a WWW.ELITESINGLES.COM, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02372 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Law, and California Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in privacy “bait and switch” scheme. The Defendant lures visitors to its website at elitesingles.com by assuring consumers that the Defendant value privacy and trust. In reality, the Defendant secretly allows a notorious data broker to intercept communications from visitors, and use those communications to compile and sell deeply personal details about visitors to the highest bidders. The predictable result is a grave intrusion upon visitor privacy, says the suit. Spark Networks USA, LLC owns and operates several premium online dating websites and mobile applications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYZHIMA BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01087-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip Brimmer entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations and deny class certification. Therefore, SLS has not shown that the plaintiff's allegations in support of the class definitions are so overbroad that it would be impossible for plaintiff to certify the class. Accordingly, the Court will deny SLS's motion to strike the plaintiff's class action allegations that seek certification of the Nationwide Class and Arizona Class under Rule 23(b)(3). Because the plaintiff does not seek relief that can support a Rule 23(b)(2) class, the Court finds that it is impossible to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Plaintiff brings claims under (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), (2) the Arizona Wage Act (the "AWA"), on behalf of the Arizona Class 2; (3) state common law breach of contract regarding the Nationwide Class; and (4) common law unjust enrichment, pled in the alternative as to claim three, on behalf of the Nationwide Class. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and behalf of the "FLSA Collective Class," comprised of: "All current and former hourly call center agents who worked for the Defendant at any time during the past three years." The Plaintiff also purports to represent: "All current and former hourly call center agents who worked for the Defendant at any time in the State of Arizona during the applicable statutory period," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) (the "Rule 23 Arizona Class"). In addition, she purports to represent a "Rule 23 Nationwide Class" comprised of: "All current and former hourly call center agents who worked for the Defendant at any time during the applicable statutory period." The Plaintiff defines the Nationwide Class as follows: "All current and former hourly call center agents who worked for the Defendant at any time ruing the applicable statutory period." The Plaintiff defines the Arizona Class as: "All current and former hourly call center agents who worked for the Defendant at any time in the State of Arizona during the applicable time period." The Defendant operates as a financial company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ce2HFW at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALTYCARE INC: Fuchs Allowed to Seal Certain Documents ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN FUCHS et al., v. SPECIALTYCARE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00892 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motions to seal: -- It is denied as to PX14, denied without prejudice as to PX17 and PX19, and granted as to the remaining documents. Furthermore, SpecialtyCare's motion is granted in part and denied in part. -- It is denied as to DX15, denied without prejudice as to DX7, DX8, DX11, DX12, DX12-A, DX12-B, and DX12-C, and granted as to the remaining documents. The Parties seek to seal certain documents that contain "sensitive personal information, such as dates of birth, medical conditions, and addresses" as well as "personal and/or health-related information about current and former SpecialtyCare employees." SpecialtyCare provides health care clinical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dP4yg7 at no extra charge.[CC] STAN'S DONUTS: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAN'S DONUTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11000 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.stansdonuts.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Stan's Donuts, LLC owns and operates as a donut and coffee shop. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718)-554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Hamm Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephens Institute, et al. The case is styled as Shareez Hamm, Robert Grasso, on behalf of themself and other individuals similarly situated v. Stephens Institute d/b/a Academy of Arts University, Does 1 Through 50, Case No. CGC25629261 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract/Warranty." Stephens Institute doing business as Academy of Arts University -- https://www.academyart.edu/ -- is a private for-profit art school in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW PC 1 Old Country Rd., Ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514-1851 Phone: 516-873-9550 Fax: 516-747-5024 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Beets Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARRIE BEETS, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00335-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order on motion to compel arbitration as follows -- The case is dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff Beets intends to file an amended complaint, she must do so no later than October 8, 2025. -- The Plaintiff Beets's motion to compel arbitration is denied as moot. In short, because there is no diversity jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action and deny Plaintiff Beets's motion as moot. The case concerns the arbitration of dispute between Plaintiff, a wireless customer, and Defendant T-Mobile USA, a wireless provider, over allegedly "hidden fees" in Plaintiff's monthly bills. T-Mobile is an American wireless network operator. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iwmzD6 at no extra charge.[CC] TACKLE EXPRESS: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACKLE EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10992 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://tackleexpress.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Tackle Express, Inc. is an online tackle store that caters to both freshwater and saltwater anglers. They have a store that sells outdoor gear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law TARGET CORPORATION: Navarro Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Viridiana Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-24192-1 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. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01773. The Plaintiff purports to bring this action as a putative class action. The Plaintiff seeks to represent "all current and former employees of Target Corporation who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from August 21, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class." The Plaintiff asserts a claim against Target on behalf of herself and the putative class for alleged violation of Washington's noncompetition law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. Paige V. Gagliardi, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com paige@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily A. Bushaw, Esq. Heather L. Shook, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3804 Phone: +1.206.359.8000 Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000 Email: EBushaw@perkinscoie.com HShook@perkinscoie.com TAX LIEN CODE: Vranas Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tax Lien Code LLC. The case is styled as Argiro Vranas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tax Lien Code LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11247 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Tax Lien Code -- https://taxliencode.com/ -- offers services for tax lien and real estate investing education and investments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Telix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (NASDAQ:TLX) resulting from allegations that Telix may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Telix securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43778 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 22, 2025, Telix disclosed receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which was "seeking various documents and information primarily relating to the Company's disclosures regarding the development of the Company's prostate cancer therapeutic candidates." On this news, Telix's American Depositary Receipt ("ADR") price fell $1.70 per ADR, or 10.44%, to close at $14.58 per ADR on July 23, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time 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 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: 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 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TENAGLIA & HUNT: Garo Seeks Response to First Doc Demands --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rosa Garo v. Tenaglia & Hunt P.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-09812-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order granting the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling the Defendant to respond to its First Document Demands 8-11 and its Second Document Demands 2, 6, and 7, by a date certain. These requests relate to elements of the claims that plaintiff is bringing because each is suggestive of the process used by defendant to screen claims and whether that process complies with the FCPA and whether there's deceit under NY Judiciary Law Section 487. The number of lawsuits filed, the number in which there's a release of claims, and the number of attorneys screening documents are directly relevant to that. Contrary to defendant's characterization, Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson LLP, doesn't relate only to class certification but instead to proving a claim more generally. Tenaglia is a regional law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KKF2kx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary McCune, Esq. MANHATTAN LEGAL SERVICES 2090 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Blvd, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10027 Telephone: (646) 442-3143 Facsimile: (646) 442-3143 E-mail: mmccune@lsnyc.org TORRANCE HEALTH: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torrance Health Association, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rocio Reyes Vasquez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Torrance Health Association, Inc., Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Case No. 25STCV26913 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Torrance Memorial Medical Center -- https://www.torrancememorial.org/ -- provides top-quality healthcare to all who live, work & play in the South Bay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: Jason@tomorrowlaw.com TRANS UNION LLC: Sakowski FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lance Sakowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Newrez LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Lexisnexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2025CH08349 was removed from the Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11283 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Scott J. Helfand, Esq. Michael James Hopkins, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 378-5794 Fax: (202) 378-2319 Email: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com michael.hopkins@huschblackwell.com TRANS UNION: Bid to File Certain Exhibit Under Seal OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, et al., v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell Goldberg entered an order granting the uncontested motion to seal. The Plaintiffs' Unredacted Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of E. Michelle Drake in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed and/or placed under seal. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WI2EX at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Court OK's Bid to Seal Exhibits -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, et al., v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order granting the uncontested motion to seal: -- The Plaintiffs' Unredacted Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Exhibits 1-13, 15-24, 27, and 28 to the Declaration of E. Michelle Drake shall be filed and/or placed under seal. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nQdGuS at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSUNION LLC: Clayton Sues Over Failure to Secure Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Clayton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11140 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 15, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant or their third-party vendors with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in August 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to securely transfer that information. On August 26, 2025, nearly a month after being made aware of the Data Breach, Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a global credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. Andrew Snyder, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com asnyder@justice4you.com - and - 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 TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Crystal Sevigny filed a TransUnion class action lawsuit against TransUnion LLC. Why: Sevigny alleges TransUnion failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and financial information of more than 4.4 million individuals. Where: The TransUnion data breach class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses TransUnion of failing to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and financial information of more than 4 million individuals in a data breach. Plaintiff Crystal Sevigny filed the class action lawsuit against TransUnion LLC on Sept. 8 in Illinois federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the breach was discovered July 28, 2025, and involved unauthorized third-party cybercriminals accessing and potentially misusing the personal data of TransUnion’s customers. The TransUnion data breach allegedly exposed sensitive information, including names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers, of more than 4.4 million people. Sevigny, a Colorado resident, alleges that she was a victim of identity theft as a result of the breach. She claims her credit report now reflects fraudulent debts totaling more than $30,000, and multiple unauthorized credit inquiries have been made into her credit file. Security measures inadequate, TransUnion class action lawsuit claims TransUnion sent out a notice of the breach on Aug. 27, 2025, but Sevigny argues that the credit reporting agency failed to take adequate measures to protect the compromised data, despite being aware of the risks involved in storing sensitive personal and financial information. The class action lawsuit alleges that TransUnion neglected to take reasonable measures to ensure the security of its data, including failing to encrypt data and failing to follow required protocols and procedures. As a result, Sevigny argues that the TransUnion data breach has left her and other class members vulnerable to future identity theft and fraud. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States whose personal and financial information was exposed in the TransUnion data breach. Sevigny is seeking damages and injunctive relief, including measures to ensure that TransUnion improves its data security practices. If your credit was damaged by fraud or identity theft, or you have errors on your credit report from within the last two years, see if you qualify for a free claim review. Sevigny is represented by Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC. The TransUnion data breach class action lawsuit is Crystal Sevigny v. TransUnion LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10759, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Todd Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY TODD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10686 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2025) is a class action against TransUnion for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and private information ("Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and at least 4.4 million other Class Members' PII stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, Social Security numbers and other information constituting "personally identifiable information" or "PII." The Defendant discovered the breach as early as July 28, 2025 but did not announce the Data Breach until on or about August 26, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. As a result of TransUnion's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiff' and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII have been exposed to unauthorized third parties. Plaintiff and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the fact that the compromised PII is likely already being sold on the dark web, says the suit. TransUnion LLC is set up as a dual issuer. The Company was formed in order to issue notes to finance future working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, and other general business purposes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Samuel Geisler, Esq. Bryan Aylstock, Esq. Maury Goldstein, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Email: sgeisler@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com mgoldstein@awkolaw.com TRANSUNION LLC: Kempf Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL KEMPF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10599 (N.D. Ill., September 4, 2025) asserts claims arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff now brings this class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information who were impacted by a data breach Defendant experienced on or around July 28, 2025. The Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Transunion, LLC operates as a credit reporting agency, which provides credit reporting, credit scoring, fraud prevention, identity protection, and related data analytics services to millions of consumers and businesses worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Facundo M. Scialpi, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com fscialpi@rgrdlaw.com - and - James E. Barz, Esq. Frank A. Richter, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 S. Wacker Drive, 31st Floor. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (630) 696-4107 E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com frichter@rgrdlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com TRANSUNION LLC: Lovell Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESCILA LOVELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10817 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2025) arises from Defendant's inadequate data security practices and breach of its duties and obligations. The Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the highly valuable, personally identifiable information of millions of US consumers, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers, home addresses, and other personal information. As result, the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized criminal third party. In addition, the Defendant failed to immediately notify those affected by the breach. Despite being informed of the cyberattack on July 30, 2025, the Defendant kept silent and chose not to notify the affected consumers until almost a month later on August 26, 2025, when Defendant finally began notifying consumers, including Plaintiff, of the Data Breach by mail. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, TransUnion LLC is a credit bureau in the United States, providing credit and public record data to businesses and consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 875 North Michigan Avenue, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 267-0061 E-mail: bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Yana Hart, Esq., Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Class Settlement in Edge Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EDGE, MICHAEL J. DENNEHY and RALPH ESTEP, v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION, MIGUEL FERNANDEZ and CASSANDRA HARRIS, Case No. 6:22-cv-01518-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's renewed unopposed motion for preliminary approval of Class Action Settlement is granted. 2. The Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Amended Settlement, the following class: "all Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tupperware Securities between May 5, 2021 and May 4, 2022 inclusive and were injured thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) the Settling Defendants; (b) members of the immediate families of the Settling Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and affiliates of the Settling Defendants; (d) any person who is an officer, director or controlling person of Tupperware; (e) any entity in which any Settling Defendant has a controlling interest; (f) the Settling Defendants' directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; and (g) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party. Also excluded from the Settlement Class will be any person or entity who or which timely and validly seeks exclusion from the Settlement Class. 3. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Michael J. Dennehy, Ralph Estep, and Michael Edge as the class representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court further APPOINTS Lead Counsel, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. A hearing regarding final approval of the Amended Settlement will be held on Dec. 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Tupperware is an American multinational company that produces home product lines. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FeLtKt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael J. Wernke, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, NY 10016 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mjwernke@pomlaw.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: James W. Ducayet, Esq. Jennifer M. Wheeler, Esq. Abigail Bachrach, Esq. Ian M. Ross, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: jducayet@sidley.com jwheeler@sidley.com abachrach@sidley.com iross@sidley.com TWIN CITIES PAIN: Burns Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin Cities Pain Clinic. The case is styled as Lawrence Burns, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Twin Cities Pain Clinic, Case No. 27-CV-25-16890 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Sept. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Twin Cities Pain Clinic -- https://twincitiespainclinic.com/ -- is Minnesota's local pain management expert.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com TWIN CITIES PAIN: Gore Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------- Mark Gore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TWIN CITIES PAIN CLINIC, Case No. 27-CV-25-17113 (Minn. 1st Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in September 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). In response to the Data Breach, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and the scope of the incident. Defendant's investigation concluded on August 18, 2025. According to the letter Plaintiff received regarding the Data Breach (the "Notice Letter" or "Notice"), the following types of personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI", and collectively "Private Information") were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: full names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, contact information such as mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers; financial account information, health insurance information, and health information such as medical record numbers, treatment notes, and provider information. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information. Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect its consumers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of its current and former consumers. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their Private Information. But Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant and a data breach victim. The Defendant is a pain management clinic practice headquartered in Edina, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com bresch@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com TWO SONS INVESTMENTS: Monteagudo Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andy S. Aguilar Monteagudo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. TWO SONS INVESTMENTS, LLC and ARE YOU HUNGRY GRILL LLC, D/B/A ARE YOU HUNGRY GRILL, Case No. 1:25-cv-24222-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurant and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. TWO SONS INVESTMENTS, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com UNDERDOG SPORTS: Kelly Sues Over Operation of Illegal DFS Contests ------------------------------------------------------------------ DJON KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDERDOG SPORTS, LLC d/b/a Underdog Fantasy, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00383-KD-N (S.D. Ala., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and violations of Alabama Gambling Loss Recovery Statute and Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's operation of an illegal sports betting platform masquerading as Daily Fantasy Sports contests in Alabama. According to the complaint, the Defendant misrepresents and conceals the true nature of its DFS contests by falsely characterizing them as lawful fantasy sports games of skill. In truth, these contests are unlawful gambling prohibited by Alabama law. The Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered ascertainable losses as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive acts, including the loss of money wagered on the Defendant's illegal contests. Underdog Sports, LLC, doing business as Underdog Fantasy, is a company that operates an online and app-based fantasy-sports platform, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Selby, II, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905 Birmingham, AL 35244 Telephone: (205) 988-9253 Facsimile: (205) 733-4896 Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: edwine@shamisgentile.com UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Dawkins Class Suit Over Tracking Software ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA DAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-02378 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.dove.com, a website that Defendant owns and operates. Accordingly, the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish the Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance, asserts the suit. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded, or a user performs a tracked action. The Plaintiff was in California when she visited the Website, which occurred within the statutory period. Unilever owns, operates, and/or controls the Website which is an online platform that offers goods and services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 1, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA BEACH, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter and all others similarly situated, et al., v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:21-cv-08612-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule and discovery deadlines as follows: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosure and report is July 2, 2026; 2. The deadline for the Defendant's class certification expert disclosure and report is Aug. 6, 2026; 3. The deadline to complete class certification discovery is Sept. 3, 2026; 4. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is Oct. 1, 2026; 5. The deadline for the Defendant to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is Nov. 5, 2026; 6. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply to a Motion for Class Certification is Nov. 25, 2026; 7. The hearing for the Motion for Class Certification shall be set for Dec. 17, 2026. On Jan. 11, 2024, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the Plaintiffs' amended Complaint. On May 19, 2025, the Defendant filed its answer to the amended class action complaint. United is a provider of mental and behavioral health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ol4APQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. M. Moore, Esq. Meiram Bendat, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 L Street NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037-1525 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 - and - Meriam Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 560 W Sunset Blvd Ste 500 West Hollywood, CA, 90069-2342 The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Romano, Esq. Andrew Holmer, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4750 Facsimile: (213) 622-2690 E-mail: JRomano@Crowell.com AHolmer@Crowell.com UNITED FOOD: Class Cert Filing Modified to March 20, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY M. ROMANCHUK, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND FOOD EMPLOYERS JOINT PENSION TRUST FUND, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08180-AB-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order modifying schedule for Class Discovery and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs as follows: Deadline Event Sept. 19, 2025 The Plaintiff's interim motion for attorneys' at 10:00 a.m. fees (if any) Jan. 30, 2026 Class Discovery March 20, 2026 Motion for Class Certification at 10:00 a.m. June 26, 2026 Class Remedies Discovery Aug. 14, 2026 Expert Disclosures A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98nHZr at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tabb Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ROLAND TABB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA CITY, LP, D/B/A UNITED PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01021-SLP (W.D. Okla., Sept. 5, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Tabb was employed by the Defendant as a security guard. United Protective Services of Oklahoma City, LP, d/b/a United Protective Services security services company that offers tailored solutions to specific security needs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Easley, Jr., Esq. Korbyn J. Easley, Esq. 400 West Fourth St.; P.O. Box 1349 Claremore, OK 74018 Telephone: (918) 923-3383 Facsimile: (918) 923-3363 Email: kevin@rocolaw.com korbyn@rocolaw.com - and - J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: jleatherwood@jsyc.com UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Arrests ------------------------------------------------------- A.M. and C.L.V., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-02308 AGS-AHG (S.D. Cal., September 4, 2025) challenges Defendants' practice of arresting people who are present at immigration court to attend scheduled hearings before immigration judges. This case arises because, beginning in May 2025, Department of Homeland Security officers began arresting individuals in the San Diego Immigration Court in the John Rhoades Federal Judicial Center. Many of those individuals are seeking asylum and are present at the San Diego Immigration Court for mandatory hearings before an immigration judge. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated non-citizens with no criminal history and who are seeking asylum. Moreover, the Plaintiff's claims arise under the Administrative Procedure Act; the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations; the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The DHS is federal executive department tasked to improve public security. The department's work include customs, border, and immigration enforcement, emergency response to natural and man-made disasters, anti-terrorism work, and cybersecurity. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald Singleton, Esq. Kimberly S. Hutchison, Esq. Andrew Bluth, Esq. Chris Rodriguez, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 591 Camino De La Reina, Ste 1025 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 771-3473 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: gsingleton@singletonschreiber.com khutchison@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Parties Seek OK of Sealing Stipulation ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their omnibus sealing stipulation in connection with requests to seal documents (submitted in connection with the: -- Plaintiffs' second renewed motion for class certification, -- Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' second renewed motion for class certification, and -- Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their second renewed motion for class certification. There are no disputed sealing requests as part of this omnibus sealing submission. Modified redacted versions of documents subject to the parties' sealing requests are also attached as exhibits to this Omnibus Sealing Stipulation The Parties seek to seal PHI and PII of the Plaintiffs and members of the putative class. UnitedHealthcare provides insurance services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OpEv44 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew M. Lavin, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 350S Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 677-4030 Facsimile: (202) 677-4031 E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com - and – David M. Lilienstein, Esq. Katie J. Spielman, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 678-5050 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com katie@dllawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Geoffrey Sigler, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: LBlas@gibsondunn.com GSigler@gibsondunn.com UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Start Paying Out Breach Settlement Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MPRNews reports that the University of Minnesota is required to start paying out a class action lawsuit this week to people impacted by a 2023 data breach, according to the terms of a settlement in U.S. district court. Several plaintiffs settled a lawsuit against the university in August. The agreement requires the U to set up a $5 million fund to cover claims from people who were impacted. Notifications to people eligible are set to start going out this week. Under the terms of the agreement, the settlement administrator needs to start contacting people by Thursday, September 24. People eligible could receive an email from Kroll Settlement Administration, the court-approved company managing the settlement process. Ahead of that, the settlement administrator created a new web page where people can submit claims, a step also required under the settlement. A university spokesperson said the website could be undergoing construction until Wednesday, September 23, and advised people to check back then. The spokesperson said people looking to file a claim can also call 833-890-4933 for more information on the process. Each eligible person who files a claim will get an estimated $30 payout, according to the settlement documents. That amount will depend on the number of people who file a claim. The U will also cover the cost of dark web monitoring for two years, to watch for any personal information posted online as a result of the breach. The deadline for submitting a claim is Dec. 24, according to the settlement website. The university also agreed to step up its data security system. According to court documents, an estimated 4.2 million people could have been impacted by the data breach. The university said in 2023 that a hacker breached a school database containing personal information dating back to 1989. It included full names, addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and driver's license and passport information. Several people sued the university over the incident. The court consolidated those lawsuits into one in the fall of 2023, leading to the settlement. [GN] UNUM LIFE: Standing Order Entered in Lehrman Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOWARD LEHRMAN, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:25-cv-08333-PA-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 28 5-3.1 within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4, the United States District Court for the Central District of California requires electronic filing of documents. Information about the Court's Electronic Case Filing system is available in Local Rule 5-4 and on the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court hears motions on Mondays, commencing at 1:30 p.m. No supplemental brief shall be filed without prior leave of Court. Unum provides comprehensive financial insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LiTcbr at no extra charge.[CC] USHEALTH GROUP: Carr Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USHEALTH GROUP, INC., Case No. 50-2025-CA-008291-XXXA-MB was removed from the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Sept. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-81140-EA. The suit arises from alleged text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone that Plaintiff alleges were initiated in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: 813-349-8838 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. Roy Taub, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-491-1120 Facsimile: 954-213-0140 Email: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com rene.vazquez@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com V.F. CORPORATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. V.F. Corporation d/b/a Smartwool, Case No. 0:25-cv-03684 (D. Minn., Sept. 16, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.smartwool.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale, including but not limited to, tops, bottoms, sweaters, fleece, jackets, base layers, socks and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com V.F. CORPORATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. V.F. Corporation d/b/a JanSport Apparel Corp., Case No. 0:25-cv-03700 (D. Minn., Sept. 17, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.jansport.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers collegiate apparel for sale, including but not limited to, backpacks, duffel bags, lunch bags, fanny packs, crossbody bags, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settles NY Wage & Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------- Victoria's Secret & Co. 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 settled the wage & hour lawsuit filed in a New York court. In April 2023, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Victoria’s Secret Stores employs manual workers in New York state and failed to pay hourly wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages on a bi-weekly basis. As of the end of the second quarter of 2025, the lawsuit has been settled, subject to final court approval, and the Company is accrued for the settlement. VINTAGE HAVANA: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vintage Havana Clothing Company, Case No. 0:25-cv-03596 (D. Minn., Sept. 10, 2025) contends that Defendant's Website www.vintagehavana.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, shoes, and matching sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com VONS COMPANIES INC.: Pelayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vons Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Pelayo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The Vons Companies, Inc., Case No. 25STCV27278 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Sept. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Vons Companies, Inc. -- https://www.vons.com/ -- is a supermarket chain owned by Albertsons, with most of its locations in Southern California and the Las Vegas Valley.[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 VUORI INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vuori, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03489 (D. Minn., September 4, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated ADA by failing to make its website accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Vuori, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.vuoriclothing.com, which offers active wear and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WALMART INC: Hollingsworth Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case is styled as Cynthia Hollingsworth, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05274-ELR-JKL (N.D. Ga., Sept. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Walmart Inc. -- https://www.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com WAND NEWCO: Fordyce Alleges Fiduciary Duty Breaches Under ERISA --------------------------------------------------------------- ROY FORDYCE, Individually and as a Representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on Behalf of the Caliber Holdings LLC Retirement Savings Plan, v. WAND NEWCO 3, INC. d/b/a CALIBER COLLISION, and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, Case No. 4:25-cv-00997-ALM (E.D. Tex., Sept. 10, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Caliber Holdings Corporation Retirement Savings Plan under Employee Retirement Income Security Act for breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties; violation of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules; and violation of ERISA's anti-inurement provision. The Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(2)(A) and Section 1002(34) that covers eligible employees of Caliber and is subject to the provisions of ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1103(a). Plaintiff Roy Fordyce is a citizen of the State of Maryland, was previously employed by Caliber during the class period, and was a participant in the Plan during the class period. Accordingly, throughout the class period, the Defendants, in violation of ERISA, consistently did not use the Forfeited Plan Assets to offset Plan Expenses prior to using the Forfeited Plan Assets to reduce Caliber's contractually obligated and declared Employer Matching Contributions to the Plan resulting in a reduction in the value of Plaintiff and the Plan's accounts. Instead, the Plan Fiduciaries have consistently chosen to utilize essentially all Forfeited Plan Assets to benefit Caliber by reducing Caliber's contractually obligated declared contributions to the Plan and paying Plan Expenses from Plan assets other than Forfeited Plan Assets, i.e., participants' accounts, alleges the suit. WAND NEWCO 3, INC. provides automotive repair and maintenance services, including collision repair, auto glass services, and fleet solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Seth J. Bloom, Esq. BLOOM LEGAL LLC 825 Girod Street, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 599-9997 E-mail: sjb@bloomlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Alexander Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com WAYFAIR LLC: Buggs Sues Over Sales Tax on Toddler Products ---------------------------------------------------------- YABRAE BUGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYFAIR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-24141-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant was negligent, reckless, and intentional practice of improperly charging and collecting sales and use tax from all persons who purchased Baby and Toddler Products in Florida for household use during the period starting July 1, 2023 to the present (the "Class Period"), while being residents of the state of Florida (the "Class"). Specifically, the Defendant charges and collects sales and use tax from Florida purchasers of Baby and Toddler Products in Florida despite Florida's explicit tax exemption for baby and toddler products from sales and use tax, says the suit. Wayfair LLC provides home improvement products online. The Company offers furniture, home furnishings, rugs, outdoor, bed, bath, lighting, kitchen, storage, kids, housewares, decor, decorative accents, and other household goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5618 Facsimile: (813) 222-2446 Email: fburne@forthepeople.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. Gloria J. Medina, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: mcanty@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com gmedina@labaton.com WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Dec. 29 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY MORRIS, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03277-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Close of fact discovery: Nov. 28, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for Dec. 29, 2025 class certification, and for disclosures and reports of any experts the Plaintiff intends to rely on at class certification: Deadline for the Defendants' opposition to Feb. 20, 2026 a motion for class certification; for the Defendants' disclosures and reports of any experts the Defendants intend to rely on at class certification; and for any motion by the Defendants to limit or exclude Plaintiff's class certification expert testimony based on Daubert or any other basis: Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in support March 20, 2026 of a motion for class certification; deadline for the Plaintiff to challenge Defendants' class certification expert testimony based on Daubert or any other basis: Hearing on motion for class certification: Apr. 9, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. These dates may only be altered by order of the Court and only upon a showing of good cause. The parties are directed to review and comply with this Court's standing orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. Wells is a major American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Aj0edf at no extra charge.[CC] WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Filing in Miholich Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Barbara Major entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadline for plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The new deadline for the Plaintiff to file their motion for class certification is Dec. 8, 2025. All other guidelines and requirements remain as previously set. Windstream manufactures radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IjdY0o at no extra charge.[CC] WOLFSPEED INC: Court Stays Consolidated Suit -------------------------------------------- Wolfspeed, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 29, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that a consolidated class action that it is facing was stayed upon the filing of the company's voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on June 30, 2025 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. On January 8, 2025, the company and certain current and former executive officers were named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit captioned "Maizner v. Wolfspeed, Inc., et al.," Case No. 6:25-cv-00046, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. On February 24, 2025, the court consolidated this with two other cases and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On May 5, 2025, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 4, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the consolidated action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and as of July 22, 2025, briefing on the motion to transfer was complete. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Wolfspeed, Inc. is an innovator of wide bandgap semiconductors, focused on silicon carbide materials and devices for power applications. Its product families include silicon carbide materials and power devices targeted for various applications such as electric vehicles, fast charging and renewable energy and storage. ********* 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 ***