251002.mbx

251002.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 2, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 197 Headlines 1801 WYNKOOP LLC: Hirning Sues Over Physical Barriers 3M COMPANY: Berube Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Browning Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Calhoun Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Clay Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Cupp Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Huckaby Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Martinez Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: McCurry Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Rains Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 7 CUPS OF TEA: Nicholes Suit Transferred to E.D. New York 7 CUPS OF TEA: Vorpahl Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ABBVIE INC: Stephenson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ADOBE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York AKURANVYKA USA INC: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ALLIED ACCOUNTANTS: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ALLY BANK: Arbitration Directed in "Migliaccio" Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Armstrong Sues Over Deceptive Discount Scheme AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Upholds Dismissal of "Baysal" Privacy Case ANTONIO SOFO: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Smith Suit Says BASIC AMERICAN: Waldrop Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BEENVERIFIED LLC: Byer Sues Over Telemarketing Fraud BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS: Johnson Files Suit in S.D. Florida BLUE & CO: Faces Carrico Suit Over Unprotected Private Information BLUE NILE INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BRX INC: Bayless Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages BRYN MAWR JEWELRY: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BUDGET RENT A CAR: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BYRNA TECHNOLOGIES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website C.R. ENGLAND INC: Cisneros Suit Removed to C.D. California CABINETS TO GO: Bland Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: "Hall" Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction CAPITAL ONE: Must Oppose Hoard Class Cert Bid by Oct. 6 CARPENTER TECH: Smolarski Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas CARTER CREDIT: Jackson Sues Over Data Security Failures CAVA HOLDING: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement CENTURY SNACKS: Barrales Suit Removed to C.D. California CERNER CORPORATION: Tripp Removed to E.D. Arkansas CICI ENTERPRISES: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website CLENERGY 8/57: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges CLIFF VIESSMAN INC: Koprowicz Files Suit in D. South Dakota COMBEX INC: Bishop Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA COMMISSIONER COOKIE: Marcum Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed CONVERSE INC: Shulman Suit Removed to D. New Jersey CORNWELL QUALITY: Cox Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach CRAWFORD COMMUNITIES: Caudill Sues Over Unpaid Wages CUSO FINANCIAL SERVICES: Sinitsa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DAVID M. PERRY: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DEEPS INC: Ibarra Sues Over Improper Web Subscription Renewal DELRAY HOTEL OWNER: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property DELTA AIRLINES: Goodyear Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal DENCO CONSTRUCTION: Perez Bid for Retrospective Relief Tossed DEPLOYED SERVICES: Fink Suit Removed to S.D. California DOUG BURGUM: Wins Dismissal of "Tanner-Brown" Suit ECOBEL INC: Dennis Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida EVERON LLC: Llamas Suit Removed to N.D. California FAIRMONT FEDERAL CREDIT: Basagic Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia FAIRMONT FEDERAL CREDIT: Ortner Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia FARMER BROTHERS COFFEE: Terres Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. FINMAX SMART: Class Cert Bids Filing in Wilson Due Feb. 27, 2026 FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Prerecorded Calls FIVERR INC: Illegally Installs 3rd Party Data Trackers, Tasker Says FOODS ALIVE: Gonzales Sues Over Deceptive Product Packaging FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Watson Balks at Disclosure of Personal Info FUJI HANA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 3 GARDA CL: $1.5MM Settlement in Cravens Gets Final Nod GIRLS GALORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges HAVCO WOOD PRODUCTS: Carroll Files Suit in E.D. Missouri HEALTH FIRST: Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Under Seal HIGH POINT TREATMENT: Chongarlides Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. HOMESTEAD VPE HOTEL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property HOUSE OF RAEFORD: Haff Poultry Sues Over Broiler Monopoly INNOVATIVE DINING MB: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JAM CITY INC: Figuieredo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JINS EYEWEAR US: Tu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JOSEPH AHN: Spiess Files Suit in N.D. Illinois JRK PROPERTY: Peebles Seeks OK of Renewed Bid to Certify Class KIMBERLY LC: Mellenthin Sues Over Physical Barriers KINGSMEN PREMIUM: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Patel Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action LACOSTE USA INC: Ram Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois LARSEN'S PRIME STEAKHOUSE: Schamus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Price Says LIN R. ROGERS ELECTRICAL: Bowser Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LOS ANGELES, CA: Berg Seeks to Certify Classes LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Nov. 14 LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Cantu Suit Removed to C.D. California LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination MAST BROTHERS: Alexandria Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MATHESON TRI-GAS: Knoles Suit Removed to C.D. California MCNALLY JACKSON: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MICHAELS STORES: CMC in Vizcarra Continued to Nov. 18 MISSION CEVICHE: Flores Wins Class Certification Bid MML INVESTORS: Faces Phillips Class Suit Over Cash Sweep Program MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Faulkner Suit Removed to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Grant Sues Over Unsafe, Health Risk of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Melo-Brown Sues Over Defective Product MONSANTO COMPANY: Skrzypczak Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup NATURAL ALTERNATIVES: Settlement in PAGA Suit for Court Approval NAVY FEDERAL: Feb. 4, 2026 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set NEW YORK: Ross Sues NYPD Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NURSEFINDERS LLC: Gooch Suit Removed to C.D. California PAPA JOHNS: Jacob Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. PBT BANCORP: Salem Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA PENNERS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims PERFECTION BAKERIES: Boyce Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages PETER MARCUS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says PHH MORTGAGE: Martin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. POLLARD & ASSOCIATES: Bell Files Suit in D. Maryland POLLARD & ASSOCIATES: Foster Files Suit in D. Maryland PRECISION DOSE: Hartford Seeks Relief of No Insurance Obligation PRINTING INDUSTRIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Larsen Says PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McPhee Alleges R&M WHOLESALE: Guzman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages R.C.S. CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ceron Alleges RCI HOSPITALITY: Hernandez Sues Over Drop in Share Price RED COATS INC: Jackson Files Suit in D. Maryland RED COATS INC: Smith Files Suit in D. Maryland RIVIERA SUN: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination ROBLOX CORP: Fails to Make Platform Safe for Minors, Davis Says ROCKET EXPEDITING: Ontiveros Sues Over Fraudulent Lease Agreement S. DANIELLA INSURANCE: Falley Suit Removed to S.D. Florida SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Alleges SALESFORCE INC: Plude Files Suit in N.D. California SARMIENTOS CONSTRUCTION: Figueroa Suit Removed to M.D. Florida SHAKE SHACK: Sparks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHERATON OPERATING: Gerl Suit Removed to C.D. California TOSH INC: Surapaneni Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah TRANS UNION LLC: Alexander FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TURBO DEBT LLC: Moody Files Suit in S.D. Florida UNITED AIRLINES: Tripp Seeks Flight Attendants' Unpaid Wages UNITED STEEL: Faces Perry Suit for Breach of Duty, Retaliation VOLUME EYE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moon Alleges [^] SEC Continues Operations on Limited Basis [^] U.S. Government Seeks Stay of Deadlines Amid Shutdown ********* 1801 WYNKOOP LLC: Hirning Sues Over Physical Barriers ----------------------------------------------------- Jacob Hirning, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1801 WYNKOOP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02987-SKC (D. Colo., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property a dozen times before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Schnucks, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase goods and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 1801 WYNKOOP, LLC is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Colorado and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Berube Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Paul Berube, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01334 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12643-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Browning Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kenneth Browning, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01338 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12394-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Calhoun Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Clinton Calhoun, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01461 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12640-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick Thurman Kuykendall, III THE KUYKENDALL GROUP LLC, ESQ. 201 East Second Street Bay Minette, AL 36507 Phone: (800) 922-8661 Email: attorneynotice@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Clay Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Daniel Clay, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01336 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12390-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Cupp Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Shelby Adams Cupp, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01427 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12642-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Huckaby Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lisa Huckaby, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01360 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12396-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Martinez Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kathleen Martinez, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01309 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12387-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: McCurry Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jacob Gregory McCurry, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01310 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12388-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Rains Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cynthia Rains, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01373 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12397-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 7 CUPS OF TEA: Nicholes Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carrie Nicholes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7 Cups of Tea, Co. doing business as: 7 Cups, Case No. 5:25-cv-05380 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05261-LKE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for the Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act). 7 Cups of Tea doing business as 7 Cups -- https://www.7cups.com/ -- is the world's largest mental health community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. 3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com - and - Emily Jo Kirk, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT, LLP 2068 Orange Tree Ln., Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 Email: ejk@mccunewright.com - and - Valerie L. Savran, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 Email: vls@mccunewright.com 7 CUPS OF TEA: Vorpahl Suit Transferred to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ph.D. Jacqueline Vorpahl, LCPC Kara Nielson, LCSW Bill DeSiena, Carrie Nicholes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public v. 7 Cups of Tea, Co., Does 1-10, Case No. 5:25-cv-05088 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05296-ENV-SDE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act). 7 Cups of Tea -- https://www.7cups.com/ -- is the world's largest mental health community.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Deborah Winegard, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1068 Virginia Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30306 Phone: (404) 607-8222 Email: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 152 West 57th Street, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 447-7060 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. MILBERG, WEISS, BERSHAD, HYNES & LERACH, L.L.P. 401 B. Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 ABBVIE INC: Stephenson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Jaron Stephenson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07856 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought against Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 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 individuals. Its website, www.abbvie.com, serves as a centralized digital gateway for patient support, product information, investor relations, and corporate communications. Despite its scale and stated commitment to patient-centered care, Defendant has failed to ensure that its website is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, including Plaintiff. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to www.abbvie.com--and thus its denial of the goods and services offered therein--constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual living with Cone Rod Dystrophy. AbbVie Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company whose therapeutic portfolio includes medications directly relevant to Stephenson's medical profile.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ADOBE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 29, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action captioned Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund et al v. Adobe, Inc. et al. On October 20, 2023, a securities class action captioned Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund et al v. Adobe, Inc. et al, renamed as In Re Adobe Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-09260, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming Adobe and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between July 23, 2021 and September 22, 2022. The complaint, which was amended on February 23, 2024, alleges that certain public statements made by Adobe during the Class Period related to competition from Figma and the adequacy of Adobe's existing offerings to counter harms Adobe may have faced due to Figma's growing market position were materially false and misleading. The Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief. "We filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Action, which was granted in full on March 27, 2025. Plaintiff has sought leave to amend the complaint in response to the court’s order," the Company stated. AKURANVYKA USA INC: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Akuranvyka USA, Inc. The case is styled as Lauren Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. Akuranvyka USA, Inc. doing business as: Curry Up Now, Case No. 8:25-cv-02111-ADS (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Akuranvyka USA, Inc. doing business as Curry Up Now -- https://www.curryupnow.com/ -- serves street food, burrito bowls, vegan, halal & gluten-free dishes, plus fast delivery & catering.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald 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 ALLIED ACCOUNTANTS: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Accountants, LLC. The case is styled as William Mott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Allied Accountants, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00299-RWS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Allied Accountants -- https://allied-accountants.com/ -- is one of the oldest Arab public accounting firms in UAE, offering accounting, auditing, and VAT consultation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Ste. 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com ALLY BANK: Arbitration Directed in "Migliaccio" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Paul Migliaccio, Plaintiff, v. Ally Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00307-SDN (D. Me.), Judge Stacey D. Neumann of the United States District Court for the District of Maine granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims, referring the parties to arbitration and staying the case. Maine regulations require car dealers to advertise the full price of the vehicle, including any extra charges the dealer might impose. Paul Migliaccio bought a car from a dealer who nonetheless tacked on a so-called junk fee, in this case, a document fee, without including the fee in the advertised price. Mr. Migliaccio sued on behalf of himself and a putative class of car buyers who allegedly paid similar junk fees. Mr. Migliaccio did not directly sue the dealer that sold him his car; instead, he sued Ally Bank, which holds Mr. Migliaccio's car loan, as well as similar loans from car dealers across the state. Ally moved to compel arbitration or dismiss Mr. Migliaccio's claims. In Ally's view, the loan document incorporates a mandatory arbitration clause from a separate purchase agreement between Mr. Migliaccio and the dealer. The arbitration clause requires Mr. Migliaccio to bring all claims related to the car sale through arbitration and waives his right to pursue claims on a class basis. Mr. Migliaccio argued the mandatory arbitration clause does not apply because the dealer never assigned the purchase agreement, only the loan document, to Ally, and the loan document assigned to Ally does not contain an arbitration clause. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting Ally's motion to compel arbitration. Mr. Migliaccio objected. The Court reviewed the Recommended Decision, along with the entire record. Lee Credit Express is a car dealer in Maine. On April 19, 2024, Lee Credit sold Mr. Migliaccio a used Subaru for $21,143.00, plus taxes and a title fee on top. However, Lee Credit had previously advertised the car at $20,494.00. The reason for the $649 difference was a documentation fee Lee Credit charged to electronically generate the vehicle sale documents. Lee Credit had not included this documentation fee in the advertised fee and did not allow Mr. Migliaccio the opportunity to opt out of the fee. A Retail Purchase Agreement between Mr. Migliaccio and Lee Credit governs the terms of the sale, itemizing all costs including the base price, fees, and taxes. The RPA shows that Mr. Migliaccio financed his purchase, putting down $1,000 in cash and taking out a loan for the remaining $21,399.87 balance, which included the documentation fee, sales tax, and title fee. A separate Retail Installment Sale Contract between Mr. Migliaccio and Lee Credit reflects the terms of that loan: 18% interest paid over 72 monthly installments. While the RISC designates Lee Credit as the seller and creditor and Mr. Migliaccio as the buyer, it also contains an assignment clause by which Lee Credit immediately assigned its interest in this contract to Ally. The RPA contains an integration clause. Under the heading, Entire Agreement and Signing of Other Documents, the RPA states, the front and back of this RPA and any documents which are part of this transaction or incorporated herein comprise the entire agreement affecting this transaction. No other agreement or understanding of any nature has been made or will be recognized. The RPA contains two arbitration clauses. First, a short arbitration clause appears on the first page of the RPA. Under the heading Agreement to Arbitrate, it states: Purchaser(s) and Dealer agree, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, to resolve by binding arbitration any Dispute between them. By signing below, you acknowledge that you have read paragraph 15 on the reverse side and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this agreement to arbitrate. The parties understand that except for those disputes specifically exempted from arbitration, they are waiving their right to a jury trial and their right to bring or participate in any class action or multi-plaintiff action in court or through arbitration. Mr. Migliaccio's signature appears on the line below the Agreement to Arbitrate clause. Second, as referenced in this first arbitration clause, the RPA has a separate arbitration clause in paragraph 15 that specifically references both the RISC and the RPA, and that binds the parties to resolve all disputes related to the RPA and RISC through arbitration: Buyer and Seller agree that all claims, disputes, or controversies of every kind and nature that may arise between Buyer and Seller shall be submitted to and resolved by binding arbitration, whether based in part or in whole on contract, tort, common law, statute, regulation or equity, including but not limited to any Claim related to: (1) the application for credit; (2) any negotiations or alleged promises, representations, undertakings or warranties; (3) the purchase or condition of the Vehicle or any products and services purchased in conjunction with the Vehicle; (4) the Retail Installment Sales Contract (or other document providing for the financing of the purchase of the Vehicle), the Retail Purchase Agreement, and any related document, transaction, occurrence or relationship; (6) any question as to whether a dispute may be arbitrated (including the interpretation and scope of this Agreement to Arbitrate), except that any dispute on the enforceability of the jury trial waiver or class action waiver shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction; (7) any alleged unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices or alleged negligence, acts of fraud or misrepresentation. In addition, the second arbitration clause further provides, the Arbitrator shall not conduct any class-wide proceedings and will be restricted to resolving the individual disputes between the parties. The RISC does not reference the RPA or its arbitration clause(s). The RISC contains an integration clause as follows: This contract contains the entire agreement between you and us relating to this contract. The RISC does not include an arbitration clause. When Lee Credit sold Mr. Migliaccio the vehicle, it assigned the RISC to Ally. The assignment actually appears in the RISC itself, at the bottom of the first page. The RPA references Lee Credit's assigns in the arbitration clause but makes no assignment: This Arbitration Agreement shall apply to any claims against the assigns of Seller. Mr. Migliaccio sued Ally on July 25, 2024, in Maine state court. On August 28, 2024, Ally removed the case to federal court. Ally moved to compel arbitration and strike the class claims, or in the alternative to dismiss the Complaint. Once the motion was fully briefed, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion to compel arbitration and strike the class claims. The Federal Arbitration Act provides that contractual arbitration agreements are, like any other contract, valid, irrevocable, and enforceable. The FAA reflects a federal policy to make arbitration agreements as enforceable as other contracts, but not more so. When a party bound by an arbitration agreement nonetheless fails to arbitrate, the FAA provides two parallel devices for enforcing the agreement: a stay of litigation in any case raising a dispute referable to arbitration, and an affirmative order to engage in arbitration. On a motion to compel arbitration, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, that the movant is entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, that the other party is bound by that clause, and that the claim asserted comes within the clause's scope. Mr. Migliaccio does not meaningfully dispute that he and Lee Credit agreed to arbitrate their disputes. In other words, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. However, Mr. Migliaccio objects to the Recommended Decision's conclusion that Ally obtained the right to enforce that valid arbitration agreement from Lee Credit when Lee Credit assigned the RISC to Ally. As a general principle, state law governs the inquiry as to whether a non-party to an arbitration agreement can assert the protection of the agreement. Maine law governs the RPA and RISC. Mr. Migliaccio agrees that Lee Credit validly assigned the RISC to Ally. The only question is whether in doing so, Lee Credit also assigned the right to enforce the RPA's arbitration agreement as the RPA contains no specific assignment. Contract interpretation is a question of law. When interpreting any portion of a contract, the Court must consider the contract as a whole, reading all parts and clauses together so that it may be seen if and how one clause is explained, modified, limited or controlled by the others. The interpretation of an unambiguous contract must be determined from the plain meaning of the language used and from the four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic evidence. Ultimately, the Court seeks to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used in the contract and avoid rendering any part meaningless. Where several instruments are made part of one transaction, they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the others, although the instruments do not in terms refer to each other. Whether the documents are made part of the same transaction and should be read together is governed by the intent of the parties manifested at the time of contracting and viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances. Migliaccio objects to the recommended decision because it cites to an opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington applying Washington law rather than Maine law. Maine courts also consider multiple instruments together when they are part of the same transaction. The Magistrate Judge did not err by looking to persuasive authority for application guidance when the result would be the same under controlling authority. In the same vein, the Magistrate Judge did not create a special arbitration rule by applying the unitary transaction approach used by Maine courts. Migliaccio further objects to the recommended decision because he argues the Magistrate Judge did not point to any evidence of a manifestation of Lee's intent to assign the right to enforce the RPA to Ally. He also argues the Magistrate Judge erred in considering the RPA together with the RISC because the integration clause in the RISC should have excluded consideration of parole evidence. In his recommended decision, the Magistrate Judge did identify language in the RPA that evinces Lee Credit's intent to assign the right to enforce the RPA to Ally and explained his reasoning: The arbitration agreement in the RPA states that the agreement applies to any claims against the assigns or successors of Lee. Notably, the arbitration agreement applies to Lee's assigns and is not limited to the assigns of the RPA. Furthermore, the agreement to arbitrate applies to all claims related to the Retail Installment Sales Contract (or other document providing for the financing of the purchase of the Vehicle). Finally, as used in the RPA, Agreement means the RPA together with any documents that are part of this transaction or incorporated into this Agreement by reference, whether such reference is made in this Agreement or the document itself. Because the RPA includes the RISC (i.e., Agreement is defined as the RPA together with any documents that are part of this transaction), and because the arbitration agreement applies to Lee's assigns and the RISC, through the assignment, Defendant obtained the right to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Magistrate Judge's reasoning depends on considering the contracts together, which is proper under Maine law. It is true that in Maine, the parole evidence rule operates to exclude from judicial consideration extrinsic evidence offered to alter, augment, or contradict the unambiguous language of an integrated written agreement. However, under the unitary transaction approach, the contracts are read together, and so the parole rule is inapposite. Where multiple instruments are executed at the same time and are intertwined by the same subject matter, the parol evidence rule does not prevent the court from considering both or all agreements together, notwithstanding the presence of an integration clause. Migliaccio has identified no controlling authority that states the presence of an integration clause defeats reading several instruments together when they are part of a unitary transaction. Migliaccio's final argument, that the FAA does not apply to this suit because the dispute arises from the RISC and not the RPA, fails for the same reasons. Where the RISC and RPA were part of the same transaction, they are considered together. The Magistrate Judge also recommended striking the class claims because the RPA's arbitration clause contains a class-action waiver both in court and in arbitration. Class-action waivers are enforceable in the arbitration context. Upon de novo review, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to strike the class claims. For the foregoing reasons, the Recommended Decision was affirmed. The Court referred the parties to arbitration and stayed the case while the parties arbitrate their dispute. Ally's Motion to Dismiss in the alternative was dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available athttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=qGQ7ke from PacerMonitor.com AMAZON.COM INC: Armstrong Sues Over Deceptive Discount Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- CATHY ARMSTRONG; and OLUWA FOSUDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01826 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 22, 2025) alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaints, the Plaintiffs bought products from Amazon during Prime Day in 2025, relying on the belief that they were getting Prime Day Percentage Discounts. In fact, the purported discounts weren't real or were inflated because Amazon used an inflated Fake Prior Amazon Price to calculate the percentage off at the end of transaction. Had Amazon been truthful that the Prime Day Deals did not in fact have the percentage discount represented based on the actual price offered on Amazon during the last 90 days, Plaintiffs would not have purchased the products they bought during Prime Day, or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. The Company products include books, music, computers, electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct shipping to customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Wyatt, Esq. WYATT GRONSKI PLLC 540 Newport Way NW, Suite 200 Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7784 Email: todd@wdlawgroup.com - and - Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - and - Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 948-3319 Email: Apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Ste. 650 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 Email: yeremey@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 AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Upholds Dismissal of "Baysal" Privacy Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Alp Baysal, Sandra Italiano, Thomas Maxim, and Robert Park, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Family Life Insurance Company, Midvale Indemnity Company, and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Defendants-Respondents, Appeal No. 2024AP1510, Circuit Court No. 2023CV2942, a three-judge panel of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for District IV, consisting of Circuit Judges Blanchard, Kloppenburg, and Nashold, affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of a class action complaint on the basis that the Plaintiffs lack standing. Circuit Judge Nia E. Trammell of the Dane County Circuit Court originally dismissed the complaint. The Plaintiffs brought a class action against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants disclosed the Plaintiffs' driver's license numbers to unauthorized individuals. The Defendants provided instant rate quotes for insurance policies as part of online application processes. Once basic identifying information such as an individual's name, date of birth and address was entered into the application, the Defendants' internet platforms would automatically insert into the application that individual's driver's license number, which became visible on the platform. In 2021, the Defendants were notified of activity suggesting that unauthorized individuals, using an automated process, or bot, had used the Defendants' instant quote feature to obtain the driver's license numbers of numerous individuals, including the Plaintiffs. The Defendants notified the Plaintiffs that their driver's license numbers may have been obtained by unauthorized parties. The Plaintiffs, who are not Wisconsin residents, brought a class action against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2724; negligence and negligence per se; violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.100 et seq.; and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the disclosure of the Plaintiffs' driver's license numbers through third-party misuse of the Defendants' internet platforms, attempts to open various financial accounts were made in Maxim's and Park's names, that an attempt to make an unauthorized purchase was made in Maxim's name, and that fraudulent applications for unemployment insurance benefits in New York were made in Maxim's and Baysal's names. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing. The circuit court granted the Defendants' motion, and the Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the standing issue independently. The Court stated that whether a party has standing is a question of law that is reviewed independently. When reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the Court liberally construes the pleadings and accepts as true all facts pleaded and all reasonable inferences from those facts. The Court noted that the standing of a party whose interest is challenged is determined by: (1) personal interest in the controversy; (2) injury or adverse effect; and (3) judicial policy that calls for protecting the interest of the party whose standing has been challenged. The Court considered federal case law as persuasive authority because Wisconsin's standing analysis is conceptually similar to the federal analysis. The Court explained that to establish standing in a data breach identity theft case, allegations of time spent dealing with fraud attempts, the threat of future identity theft, and money spent mitigating that threat are sufficient to establish standing. The Plaintiffs argued that they have standing based on two different types of alleged harm. The Defendants argued to the contrary, relying primarily on Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Co., 78 F.4th 976 (7th Cir. 2023). The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to file a reply brief responding to the Defendants' arguments and did not sufficiently rebut the Defendants' arguments in their brief-in-chief. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs conceded these arguments. Regarding the first type of alleged harm, the Plaintiffs argued that they have standing because fraudulent applications for unemployment benefits were filed in Baysal's and Maxim's names. The Defendants pointed out that New York law requires an applicant to provide a social security number to apply for unemployment benefits. The Defendants argued that because the Plaintiffs allege only that their driver's license numbers were disclosed and do not allege facts explaining how a driver's license number alone could facilitate the filing of a fraudulent claim for unemployment benefits in New York, the Plaintiffs fail to connect the disclosure of their driver's license numbers to the fraudulent applications. The Defendants also argued that because the Plaintiffs do not allege that the fraudulent applications for unemployment benefits made in Baysal's and Maxim's names were successful, they do not allege any injury resulting from the fraudulent applications. Regarding the second type of alleged harm, the Plaintiffs argued that fraudulent financial activity in Maxim's and Park's names is sufficient to establish standing. The complaint alleged that a brokerage account was opened, and an unauthorized purchase made, in Maxim's name, and that unsuccessful applications were made to open a bank account and credit card in Park's name. The Defendants responded that these allegations do not suffice to establish standing because the complaint does not allege that driver's license numbers were required for the opening of any of these financial accounts or for the unauthorized purchase. The Plaintiffs argued that their allegations connect the disclosure of their driver's license numbers to the fraudulent financial activity because they allege that hackers cross-referenced the data from the breaches and combined it with data from other sources to create so-called fullz packages. The Defendants made two points that defeat this argument. First, the Defendants noted that the Plaintiffs provide no record citation for their assertion that they in fact allege that hackers combined the Plaintiffs' driver's license numbers with data from other sources to create fullz packages. Second, the Defendants noted that if a driver's license number is not required for any of the alleged fraudulent financial activity, then the addition of an individual's driver's license number to a fullz package cannot be said to have resulted in any of the alleged harms. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' arguments that they have standing based on their concession that the Defendants' arguments to the contrary, which are supported by federal case law, are correct. The Court affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing the complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1015531 from PacerMonitor.com ANTONIO SOFO: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Smith Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CALVIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTONIO SOFO & SON IMPORTING CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01937 (N.D. Ohio, September 12, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber incident or data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Antonio Sofo & Son Importing Co. is an Italian food distributor that distributes its products across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com BASIC AMERICAN: Waldrop Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Auston Waldrop, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BASIC AMERICAN, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25-2-00775-13 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. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00382-MKD. 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. Aaron R. Doyer, 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 aaron.doyer@stoel.com BEENVERIFIED LLC: Byer Sues Over Telemarketing Fraud ---------------------------------------------------- Hayden Byer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEENVERIFIED, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07860 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought against Defendant asserting violations of Colorado's "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act" ("PTFA"), for the Defendant's pervasive practice of compiling and commercially disseminating the cellular telephone numbers of Colorado residents without their explicit, affirmative consent indirect violation of the PTFA, a consumer privacy law esigned to protect the privacy of Colorado residents. The Defendant operates a website, www.beenverified.com ("Website"), which openly collects and lists a variety of personal information, including addresses, email addresses, phone numbers (including cellular phone numbers), relatives, criminal and traffic records, etc., without any type of consent from the individuals to whom the data belongs and pertains. Defendant makes the personal data, sourced from various public records and third-party data brokers, readily available to anyone with Internet access and who pays a membership fee. Therefore, Defendant monetizes personal data, including the cell phone numbers of Colorado residents, through its publicly accessible directory, thereby profiting from the unauthorized disclosure of private information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cell phone number was listed by Defendant in its directory, available at www.beenverified.com, for commercial purposes. The Defendant is a data broker operating the publicly accessible online directory, www.beenverified.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven P. Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS: Johnson Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benworth Capital Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Tierra Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24348-KMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Benworth Capital -- https://benworthcapital.com/ -- is a top provider of hard money loans for residential, commercial, and construction properties in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: nczipperian@millershah.com BLUE & CO: Faces Carrico Suit Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ MCCALL CARRICO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE & CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01802-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., September 10, 2025) arises out of the public exposure of the confidential, private information of Plaintiff and Class Members. A cyberattack on Defendant's systems occurred on November 7, 2024 and was due to Defendant's failures to adequately safeguard that personal information. According to Defendant, the personal information unauthorizedly disclosed in the data breach includes Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, Medicaid identification, health insurance information, and patient account numbers. Although Defendant purportedly discovered the data breach in December of 2024, the Defendant failed to immediately notify and warn Plaintiff and Class Members, with Defendant waiting until September 4, 2025 to provide written notice to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims arising from negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. Based in Carmel, IN, Blue & Co., LLC operates as a financial consulting firm that provides tax, accounting, and advisory services. [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 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com BLUE NILE INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Nile, Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Nile, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.BLUENILE.COM, Case No. 25STCV28067 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). Blue Nile -- https://www.bluenile.com/ -- is the world's leading diamond jeweler online for engagement and wedding rings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com BRX INC: Bayless Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Bayless, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BRX, INC., and FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00077-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought for an unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the Virginia Overtime Waged Act ("VOWA") and unpaid regular wages in violation of the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"). The Plaintiff contends Defendants have violated and continue to violate the FLSA, VOWA, and VWPA by having the following policies and practices: Not paying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all time worked at the FedEx terminal loading their trucks in the mornings prior to departing for deliveries, typically between 7:30am and 8:30am. This policy and practice resulted and results in Plaintiff and similarly situated employees receiving: Unpaid overtime wages and regular w ages m every workweek in which these employees work more than forty hours, and Unpaid regular wages in every workweek in which these employees work fewer than forty hours. The policies and/or practices comprising the alleged violations are ongoing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Virginia who worked for Defendants as a deliver driver from July 2024 to April 17, 2025. The Defendant BRX operates a FedEx "last mile" delivery service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Cofield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 218-3133 Fax: (434) 321-1636 Email: tc@coffeldlaw.com BRYN MAWR JEWELRY: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Livingston Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bryn Mawr Jewelry Company, Inc. Case No. 1:25-cv-11418 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 22, 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://brynmawrjewelry.com (hereinafter "Brynmawrjewelry.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, Brynmawrjewelry.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. Bryn Mawr Jewelry Company provides to the public a website known as Brynmawrjewelry.com which provides consumers with access to an arrayof goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of fine jewelry, such as rings, chains, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and watches, as well as vintage jewelry, custom designs, and jewelry repair services.[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 BUDGET RENT A CAR: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Budget Rent A Car System Inc., et al. The case is styled as Veronica Joann Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Discovery XT Employer LLC a/k/a Westwood Village; Oasis Outsourcing III LLC, Case No. 25STCV28019 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Budget Rent a Car System, Inc. -- https://www.budget.com/en/home -- is an American car rental company that was founded in 1958 in Los Angeles, California by Morris Mirkin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rachmann, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Email: mike@frontierlawcenter.com BYRNA TECHNOLOGIES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYRNA TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07515 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed 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. Moreover, by failing to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Andover, MA, Byrna Technologies Inc. owns and operates the website, https://byrna.com, which offers self-defense products and apparel 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 C.R. ENGLAND INC: Cisneros Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Cisneros, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2521495 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09091. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages due in violation of California Labor Code, failed to provide off duty meal periods or pay premium compensation in lieu thereof, failed to provide off duty rest periods or pay premium compensation in lieu thereof, failed to pay all minimum wages due, failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination from employment, failed to timely pay all wages owed each pay period, all in violation of California Labor Code and violations California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com - and - Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213.612.7800 Facsimile: 213.612.7801 Email: mhasell@nossaman.com CABINETS TO GO: Bland Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cabinets to Go, LLC. The case is styled as Kelly Bland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cabinets to Go, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01775-KMN (M.D. Pa., Sept. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cabinets To Go -- https://cabinetstogo.com/ -- is the largest specialty retailer of cabinets, countertops, sinks, faucets, hardware, accessories, closets and flooring.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Email: a@perronglaw.com CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: "Hall" Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Hall and Monica M. Bahena, Plaintiffs, v. Camden Development, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. DKC 25-366 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Also, Defendant's motion to dismiss and strike class allegations was denied as moot. This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and Maryland Code Annotated, Real Property Section 8-208 against Defendant. Plaintiffs, former tenants of an apartment Defendant manages, contend that Defendant charged and collected various hidden fees in violation of Maryland law. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as moot, and denied the motion to strike class allegations as moot. Defendant is Camden Development, Inc., one of the largest publicly traded multifamily housing companies in the United States. As of the end of 2023, Defendant managed nearly 60,000 apartment units across the country. Four of Defendant's 176 multifamily properties are located in Maryland, including the Camden College Park, which has 509 units. Plaintiffs are John Hall and Monica M. Bahena, two residents of Prince George's County, Maryland, who are former tenants of Defendant's Camden College Park complex. In March 2024, Plaintiffs began looking for an apartment that met both their budget and geographic preferences. Their budget was no more than $1,800 per month. Defendant advertises its rental units on its own website and on third-party websites such as Zillow, Trulia, and Realtor.com. While on Zillow, Plaintiffs found a rental unit in Defendant's Camden College Park complex available for $1,729 per month. On March 17, 2024, Plaintiffs paid $50 in application fees to apply for the unit they had found. On or about March 23, 2024, Plaintiffs entered into a Lease Agreement with Defendant for the Camden College Park unit, at a monthly rent of $1,729. The lease term was March 30, 2024, to July 27, 2025. Plaintiffs' lease provided for the $50 application fee, a $118 monthly fee for a Technology Package, a one-time $450 Community Fee, and a monthly utility fee for water, sewer, and stormwater calculated according to a Ratio Utility Based System. These four fees are mandatory and form the basis of Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs allege that by excluding the mandatory fees from the advertised base rental price, Defendant lures people to pay nonrefundable application fees, only later to learn that the actual monthly rental price is higher than advertised. Plaintiffs highlight that Defendant's website advertises the monthly lease price as the Base Rent or Starting Price, when that price is allegedly not actually attainable due to additional fees. They note that prospective tenants must click through several screens on Defendant's website to access information about Defendant's mandatory fees. On November 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Defendant in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. There are three proposed classes. First, the Deceptive Marketing Class consists of all persons from November 6, 2021 to the present who paid an application fee to a residential rental property managed by Defendant in Maryland and stated on Camden's Lease Application Agreement that the Advertising Source was Defendant's website or a third-party real property website. Second, the Illegal Fee Class consists of all persons from November 6, 2021 to the present who are or were tenants in a residential rental property owned by Defendant in Maryland and who paid a Community Fee at the start of their Lease or made at least one monthly payment for the Technology Package. Third, the RUBS Class consists of all persons from June 1, 2022 to the present who are or were tenants in a residential rental property owned by Defendant in Maryland and who paid water, sewer, and/or stormwater bills pursuant to a ratio utility billing system without being provided the required documentation. In the complaint, Plaintiffs seek money damages for violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act in Count One, violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act in Count Two, and violations of Maryland Code Annotated, Real Property Section 8-208 in Count Three, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief for the violations in Count Four. On February 5, 2025, Defendant timely removed the case to this court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. On February 12, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), along with a motion to strike class allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Before reaching the merits of Defendant's motion to dismiss, the court determined it must first assure itself that Plaintiffs have standing. The court has an independent duty to determine whether it possesses jurisdiction over the case. Article III standing is a threshold, jurisdictional issue. To establish standing, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The fact that a suit is a class action adds nothing to the question of standing, for even named plaintiffs who represent a class must allege and show that they personally have been injured. A plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each individual claim for relief. Regarding the utility fee, the first requirement of an injury in fact is fatal to Plaintiffs' RUBS claims regarding utility fees in Count One, Count Two, and Count Four. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to provide the required documentation under Maryland law when charging utilities according to the RUBS. Defendant's alleged failure to provide the required documentation constitutes a statutory violation. That alone, however, does not give rise to a concrete harm. Plaintiffs' further allegation that their utility bills are far higher than normal in similar apartment buildings is conclusory and unsupported by factual content that appears to be available to Plaintiffs. In short, there is no way to determine what, if anything, Plaintiffs overpaid. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to allege an injury in fact for their RUBS claims and they lack standing to pursue those claims. The lack of an injury in fact is also fatal to Plaintiffs' Technology Package claims in Count One, Count Two, and Count Four. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant misrepresented the nature of the Technology Package because rather than apply the monthly Technology Package fee only to cable television and Internet, Defendant also applied the fee to bizarre perks such as the online tenant portal, door locks, and Defendant's social site for the residents. Plaintiffs cannot establish that they have suffered an injury in fact by virtue of their Technology Package payments. They do not identify any service explicitly mentioned in the Technology Package that they did not receive in return for their payment. Even if the lease was vague as to the other services, Plaintiffs proceeded on the assumption that they would receive only cable television and internet, which they do not allege they failed to receive. Plaintiffs were willing to pay $118 per month for only cable television and internet. They do not allege that the cable television and internet together were worth less than $118 per month. Therefore, they cannot identify any portion of the $118 fee to which Defendant was not entitled. In other words, Plaintiffs simply received the benefit of their bargain. Plaintiffs do not demonstrate injury in fact with respect to their Community Fee claims in Count One, Count Two, Count Three, and Count Four. Defendant charged Plaintiffs a $450 Community Fee, which Plaintiffs believed would provide for their access to amenities like the gym and the pool. Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief, however, that Defendant also applied the Community Fee to the general upkeep of its apartment buildings' common areas despite Maryland law assigning responsibility of common areas to the landlord. In support of this allegation, Plaintiffs cite a response from a Camden business manager in Tampa, Florida, to a 2022 Yelp review. Plaintiffs' Yelp citation and information and belief pleading are insufficient to articulate an injury. The Yelp response refers to the community, a general term, rather than common areas, a term of art. The response thus does not support Plaintiffs' contention that any portion of the Community Fee was applied to the common areas. Second, Plaintiffs do not supply any facts linking Defendant's business practices in Florida to its business practices in Maryland. The second requirement of causation is fatal to Plaintiffs' Application Fee claims in Count One, Count Two, and Count Four. Plaintiffs discovered Defendant's apartment on the third-party platform Zillow, which evidently listed the base rent and did not include the monthly cost breakdown that is available on Defendant's website. Plaintiffs do not allege that they looked at Defendant's website before completing the application and submitting the fee. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts tracing their injury, the payment of the application fee, to the conduct of Defendant. They do not allege that they visited Defendant's website before paying the application fee. Instead, they allege only that they visited the Zillow listing. Zillow, however, is a third party not before the court. The fact that Defendant advertises on Zillow is not enough to attribute the representations and omissions on Zillow to Defendant. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the standing requirements for their Utility Fee, Technology Package, Community Fee, and Application Fee claims. No claims remain, and the complaint will be dismissed in full for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs lack standing, the court need not reach Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or its motion to strike class allegations in the complaint. Both motions will thus be denied as moot. Because the court raised and decided the standing issue sua sponte and the dismissal is without prejudice, it is appropriate to provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to move for leave to amend their complaint if they believe they can correct the jurisdictional deficiencies. Any motion for leave to amend must be filed within 21 days. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y5NKeL from PacerMonitor.com CAPITAL ONE: Must Oppose Hoard Class Cert Bid by Oct. 6 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sammartino entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for continuance of briefing schedule regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant shall file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before Oct. 6, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before Oct. 27, 2025. Capital offers financial products and services such as personal and business checking, savings accounts. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c4Xqi0 at no extra charge.[CC] CARPENTER TECH: Smolarski Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carpenter Technology Corporation. The case is styled as Mark Smolarski, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Carpenter Technology Corporation, Case No. 250902529 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Sept. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Carpenter Technology Corporation -- https://www.carpentertechnology.com/ -- engages in the manufacture, fabrication, and distribution of specialty metals in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com CARTER CREDIT: Jackson Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARTER CREDIT UNION D/B/A CARTER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01335 (W.D. La., September 10, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of its clients. On or about July 2, 2025, Defendants detected unusual activity on its IT systems and determined that Plaintiff's personal information--which was entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect it against unauthorized disclosure--was accessed and exfiltrated in a data breach. Around August 29, 2025, Defendants began sending out data breach notice letters to individuals who were affected by the data breach. However, omitted from the data breach notice letter were the details of the root cause of the data breach and the vulnerabilities exploited. To date, these omitted details have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff, who retains a vested interest in ensuring that their PII remains protected. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action lawsuit individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, to address Defendants' inadequate data protection practices and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the data breach. Headquartered in Springhill, LA, Carter Credit Union provides loans, investment, deposit accounts, insurance, and online banking services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: cmad@poulinwilley.com andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com CAVA HOLDING: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohan, and others similarly situated v. CAVA HOLDING CORP, a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a CAVA, Case No. 6:25-cv-01827 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of discriminative property. The Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and others who are similarly situated by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as prohibited by the ADA, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises in the near future and avail himself to the services offered at the Premises when Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities. The Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination. The Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited the Premises and has been denied full and safe equal access to the facilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. The Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq. ADA LEGAL TEAM, LLC 300 Avenue of the Champions, Suite 260 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Phone: (561) 227-9821 Facsimile: (561) 491-9459 Primary Email: service@sconzolawoffice.com Secondary Email: greg@adalegalteam.com kevin@adalegalteam.com CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LINGLE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, v. CENTIMARK CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01471-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Oct. 17, 2025, will move for entry of an order for the following: 1. Certifying the proposed class for purposes of settlement; 2. Appointing the Plaintiff Anthony Lingle as class representative for purposes of settlement; 3. Appointing Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, as Class Counsel for purposes of settlement; 4. Approving the proposed class action and Private Attorneys General Act settlement, in the amount of $600,000, which is incorporated herein by reference; 5. Approving the settlement of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act for the total amount of $140,000, 75% of which will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% of which will be paid to PAGA Members; 6. Directing that any amount from settlement checks that were not cashed by the check cashing deadline be donated to Salvation Army Sacramento Metro under the doctrine of cy pres; and 7. Approving and adopting the Proposed Order and its implementation schedule, which is filed herewith and incorporated by reference. CentiMark is a national roofing contractor company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WBKZrV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. Renald Konini, Esq. SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com rkonini@shimodalaw.com CENTURY SNACKS: Barrales Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tinamarie Barrales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTURY SNACKS, LLC, a limited liability company, INSIGNIA CAPITAL GROUP, a limited partnership, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV21699 was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09037. The Complaint alleges five causes of action against Defendants: Violation of California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; Violation of California False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq.; Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et. seq.; Breach of Express Warranty; Unjust Enrichment/Restitution. The claims arise out of Defendants' alleged "false," "unfair", and/or "unlawful" labeling claims relating to certain of Defendants' Snak Club products (the "Products").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David T. Biderman, Esq. Jasmine W. Wetherell, Esq. Elissa Ronquillo, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: +1.310.788.9900 Facsimile: +1.310.788.3399 Email: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com JWetherell@perkinscoie.com ERonquillo@perkinscoie.com CERNER CORPORATION: Tripp Removed to E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ronald M. Tripp, Laura E. Tripp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health, Inc., Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 58CV-25-00628 was removed from the Pope County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Sept. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00979-DPM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - James A. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Phone: (479) 968-2030 Email: james@streettlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin D. Jackson, Esq. John Keeling Baker, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 688-8800 Email: bjackson@mwlaw.com jbaker@mwlaw.com - and - Elizabeth Esparza, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD PLLC 4206 South J.B. Hunt Drive, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72758 Phone: (479) 464-5660 Email: eesparza@mwlaw.com CICI ENTERPRISES: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CICI ENTERPRISES, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership D/B/A CICI'S PIZZA, Case No. 1:25-cv-24397-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.cicis.com. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. CICI'S PIZZA, is a company that sells pizza, chicken wings, salads, pasta, sides, and desserts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com CLENERGY 8/57: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. CLENERGY 8/57, LLC, PRESTON STANLEY BROOKS, VICTORIA WEBER BROOK, LATIN AMERICAN BAKERY INC. D/B/A LATIN AMERICAN BAKERY, and SAILE ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A LUIS GALINDO LATIN AMERICAN CAFE, Case No. 1:25-cv-24306-CMA (S.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the commercial parking lot property whose address is 5700 SW 8th Street, West Miami, Florida and is located adjacent to the commercial property that is used in conjunction with that commercial property that is also the subject of this ADA Complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned and operated a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza located at the following address: 27455 S. Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida.[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 CLIFF VIESSMAN INC: Koprowicz Files Suit in D. South Dakota ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cliff Viessman, Inc. The case is styled as Trevor Koprowicz, Daniel Nolting, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cliff Viessman, Inc. doing business as: Viessman Trucking, Case No. 1:25-cv-01014-ECS (D.S.D., Sept. 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Cliff Viessman, Inc. doing business as Viessman Trucking -- https://viessmantrucking.com/ -- is one of the largest haulers of food-grade bulk products in the US, transporting goods across the US and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett J. Waltner, Esq. MYERS BILLION, LLP 230 S. Phillips Ave., Suite 300 PO Box 1085 Sioux Falls, SD 57101 Phone: (605) 336-3700 Fax: (605) 336-3786 Email: bwaltner@myersbillion.com COMBEX INC: Bishop Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA -------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMBEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07518 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2025) arises from its 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. On several separate occasions, the Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant's interactive website while attempting to access the website from his home in New York, NY. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in Lake Geneva, WI, Combex, Inc. operates the AcuRite online retail store, as well as the AcuRite interactive Website. The company's website, https://www.acurite.com, offers weather instruments & home monitoring devices 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 COMMISSIONER COOKIE: Marcum Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADDILYN MARCUM, V. COMMISSIONER COOKIE CREWS, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00238-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. While a Preliminary Injunction does not require a fully developed record, it does require a clear showing of entitlement to relief before the Court can take the extraordinary step of enjoining a duly enacted state statute. The Plaintiff asks the Court for a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of Ky. Rev. Stat. section 197.280. So far the Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the claims due to an underdeveloped record. Hence, the request for a Preliminary Injunction must be denied. But, to be clear this is a preliminary decision not one that is final. A final decision in this matter will have the benefit of a fully developed factual record. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to show that the treatment received amounts to a conscious disregard of the risk the Plaintiff faces. Here, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the doctors are treating the Plaintiff inconsistent with the diagnosis. Again, just because the Plaintiff would like to receive a certain type of treatment, does not mean there is a constitutional right to receive said treatment. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff has not met the burden of showing the alleged injury is certain and immediate. The Kentucky Legislature passed Ky. Rev. Stat. section 197.280, which bans public funds from being used for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for inmates. The Plaintiff, a prisoner receiving HRT, contends the ban has abrogated certain constitutional rights. So, the Plaintiff asks this Court to invalidate the statute. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4D2clI at no extra charge.[CC] CONVERSE INC: Shulman Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jack Shulman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CONVERSE, INC., Case No. UNN-L-003165-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-15913. The Plaintiff premises his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Matheson violated the Labor Code by failing to pay for off-the-clock work; failing to pay overtime; failing to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in California with compliant meal periods and rest breaks; failing to reimburse necessary business expenditures; failing to pay all wages at separation; failing to furnish accurate itemized statements. Plaintiff alleges these purported violations also violated the California Business and Professional Code Section 172000 ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda William, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Fl. New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 218-5500 Fax: (212) 218-5526 Email: amwilliams@seyfarth.com CORNWELL QUALITY: Cox Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01913 (N.D. Ohio, September 10, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach. Starting on or about September 4, 2025, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other victims of the Data Breach a Notice of Data Security, informing them that an unknown actor gained access to its network and potentially acquired certain files on or around December 12, 2024. Moreover, the Defendant waited over nine months to notify Plaintiff and Class members of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, and Social Security numbers. Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and for breach of fiduciary duty. Headquartered in Wadsworth, OH, The Cornwell Quality Tools Company is a mobile tool company that sells directly to professional technicians across the country. [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 CRAWFORD COMMUNITIES: Caudill Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Haylee Caudill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crawford Communities, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01100-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 23, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMWFSA"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Defendant violated the FLSA and OMWFSA by paying Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members their straight time hourly rates of pay for hours worked that were in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Defendant violated the FLSA and OMWFSA by automatically deducting a thirty minute meal break from each and every shift Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members worked regardless of whether Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members were able to take a meal break, regardless of whether they were permitted to take a full thirty minute meal break, and regardless of whether they were completely relieved from duty for thirty minutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Crawford as a leasing agent from April 2024 through October, 2024. Crawford was licensed to transact business in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com CUSO FINANCIAL SERVICES: Sinitsa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CUSO Financial Services, LP, et al. The case is styled as Stan Sinitsa, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CUSO Financial Services, LP, Case No. VCU326251 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., Sept. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Non PI/PD/WD Tort. CUSO Financial Services, L.P. provides investment advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com DAVID M. PERRY: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against David M. Perry, D.D.S., et al. The case is styled as Lourdes Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. David M. Perry, D.D.S., Mylinh Ngo, D.M.D., Inc., Sharine Thenard, D.D.S., Case No. 25CV144891 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." David M. Perry, D.D.S. have been practicing pediatric dentistry for over 45 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shani Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600 San Diego, CA 92121-6720 Phone: 619-255-9047 Fax: 858-404-9203 Email: shani@zakaylaw.com DEEPS INC: Ibarra Sues Over Improper Web Subscription Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEEPS, INC. d/b/a WWW.GETDEEPS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02484-AJB-VET (S.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Automatic Renewal Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant automatically renewed paid subscription from its website, https://getdeeps.com (the "Website"), which caused the Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of the Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct. Deep, Inc. markets and sells sleep aid products such as patches, masks, and oils. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com DELRAY HOTEL OWNER: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohan, and others similarly situated v. DELRAY HOTEL OWNER LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, d/b/a THE RAY HOTEL, Case No. 9:25-cv-81165-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of discriminative property. The Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and others who are similarly situated by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as prohibited by the ADA, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises in the near future and avail himself to the services offered at the Premises when Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities. The Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination. The Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited the Premises and has been denied full and safe equal access to the facilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. The Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq. ADA LEGAL TEAM, LLC 300 Avenue of the Champions, Suite 260 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Phone: (561) 227-9821 Facsimile: (561) 491-9459 Primary Email: service@sconzolawoffice.com Secondary Email: greg@adalegalteam.com kevin@adalegalteam.com DELTA AIRLINES: Goodyear Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order sealing the following documents, submitted collectively as Exhibit K in support of the Plaintiff's response to Delta's notice of objection to declaration of Daniel R. Ferri. Due to the size and nature of the files, Plaintiff submitted the following documents to the Court on a hard drive via FedEx as opposed to filing them provisionally under seal. -- DELTA_LG_00018139 -- DELTA_LG_00018140 -- DELTA_LG_00018141 -- DELTA_LG_00018142 -- DELTA_LG_00018143 -- DELTA_LG_00018144 -- DELTA_LG_00018145 -- DELTA_LG_00018146 -- DELTA_LG_00018147 -- DELTA_LG_00018148 -- DELTA_LG_00018149 Delta has designated these documents as Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only under the Consent Protective Order. Delta provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oOrYie at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Anna Claire Skinner, Esq. Madeline E. Hills, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com askinner@dicellolevitt.com mhills@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jonathan Palmer, Esq. KNIGHT PALMER, LLC 1360 Peachstreet Street, N.E. Suite 1201 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 228-4822 Facsimile: (404) 228-4821 E-mail: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com DENCO CONSTRUCTION: Perez Bid for Retrospective Relief Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILMAR PEREZ, RUBY ORANTES, EDGAR SUAREZ ACEROS, ALEXIS CALDERON, and GOJHAN SIERRA, v. DENCO CONSTRUCTION LLC d/b/a DENCO, ROA CONSTRUCTION LLC, ABC COMPANIES 1-10 (names fictitious), BRUCE RAHMANI, YESSICA ROA, and JOHN DOES 1-10 (names fictitious) individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-02766-RMR-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs Perez and Orantes' motion for a protective order and corrective notice to the potential Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective and class. The Plaintiffs' request for retrospective relief -- invalidation of the 61 settlement agreements for $500 -- is denied without prejudice at this time. In the instant case, the Court does have sufficient evidence to conclude that the Denco Defendants' outreach to the putative class and collective members was improper and requires a curative notice. The Plaintiffs' counsel and defense counsel shall jointly draft the proposed notice that complies with the order on conditional certification and includes the corrective language. On or before Sept. 22, 2025, the proposed notice shall be submitted to the Court for approval. If the parties cannot agree upon the language of the notice, the parties shall each submit their own versions on that date. On Oct. 7, 2024, they filed the original Collective Action Complaint for Unpaid Wages bringing a collective claim for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and individual claims under the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA"), and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS"), based on allegations that the Denco Defendants failed to properly pay overtime wages. Perez previously worked for Denco as a laborer and an electrician from September 2019 through June 2024. Denco offers expert custom tile and stone installation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uaj2Ho at no extra charge.[CC] DEPLOYED SERVICES: Fink Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Fink, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. DEPLOYED SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DEPLOYED RESOURCES, LLC, a New York limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CU044465C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02517-JES-KSC. The Complaint alleges 11 causes of action against Defendants, for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Unlawful Business Practices; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Paley, Esq. John T. Ayers-Mann, Esq. Ashley D. Stein, Esq. Katherine R. Farr, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: apaley@seyfarth.com jayers-mann@seyfarth.com astein@seyfarth.com kfarr@seyfarth.com DOUG BURGUM: Wins Dismissal of "Tanner-Brown" Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Leatrice Tanner-Brown, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-565 (RC) (D.D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint. Leatrice Tanner-Brown and the Harvest Institute Freedman Federation, LLC (HIFF) filed this putative class action against the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Interior Department, in their official capacities, seeking accountings related to land that was allotted to the minor children of emancipated slaves of Native American tribes. The Plaintiffs alleged breaches of trust and fiduciary duties, and sought various remedies, including declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. The D.C. Circuit affirmed that decision as to HIFF, but reversed as to Tanner-Brown. On remand, the Plaintiffs amended their Complaint, and the Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). During the Civil War, the so-called Five Civilized Tribes (the Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw Tribes) kept slaves and allied with the Confederacy. Beginning in 1866, following the defeat of the Confederacy, the United States entered into a series of treaties and agreements with the Five Civilized Tribes that, among other things, emancipated the Tribes' slaves (known as the Freedmen) and provided them with certain rights. In 1898, Congress enacted the Curtis Act, 30 Stat. 495, which allotted the land of the Five Tribes with certain restrictions to groups of individuals who had historically been enslaved. The present lawsuit is based on the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312 (the 1908 Act). Section 2 of the 1908 Act provides that lands from which restrictions have not been removed may be leased by the adult allottee or, if the allottee is a minor or incompetent, by a guardian or curator on the allottee's behalf. Section 6 of the 1908 Act provides in relevant part: That the persons and property of minor allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes shall, except as otherwise specifically provided by law, be subject to the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the State of Oklahoma. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby empowered, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by him, to appoint such local representatives within the State of Oklahoma who shall be citizens of that State or now domiciled therein as he may deem necessary to inquire into and investigate the conduct of guardians or curators having in charge the estate of such minors. Tanner-Brown alleged that she is the personal representative of the estate of her grandfather, George Curls, a Cherokee Freedman Allottee who was born to former Cherokee slave parents in Indian Country, Oklahoma, in 1897. Curls received 60 acres of allotments from the Cherokee Tribe under the Curtis Act on December 5, 1910. At that time, Curls was a 13-year-old minor. HIFF is an Ohio limited liability company formed for the purpose of vindicating the rights of the estates of Freedmen minors owed fiduciary duties by the Defendants under the 1908 Act. HIFF alleged that its membership is comprised of persons with African and Native American ancestry, including several representatives of Freedmen minor estates. Tanner-Brown and HIFF filed multiple lawsuits over the past decade on behalf of Freedmen and minor Freedmen. In 2014, they filed a putative class action on behalf of descendants of Freedmen minor allottees of the Five Tribes, alleging that the Interior Secretary breached his fiduciary duty as to the allotments. The Court dismissed the case after finding that Tanner-Brown's hereditary relationship with Curls was insufficient to establish standing and that HIFF failed to plead associational standing. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. In March 2021, the Plaintiffs brought this similar putative class action seeking an accounting to the estate of George Curls and other minor Freedmen based on alleged duties owed under Section 6 of the 1908 Act. This time, Tanner-Brown brought suit as a personal representative of Curls' estate. The Defendants moved to dismiss, and the Court granted the motion after concluding that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. The Plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), and the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Court's decision that HIFF lacked associational standing. But the Circuit concluded that Tanner-Brown had sufficiently alleged Article III standing, assuming that Tanner-Brown is correct on her legal theory that the statute could give rise to a trust relationship with attendant fiduciary duties under certain circumstances. On the merits, the panel concluded it did not know if the federal government owes any duty to Curls' estate because it did not know whether the Secretary appointed a representative to oversee his allotment pursuant to Section 6. The panel accordingly remanded the matter back to the Court. On remand, the Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to add a claim for breach of trust and fiduciary duties in management of trust funds, land and resources. The operative Complaint still does not identify any HIFF members other than Tanner-Brown. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) as to HIFF, and Rule 12(b)(6) as to Tanner-Brown. The Court found that HIFF failed to plead its associational standing. The parties disputed only the third element of the Hunt test for associational standing: that neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. The relief the Plaintiffs requested for their accounting claim would require making individualized findings regarding specific allotments held in trust for specific allottees. The addition of the Plaintiffs' trust mismanagement claim did not change the Court's analysis. If HIFF seeks comparable relief, then directing the Defendants to reconvey the allotted lands and all rights and interests therein to the estates of other Freedmen minors would surely require additional individualized findings. Moreover, HIFF failed to identify a single member whose interest is not already represented, such that HIFF's participation in the suit would be redundant with Tanner-Brown's. Though not mentioned in the operative Complaint, the Plaintiffs argued in their opposition brief that the HIFF representatives who have standing are the other members of the Family of Leatrice Tanner Brown, such as her brother Ronald and sister, Vickie and their children, all members of HIFF. But the Plaintiffs seemed to forget that Tanner-Brown has standing to sue not in her capacity as a descendant of a Freedman, but as a personal representative of a Freedman's estate; the Plaintiffs failed to allege that any of Tanner-Brown's family members have a similar legal relationship to a Freedman. The Plaintiffs argued that they identified additional members with standing by describing them. That argument is foreclosed by Circuit precedent. When a petitioner claims associational standing, it is not enough to aver that unidentified members have been injured. Rather, the petitioner must specifically identify members who have suffered the requisite harm. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint described HIFF's membership as comprised of persons with African and Native American ancestry, each of whom has standing to sue in their own right and of representatives of the estates of minor Freedmen allottees. This conclusory, general reference to unidentified representatives is legally insufficient. For these reasons, the Court concluded that HIFF lacks associational standing, and granted the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Both of Tanner-Brown's accounting and trust mismanagement claims depend on the existence of trust or fiduciary duties owed by the Interior Secretary to Curls. The Court concluded Tanner-Brown failed to plead or otherwise support that the Interior Secretary took steps that would have triggered any duty under Section 6 of the 1908 Act, and that in the absence of any duty, Tanner-Brown's claims fail. Although there is a general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian People, the Supreme Court has explained that this relationship in itself does not give rise to any fiduciary obligation of the federal government. The Federal Government owes judicially enforceable duties to a tribe only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities. Whether the Government has expressly accepted such obligations must train on specific rights-creating or duty-imposing language in a treaty, statute, or regulation. Tanner-Brown derived the Interior Secretary's alleged duties from Section 6 of the 1908 Act. As the Circuit Court explained in this case: Section 6 details the extent of the Secretary's duties owed to minor allottees. The Secretary is empowered to appoint local representatives as he may deem necessary to inquire into and investigate the conduct of guardians or curators having in charge the estates of such minors. The statute thus initially confers a discretionary power: the Secretary may choose, but is not obligated, to appoint a representative if she deems it necessary. Once the Secretary takes the discretionary step of appointing a representative and the representative forms the opinion that the allotment is not being properly cared for, then, there are certain statutory duties owed to the minor allottees. Thus, the Secretary's duties are conditioned on the Secretary first appointing a representative. The Circuit Court did not know if the federal government owes any duty to Curls' estate because it did not know whether the Secretary appointed a representative to oversee his allotment pursuant to Section 6. That problem persists. As the Circuit court explained, Tanner-Brown seeks an accounting because she lacks information that is likely to be in Interior's possession regarding Curls' estate—including whether a representative was appointed. But Tanner-Brown failed to plead her entitlement to an accounting, as she does not even plead that the Secretary appointed a representative to oversee Curls' estate. The arguments in the Plaintiffs' opposition brief are similarly deficient. Tanner-Brown argued that there is record proof that such representatives were actually appointed, including for the Curls Freedmen minors. But she did not provide any citation to support that assertion. Moreover, Tanner-Brown failed to explain how any of the documents attached to her Complaint plausibly support that the Interior Secretary appointed a representative for Curls' estate either. In the absence of factual allegations, or any meaningful explanation, to support that a representative had been appointed to investigate the guardian of Curls' estate, the Court saw no fact from which to infer this key event occurred and triggered specific duties. As a result, Tanner-Brown failed to plead a plausible trust or fiduciary duty that the Defendants could have breached, so her claims for an accounting and trust mismanagement must both be dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LgfHmn from pacerMonitor.com ECOBEL INC: Dennis Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecobel Inc. The case is styled as Janice Dennis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ecobel Inc. doing business as: Ecobel Med Spa, Case No. 0:25-cv-61907-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ecobel Inc. doing business as Ecobel Med Spa -- https://ecobelmedspa.com/ -- provides unique skin care and medical treatments that combine Eastern natural skincare with Western medically-based practices..[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 EVERON LLC: Llamas Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Erika Llamas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. EVERON, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; ADT COMMERCIAL LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV136860 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the Alameda County, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08012. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse for business expenses; failure to provide wages when due and upon termination; failure to pay sick wages; unfair business practices in violation of violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tedd J. Kochman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Newark Center, 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: 973.848.4700 Facsimile: 973.643.5626 Email: tkochman@littler.com - and - 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 FAIRMONT FEDERAL CREDIT: Basagic Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairmont Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Jeremy Basagic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fairmont Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:25-cv-00096-TSK (N.D.W. Va., Sept. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Fairmont Federal Credit Union -- https://www.fairmontfcu.com/ -- is currently one of the fastest growing credit unions in West Virginia with over $500,000,000 in assets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Michael Alexander Urban, Esq. Rodney A. Smith, Esq. ROD SMITH LAW PLLC 108 1/2 Capitol Street, Suite 300 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 342-0550 Email: aurban@lawwv.com rod@lawwv.com FAIRMONT FEDERAL CREDIT: Ortner Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairmont Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Crystal Ortner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fairmont Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:25-cv-00098-TSK (N.D.W. Va., Sept. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Fairmont Federal Credit Union -- https://www.fairmontfcu.com/ -- is currently one of the fastest growing credit unions in West Virginia with over $500,000,000 in assets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hoyt E. Glazer, Esq. GLAZER SAAD ANDERSON L.C. 320 9th Street, Ste. B P.O. Box 1638 Huntington, WV 25717 Phone: (304) 522-4149 Fax: (800) 879-7248 Email: hoyt@gsalaw-wv.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.comcom rod@lawwv.com FARMER BROTHERS COFFEE: Terres Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmer Brothers Coffee Co. The case is styled as Kevin Terres, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmer Brothers Coffee Co., Case No. 25-10041-431 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Denton Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." Farmer Brothers -- https://farmerbrotherscoffee.com/ -- is a coffee company and distributor of other beverage and specialty culinary goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Sedge, Esq. 2115 Wheaton Dr. Richardson, TX Phone: 214-723-6899 FINMAX SMART: Class Cert Bids Filing in Wilson Due Feb. 27, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. FINMAX SMART CAPITAL LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00173 (D. Or., Filed Jan. 31, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Amended Complaint is due Oct. 31, 2025 -- Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. -- Rebuttal Expert Reports are due by Jan. 28, 2026. -- Discovery is to be completed by Dec. 30, 2026. -- Dispositive Motions and Class Certification are due by Feb. 27, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Finmax is a financial services company.[CC] FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Prerecorded Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC D/B/A LA FITNESS, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05119 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2025) is a putative class action arising from Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant places unsolicited telephone calls utilizing an artificial and/or prerecorded voice. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Fitness International LLC is a North American gym chain with over 700 clubs across the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com FIVERR INC: Illegally Installs 3rd Party Data Trackers, Tasker Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN TASKER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FIVERR INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02397 (C.D. Cal., September 12, 2025) alleges that Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on its website, www.fiverr.com, without providing Plaintiff and other users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, the Defendant enables third-party technologies that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. The trackers are operated by distinct third parties, including Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., The Trade Desk, Inc., and Tapad, Inc. By installing and activating the trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order, Defendant violated the state law, which prohibits the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under these circumstances, says the suit. Fiverr Inc. is one of the world's largest online freelance marketplaces with corporate offices in New York, New York.[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 FOODS ALIVE: Gonzales Sues Over Deceptive Product Packaging ----------------------------------------------------------- ARIANNA GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOODS ALIVE INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08580 (C.D. Cal., September 10, 2025) arises from Defendant's deceptive product packaging. Allegedly, the Defendant has been deceptively selling its products in over-sized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are over half empty. This slack-fill scam extends to Defendant's 10-ounce "Tart Cherries/Dried" product sold in opaque containers. Accordingly, the Defendant has violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. As such, the Defendant has committed per se violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law, says the suit. Headquartered in Angola, IN, Foods Alive, Inc. manufactures and sells dried fruit snack products throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Watson Balks at Disclosure of Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., an Indiana nonprofit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11043 (N.D. Ill., September 12, 2025) is a class action lawsuit arising from Franciscan's systematic interception and disclosure of patients and website visitors' sensitive personal health information and electronic communications to third parties, including The Trade Desk, without prior notice or consent, through tracking technologies embedded in Defendant's website, www.franciscanhealth.org. Unbeknownst to website visitors, including Plaintiff, Franciscan has knowingly implemented third-party tracking technology on its Website, including The Trade Desk tracking platform. When website visitors search for doctors or medical specialists, research health conditions, seek information about specific medical services, or interact with other health-related content, Franciscan enables The Trade Desk to intercept these electronic communications without consent, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these widespread privacy violations on behalf of a nationwide class, obtain appropriate remedies for thousands of affected individuals, and prevent the continued unauthorized interception of patients' electronic communications through Defendant's website. Franciscan is a healthcare system headquartered in Mishawaka, Indiana, with more than 19,000 employees and operating twelve hospitals and numerous medical practices across Indiana and Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: kyle@csclassactions.com FUJI HANA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 3 ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lin, et al., v. Fuji Hana Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03832 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order reminding the parties that pursuant to the Court's August 14, 2025 Order, any party wishing to commence dispositive motion practice or move for class certification must do so no later than Nov. 3, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Fuji Hana is an authentic Japanese restaurant.[CC] GARDA CL: $1.5MM Settlement in Cravens Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE CRAVENS, RYAN GAWRONSKI, DIANNA J. VIVEROS, GWENDOLYN KENNEDY, JEREMY ANGELLE and JOSEPH TYLER HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GARDA CL SOUTHEAST, INC., GARDA, CL GREAT LAKES, INC., GARDA CL CENTRAL, INC., GARDA CL SOUTHWEST, INC., AND GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES, INC. D/B/A GARDAWORLD CASH U.S., Case No. 9:24-cv-80400-BER (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Reinhart entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and application for attorneys' fees and costs. Specifically, the Settlement provides monetary relief that includes a non-reversionary all cash Settlement Fund of $1,500,000.00. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that it should finally certify the proposed Settlement Class and enter this Final Approval Order, because the Settlement Class and proposed Settlement satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a), (b)(3), and (e) and the Bennett factors. Nothing has changed since the Court granted Preliminary Approval. Additionally, the response from the Settlement Class has been overwhelmingly favorable. The Court therefore provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All living individuals residing in the United States who the Defendant sent or attempted to send a notice that their private information may have been impacted in the data incident." The Court finds Plaintiffs have adequately represented the Settlement Class throughout this Action. The Court therefore reaffirms its designation and appointment of Plaintiffs Andre Cravens, Ryan Gawronski, Dianna J. Viveros, Gwendolyn Kennedy, and Jeremy Angelle as Class Representatives. The Court awards Class Counsel $500,000.00 for attorneys' fees, which is equal to 33.33% of the $1,500,000.00 Settlement Fund, and $19,723.04 for reasonable litigation costs. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and the Settlement Class' private information from unauthorized access and asserts multiple common law and statutory claims for relief. Garda provides detective, guard, and armored car services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9kNTog at no extra charge.[CC] GIRLS GALORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JANNA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIRLS GALORE, INC. d/b/a ALLURE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; NICHOLAS STERGION; and CARMEN POPOVITCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05410-SDG (N.D. Ga., Sept. 22, 2025) is an action for damages and other relief brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer. Girls Galore, Inc. d/b/a Allure Gentlemen's Club operates as an adult entertainment club. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com HAVCO WOOD PRODUCTS: Carroll Files Suit in E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Havco Wood Products, LLC. The case is styled as Tony Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Havco Wood Products, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00156-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Sept. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Havco Wood Products LLC -- https://www.havco.com/ -- manufactures the finest oak hardwood flooring for trailers, truck bodies and containers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 HEALTH FIRST: Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS and CHRISTINA ROSEAN, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal its sur-reply memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Health is a fully integrated health system. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=83UBDq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Berry, Esq. BERRY LAW LLC 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 296-1212 E-mail: Sberry@berrylawpllc.com - and - Tucker H. Byrd, Esq. BYRD CAMPBELL, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Ste 2A Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 392-2285 E-mail: Tbyrd@byrdcampbell.com - and - Ronald G. Meyer, Esq. MEYER, BLOHM AND POWELL, P.A. Tallahassee, FL 32302 Telephone: (850) 878-5212 E-mail: rmeyer@meyerblohmlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth B. Honkonen, Esq. Richard Alan Arnold, Esq. Allison G. Margolies, Esq. Campbell Haynes, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC Four Seasons Tower - Suite 1100 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 E-mail: ebh@sperlingkenny.com rarnold@sperlingkenny.com amargolies@sperlingkenny.com chaynes@sperlingkenny.com Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida is represented by: Frank Morreale, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 E-mail: Frank.morreale@hklaw.com Cigna is represented by: Patrick Bradford, Esq. BRADFORD EDWARDS LLP 575 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 E-mail: pbradford@bradfordedwards.com United Healthcare is represented by: Judith Zahid, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 E-mail: jzahid@zellelaw.com Aetna is represented by: Allison Gallagher, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 420 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 E-mail: allison.gallagher@akerman.com HIGH POINT TREATMENT: Chongarlides Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against High Point Treatment Center, Inc. The case is styled as Hayley Chongarlides, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. High Point Treatment Center, Inc., Case No. 2573CV00753 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as " Torts." High Point -- https://hptc.org/ -- provides substance use disorder and mental health services to individuals, families, and communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com HOMESTEAD VPE HOTEL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. HOMESTEAD VPE HOTEL LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24381-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make 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, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. HOMESTEAD VPE HOTEL LLC, owns and operates a commercial property and hotel business located in Homestead, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com HOUSE OF RAEFORD: Haff Poultry Sues Over Broiler Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------- HAFF POULTRY, INC.; NANCY BUTLER; JAMES MICHAEL MERCER; JONATHAN WALTERS; MARC MCENTIRE; and KAREN MCENTIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS INC.; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS OF LOUISIANA, LLC; and AMICK FARMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-12629-MGL (D.S.C., Sept. 19, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and bad faith conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing services. The Defendants are engaged in an agreements to reduce competition for Broiler Grow-Out Services by agreeing to limit or eliminate efforts to solicit, recruit, or hire one another's Growers, with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing Grower compensation below competitive levels (the "No-Poach Agreement"). By agreeing not to compete for the services of one another's Growers, the Cartel members attempted to insulate themselves from normal competitive pressures. The No-Poach Agreement inoculated the Cartel against competition for Grower pay and "wars" for Grower labor, which would have a market wide ripple effect on Grower compensation because of standardization in Grower contracts and pay rates, says the suit. House of Raeford Farms, Inc. provides poultry products for foodservice, retail, and export markets. The Company produces and processes raw chicken, turkey, partially prepared items, and fully cooked meals. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin H. Joyce, Esq. Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP 701 East Bay Street, Suite 411 Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 699-8280 Email: bjoyce@ashcraftlaw.com smccluer@ashcraftlaw.com - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 Email: dwalker@bergermontague.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Sarah R. Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bergermontague.com pmadden@bergermontague.com mwallin@bergermontague.com szimmerman@bergermontague.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Erika A. Inwald, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: einwald@hausfeld.com - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 Email: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 Email: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Michael L. Silverman, Esq. ROACH LAW FIRM 205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: msilverman@rlbfirm.com INNOVATIVE DINING MB: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innovative Dining MB LLC. The case is styled as Maricella Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Innovative Dining MB LLC, Case No. 25STCV28022 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Innovative Dining Group -- https://www.innovativedining.com/ -- operates some of the most successful and legendary restaurants in Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com JAM CITY INC: Figuieredo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jam City, Inc. The case is styled as Mariah Figuieredo and Josita Calloni, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Jam City, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2025-0013865 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair Business Practice." Jam City, Inc. -- https://www.jamcity.com/ -- (formerly MindJolt and Social Gaming Network) is an American video game developer and publisher based in Culver City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Email: andersonberry@gmail.com JINS EYEWEAR US: Tu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jins Eyewear US, Inc. The case is styled as Joan H. Tu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jins Eyewear US, Inc., Case No. 25STCV27868 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." JINS -- https://us.jins.com/ -- offers prescription eyeglasses & sunglasses that suit your style & budget.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Phone: 818-914-3433 Fax: 818-914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com JOSEPH AHN: Spiess Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph Ahn, et al. The case is styled as Susannah Spiess, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Joseph Ahn, Endeavor Health, Case No. 1:25-cv-11410 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Job Discrimination (Employment). Joseph Ahn, M.D. M.S. M.B.A -- https://www.endeavorhealth.org/providers/joseph-ahn -- is a hepatologist at Endeavor Health in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori Susan Yokoyama, Esq. LORI S. C. YOKOYAMA AND ASSOCIATES 4800 S. Greenwood Chicago, IL 60615 Phone: (312) 380-6581 Email: lscylaw@gmail.com The Defendant Joseph Ahn appears pro se. JRK PROPERTY: Peebles Seeks OK of Renewed Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDA PEEBLES and JOSHUA BERGER, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all Others similarly situated, v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., STEVENS POND APARTMENTS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, and ONE WEBSTER APARTMENTS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10523-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion to certify a class of Plaintiffs as follows: "Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed by JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and whose lease contained the Move Out Addendum. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs would seek to certify any of the following sub-classes: "Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed by JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit; whose lease contained the Move Out Addendum; and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for any reason"; "Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed by JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit; whose lease contained the Move Out Addendum; and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for "Painting;" "Carpet Cleaning;" "Touch-up Paint;" and "Apartment Clean."" "Current and former tenants of Stevens Pond and One Webster during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and whose lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for any reason whatsoever." "Current and former tenants of Stevens Pond and One Webster during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and who's lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for "Painting" "Carpet Cleaning;" "Touch-up Paint;" and "Apartment Clean."" JRK is a real estate holding and property management company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4eiYA5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith L. Sachs, Esq. Shaun M. Khan, Esq. DDSK Law LLC 900 Cummings Center, Suite 210-U Beverly, MA 01915 Telephone: (978) 338-6620 Facsimile: (978) 338-6621 E-mail: ksachs@ddsklaw.com skhan@ddsklaw.com KIMBERLY LC: Mellenthin Sues Over Physical Barriers --------------------------------------------------- Daniel Mellenthin, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KIMBERLY, LC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01441 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property a dozen times before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Schnucks, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase goods and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. KIMBERLY, LC is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Missouri and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com KINGSMEN PREMIUM: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kingsmen Premium, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10905 (N.D. Ill., September 10, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to make its website accessible to blind persons, violating the basic requirements under both state and federal law. Defendant's website contains access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, 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. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Based in Fort Myers, FL, Kingsmen Premium, LLC owns and operates the website, Kingsmenpremium.com, which offers beard care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: achan@ealg.law KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Patel Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUBHASH PATEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. AND FRANS VAN HOUTEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04606-ERK-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order: (1) certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule') 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and certifying the Class defined in the accompanying Memorandum of Law; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and (3) appointing Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Koninklijke is a Dutch multinational health technology and former consumer electronics company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zA6cVU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com LACOSTE USA INC: Ram Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Craig Rogers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LACOSTE USA, INC., Case No. 2025CH08644 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11458. In the State Action, Plaintiff alleges a single claim for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Ste.3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 866.726.1092 Email: keith@keoghlaw.com mhilicki@keoghlaw.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 668 Golden Beach Drive Golden Beach, FL 33160 Phone: 954.454.5841 Email: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mariam Weber, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 233 S. Wacker, Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.258.5500 Facsimile: 312.258.5600 Email: mariam.weber@afslaw.com LARSEN'S PRIME STEAKHOUSE: Schamus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Larsen's Prime Steakhouse, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michelle Lynn Schamus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Larsen's Prime Steakhouse, Inc., ESG Personnel Leasing, Inc., Case No. 25STCV28024 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Larsen's Steakhouse -- https://www.larsensrestaurants.com/ -- is an upscale steakhouse offering only the finest prime steaks and freshest seafood available, flown in daily.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rachmann, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Email: mike@frontierlawcenter.com LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Price Says -------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH PRICE, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01581 (E.D. Va., Sept. 19, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against OnTrac for it's alleged negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. Accordingly, as a result of OnTrac's negligence and deficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated OnTrac's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members -- at least 40,017 individuals. On April 15, 2025, OnTrac detected potentially suspicious activity in its computer network. OnTrac's investigation determined that between April 13 and April 15, 2025, certain filed were accessed without authorization by an unknown third party. On or around August 27, 2025, OnTrac began to send Notice of Data Breach Letters. After an investigation, OnTrac learned that "the files at issue included your name in combination with the following: Date of Birth, Social Security Number, Driver's License or State ID, Medical Information, and Health Insurance Information." Mr. Price is an individual domiciled in Gilbert, Arizona, who was an employee of OnTrac and a victim of the Data Breach. OnTrac is a last-minute delivery company for e-commerce shipments to residential areas and also provides logistics support for the medical, aviation, automotive and industrial industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 11 South 12th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (509) 822-2463 E-mail: rrodriguez@sirillp.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: : wbf@federmanlaw.com LIN R. ROGERS ELECTRICAL: Bowser Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lin R. Rogers Electrical Contractors, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tyler Bowser, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Lin R. Rogers Electrical Contractors, Inc., Rogers Electric Service Corporation, Does 1-25, Case No. 25CV021830 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Lin R. Rogers Electrical Contractors, Inc. -- https://www.rogerselectric.com/ -- is the largest self-performing electrical, data and lighting contractor in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Berg Seeks to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIZIA BERG, et al., v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 12, 2025, will move the Court to certify the following proposed classes. 1. Injunctive Relief Class defined as: "All persons who have in the past participated, presently are participating, or may in the future participate in, or be present at, demonstrations or protests within the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department ("LASD") in the exercise of their rights of free speech, assembly and petition in general." 2. Damages Classes defined as: ARREST CLASS: "All persons present at or during the aftermath of protests against police misconduct on June 3, 2020, who were arrested by the LASD on misdemeanor charges of failure to obey a curfew and who were handcuffed and detained for prolonged periods in crowded LASD buses without proper COVID-19 protocols, and without access to bathrooms and water." CHEMICAL AGENTS CLASS: "All persons present at or during protests regarding police misconduct on May 30, June 21, August 25, and/or Sept. 5, 2020 who were engaged in peaceful protest and/or observing the proceedings and were subjected to tear gas (also known as CS gas) and/or OC gas, which LASD deputies deployed by hand tossed grenades or canisters." 3. The Plaintiffs seek certification of sub-classes for each of the above days. The Plaintiffs filed their initial motion for class certification on Nov. 10, 2023, which the Defendants opposed. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=so2Svl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Hoffman, Esq. Michael D. Seplow, Esq. Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq. John Washington, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 9415 Culver Blvd, # 115 Culver City, CA 90232 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com mseplow@sshhzlaw.com amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com jwashington@sshhzlaw.com - and - Colleen M. Mullen, Esq. MCELROY PARRIS TRIAL LAWYERS, APLC 407 Bryant Circle, Ste. F Ojai, CA 93023 Telephone: (805) 272-4001 E-mail: colleen@mcelroyparris.com - and - Arnoldo Casillas, Esq. CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 3777 Long Beach Blvd., 3RD FLO, Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (323) 725-0350 E-mail: acasillas@casillaslegal.com - and - Morgan Ricketts, Esq. Rebecca Brown, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Ave. Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 E-mail: mricketts@hadsellstormer.com rbrown@hadsellstormer.com LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Nov. 14 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Upperco, et al., v. Lucas County Board Of Commissioners, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01283 (N.D. Ohio, Filed June 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge James R. Knepp II entered an order amending deadlines as follows: -- Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 14, 2025 -- Opposition by: Dec. 15, 2025 -- Reply by: Dec. 22, 2025 The nature of suit states Job Discrimination (Employment).[CC] LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Cantu Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jesse Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No. 25STCV15816 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09100. On August 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "First Amended Complaint" or "FAC"). The Plaintiff asserts two claims on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class: Violation of California's False Advertising Law; and Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Alycia S. Tulloch, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424.239.3400 Facsimile: 424.239.3434 Email: Ana.Tagvoryan@BlankRome.com Erica.graves@BlankRome.com Alycia.Tulloch@BlankRome.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., d/b/a OLIVER PEOPLES, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-81176-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.oliverpeoples.com/usa (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical stores. The Website also allows the public to make reservations to dine in the physical stores through a direct link to a third-party reservation system, and purchase e-gift cards for use in the physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant is a stores open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com MAST BROTHERS: Alexandria Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAST BROTHERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07754 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.mastmarket.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. Mast Brothers, Inc. is an American artisanal chocolate company headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MATHESON TRI-GAS: Knoles Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terrell Knoles, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV18445 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09106. The Plaintiff premises his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Matheson violated the Labor Code by failing to pay for off-the-clock work; failing to pay overtime; failing to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in California with compliant meal periods and rest breaks; failing to reimburse necessary business expenditures; failing to pay all wages at separation; failing to furnish accurate itemized statements. Plaintiff alleges these purported violations also violated the California Business and Professional Code Section 172000 ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay Hutner, Esq. Nathan Kenji Norimoto, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-3668 Phone: 415.655.1300 Facsimile: 415.707.2010 Email: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Nathan.Norimoto@gtlaw.com MCNALLY JACKSON: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCNALLY JACKSON BOOKS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07750 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.mcnallyjacksonstore.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. McNally Jackson Books, LLC operates as an independent bookstore in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MICHAELS STORES: CMC in Vizcarra Continued to Nov. 18 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEA VIZCARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order that the case management conference is continued to Nov. 18, 2025. If the parties have not reached a settlement by Oct. 31, 2025, the Plaintiff must refile the motion for class certification or dismiss the action, the Court says. On June 3, 2025, the Court set a case management conference for Sept. 23, 2025, to follow the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Michaels is an American privately held arts and crafts retail chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OQss4C at no extra charge.[CC] 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, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Chloe G. Chung, Esq. Tyler E. Baker, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com cchung@sheppardmullin.com tbaker@sheppardmullin.com MISSION CEVICHE: Flores Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELA FLORES, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. MISSION CEVICHE, LLC, d/b/a MISSION CEVICHE, MISSION CEVICHE UES INC. d/b/a MISSION CEVICHE, MISSION CEVICHE CANAL LLC, d/b/a MISSION CIVICHE, JOSE LUIS CHAVEZ, BRICE MASTROLUCA, and MIGUEL YARROW, Case No. 1:24-cv-03626-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order granting the motion for class certification insofar as the Court certifies a class of front-of-house employees of Mission Ceviche UES with respect to their claim that they are due additional straight time and/or overtime pay because of defects in the tip credit notice, failure to maintain a daily log of tips, and miscalculation of the tip credit overtime rate. Because Mission Ceviche UES did not open until sometime in 2019, the class period runs from the date Mission Ceviche UES opened in 2019 to the date of this Opinion and Order. The motion for class certification is otherwise denied. The parties shall meet and confer regarding proposed class notice and submit such notice to the Court by no later than Sept. 26, 2025. Insofar as discovery is complete, any motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's or the opt-in Plaintiffs' individual claims is due Oct. 31, 2025. No pre-conference letter is required. Opposition to any summary judgment motion is due Nov. 28, 2025. Reply due Dec. 12, 2025. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for Feb. 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17D. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion at The Plaintiff Daniela Flores worked as a server for Mission Ceviche restaurant on Second Avenue in the Upper East Side of Manhaton from August 2022 through April 2023. She filed this suit in May 2024 for herself and on behalf of similarly situated employees of three Mission Ceviche entities and three of their individual owners/managers1 for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") in connection with the Defendants' alleged failure to pay all earned wages, including overtime wages, due to an alleged policy of time shaving and use of an invalid tip credit, filing to pay spread of hours premium, improperly deducting meal credits, and failing to provide appropriate new hire wage notices and wage statements. She also alleges she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about how Mission Ceviche handled tips in violation of federal and state law. Mission is a Michelin-starred restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jT5zrx at no extra charge.[CC] MML INVESTORS: Faces Phillips Class Suit Over Cash Sweep Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- JABARI PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MML INVESTORS SERVICES, LLC (MMLIS), Case No. 3:25-cv-30164 (D. Mass., Sept. 19, 2025) seeks to recover damages arising out of MMLIS's alleged unlawful conduct related to its automatic enrollment of investment account customers into two sweep programs. The sweep programs include Advantage Cash Sweep Program (ACS Program) and Insight Cash Sweep Program (ICS Program), by which MMLIS transfers uninvested cash from those customers' accounts into interest-bearing deposit accounts at third-party Program Banks and pays unreasonably low interest payments to customers on that cash. According to the complaint, the primary purpose of the Deposit Sweep Programs is to provide customers with interest on their uninvested cash. MMLIS promised its customers that interest rates would "vary based on prevailing economic and business conditions." However, MMLIS uses its Deposit Sweep Programs mainly to generate substantial fees for itself, while paying unreasonably low interest rates on cash held in the Deposit Sweep Programs to customers -- currently as low as 0.75% -- even as the federal funds benchmark rates, have skyrocketed and competing financial institutions, including Vanguard and Fidelity, offer interest rates more than five times higher on their own customers' swept cash. Notably, MMLIS did not always pay customers such low interest rates on uninvested cash. Prior to 2023, MMLIS customers could sweep uninvested cash into money market funds—where they received returns of up to 4.5% on their cash. But, in the first half of 2023, as the federal funds benchmark rate was climbing to a fifteen-year high, MMLIS automatically enrolled its customers, including Plaintiff, in the Deposit Sweep Programs, which pay paltry interest rates as low as 0.75%, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, violation of New York General Business Law section 349, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff has had an investment account with MMLIS since June 2021. From the time Plaintiff opened his investment account in 2021 until April 2023, uninvested cash in his investment account was placed in a money market fund. MMLIS is a broker-dealer and registered investment adviser registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria F. Deaton, Esq. LYNCH & PINE ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC One Park Row, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-3306 Facsimile: (401) 274-3326 E-mail: mdeaton@lynchpine.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Jonathan F. Neumann, Esq. Daniel S. Dicce, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com jneumann@ktmc.com ddicce@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Faulkner Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carnel Faulkner, Mosanthony Wilson, Larion Krayzman, Roy Uribe and Armando Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CV0007260 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Marin, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08071. The plaintiffs assert one cause of action for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James S. Davidson, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704 Phone: 310.595.3008 Email: jamie.davidson@us.dlapiper.com - and - Keara M. Gordon, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212.335.4632 Email: keara.gordon@us.dlapiper.com - and - Haley D. Torrey, Esq. 1650 Market Street, Suite 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215.656.2436 Email: haley.torrey@us.dlapiper.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Grant Sues Over Unsafe, Health Risk of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIELLE GRANT, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01359 (E.D. Mo., September 10, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn her of the serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or Roundup, including, but not limited to, the risk of developing Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, as well as other severe and personal injuries, which are permanent and/or long-lasting in nature, cause significant physical pain and mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, and the need for medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Monsanto Company is an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology company that manufactures, formulates and distributes herbicides. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Jemma Casandra Cota, Esq. Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: info@molllawgroup.com ll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Melo-Brown Sues Over Defective Product -------------------------------------------------------- Albert Melo-Brown, and other similarly situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-01426 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff's exposure to Roundup ("Roundup") containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff's decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Roundup. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri and is the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312.462.1700 Fax: 312.756.0045 Email: info@molllawgroup.com kmoll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Skrzypczak Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHANNA SKRZYPCZAK, individually and as personal representative of the estate of THOMAS MCENTIRE, deceased, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01434 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 22, 2025) is an action seeking to recover damages for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the herbicide Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 Email: info@molllawgroup.com kmoll@molllawgroup.com NATURAL ALTERNATIVES: Settlement in PAGA Suit for Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natural Alternatives International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2025, that the PAGA class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the court. In December 2023 the Company was sued by three former employees in two separate but substantially identical matters brought by the same law firm. The lawsuits were filed as a putative class action and a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") action seeking awards for all similarly situated employees going back ten years or more. The Company responded to these actions and agreed to submit the matters for mediation. On July 3, 2025, the mediation took place, and a tentative settlement agreement was reached whereby it agreed to contribute a maximum of $1.25 million. The Company has joined with the plaintiffs in moving the court to consolidate the two actions. The potential settlement has been brought before the court and all similarly situated employees need to be contacted, and they may elect to participate or not. The process of obtaining court approval of the settlement is estimated to take approximately one year. The Company accrued the maximum settlement amount in its results of operation as of June 30, 2025 along with estimated related legal fees of approximately $0.15 million. Natural Alternatives International is an American company based in San Marcos, California, which manufactures nutritional supplements, such as Juice Plus.[BN] NAVY FEDERAL: Feb. 4, 2026 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY STEPHENSON and BILLY SMITH II, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-01851-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hayes entered an amended order as follows: 1. The Court preliminarily approves the following Settlement Classes: Written Explanation Settlement Class "All Accountholders whose claims of unauthorized electronic fund transfers were denied by Navy Federal Credit Union between Oct. 10, 2022, and the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement." Document Request Settlement Subclass "All Accountholders in the Written Explanation Settlement Class who requested documents Navy Federal relied on in making its determination and who did not receive them." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Classes are (1) any judge presiding over this Action and members of their families; and (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees. 3. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Jeffrey Stephenson and Billy Smith II as Class Representatives for the Settlement Classes and the following counsel are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes: Scott Edelsberg and Adam Schwartzbaum of Edelsberg Law, P.A.; Edwin E. Elliott of Shamis & Gentile, P.A.; and Sophia Gold and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Kaliel Gold PLLC. 4. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Feb. 4, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BK68oN at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Ross Sues NYPD Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE ROSS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and the NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07596 (S.D.N.Y., September 12, 2025) is an action against the Defendants in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from their alleged unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs' right to overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs are similarly situated to each other because they hold the same position and have been subject to the same policies and/or practices that violate the FLSA whereby the Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiffs to perform uncompensated overtime work outside of their paid shifts and during their unpaid meal periods. They are similarly situated to each other because they have been also subject to the same policies and/or practices that violate the FLSA whereby the Defendants fail to pay overtime compensation in a timely manner, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are, and/or have been at all times material, employed by Defendants in the position of School Safety Agent Level 3 at the NYPD. The Plaintiffs also include EVARISTO RUIZ, LISA ADAMS, WANDA AGEE, DESIRE AGOSTINI, GLORIA ALEXANDER, FEDDIA ALEXANDRE, SUSAN ALOE-SANSEVERINO, MICHAEL AMEZQUITA, GENA ANDERSON, SHALONN ANDERSON-ROBINSON, PASCAL ANDRE, ILIANA ARROYO, AYESHIA ARTIS, NACHELLE ASHBY, EVELYN BABB, ALICIA BABER, CLOVINE BAKER-COX, SHERI BALDWIN, SAMANTHA BANNISTER, JOANNA BAPTISTE, COLLEEN BARRINGTON, SHEILA BARROW-GONZALEZ, NICOLETTE BATISTA, and CYNTHIA BEDELL. The City of New York is a Public Benefit Corporation under the state laws of New York and, among other things, a juridical entity amenable to suit under the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com esprotzer@spivaklipton.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE & ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com NURSEFINDERS LLC: Gooch Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jamie Richard Gooch, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NURSEFINDERS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada corporation; KAISER PERMANENTE – BALDWIN PARK MEDICAL CENTER; an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV22177 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. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09044. In this wage-and-hour case, Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Labor Code and seeks allegedly unpaid wages, penalties, and restitution. Relief Requested. The Plaintiff brings eleven causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; unlawful deductions; failure to timely pay all wages; failure to pay wages upon termination; failure to keep required payroll records; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and unfair competition in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. anthony D. Sbardellati, Esq. Nancy Sotomayor, Esq. Perry J. Zirpoli, Esq. GROVE LAW LLP 10000 Washington Blvd., Sixth Floor Culver City, CA 90232 Phone: (310) 853-6020 Email: skroll-rosenbaum@grove.law asbardellati@grove.law nsotomayor@grove.law pzirpoli@grove.law PAPA JOHNS: Jacob Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Papa John's International, Inc. The case is styled as Abel Jacob, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Papa John's International, Inc., Case No. 2025-13457-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Civil - Circuit." Papa John's International, Inc. -- https://www.papajohns.com/international/ -- trading as Papa Johns is an American pizza restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S HINDI Wilton Manors, FL 33305 PBT BANCORP: Salem Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS SALEM, AIDA YOUSIF, and GAURAV KUMAR on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. PBT BANCORP f/k/a "Peoples Bank & Trust Company of Hazard," Case No. 6:25-cv-00172-KKC (E.D. Ky., Sept. 19, 2025) is a class action against PBT Bancorp for damages and other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs' respective FLSA claims are asserted as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for the following collectives of similarly situated employees: Team Managers, Mortgage Loan Originators (MLO), and Loan Processors. As MLOs, the Plaintiff Yousif and others similarly situated had or have the primary duty of selling mortgage loan products to customers of Defendant. The work performed by Plaintiff and others similarly situated is, and was, work directly related to mortgage sales and refinances. This primary duty established the Plaintiff and others similarly situated as being entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA at the rate of one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. Plaintiff Yousif and others similarly situated worked as MLO for the Defendant and worked out of the Defendant's offices located throughout the United States including Kentucky. PBT is a state chartered bank (state member bank) and member of the federal reserve system (previously known as "Peoples Bank & Trust Company of Hazard").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele Henry, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELE HENRY PLC 517 West Ormsby Avenue Louisville, Kentucky 40203 Telephone: (502) 536-0085 mhenry@michelehenrylaw.com - and - Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. Daniel W. Craig, Esq. DONELON PC www.donelonpc.com 4600 Madison, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com dan@donelonpc.com PENNERS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Penners, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10901 (N.D. Ill., September 10, 2025) arises from Defendant's 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. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. As a result, only its sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in San Antonio, TX, Penners, Inc. controls and operates Pennersinc.com, a commercial website that offers apparel, footwear and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (717) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PERFECTION BAKERIES: Boyce Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Zakary Boyce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERFECTION BAKERIES, INC., an Indiana corporation, d/b/a AUNT MILLIE'S BAKERIES and d/b/a AUNT MILLIE'S, Case No. 1:25-cv-00505 (N.D. Ind., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant required Plaintiff and all other hourly employees to attend daily pre-shift meetings, review current job assignments and/or duties, and status of workflow and production, prior to clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system. This pre-shift off-the-clock work generally took between 5 and 10 minutes per shift, but Defendant's hourly employees were not paid for this time. At the end of each shift, Plaintiff and all other hourly employees were required to clean up their specific areas prior to the next shift of employees coming in to relieve them. This post shift off-the-clock work generally took between 5 and 10 minutes per shift, but Defendant's hourly employees were not paid for this time. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees were subject to discipline if they failed to perform the off-the-clock tasks. The off-the-clock work Plaintiff and all other hourly employees performed is compensable, directly benefitted Defendant and the tasks undertaken in connection with the off-the-clock work are integral and indispensable to their job duties and responsibilities as hourly employees of Defendant. The Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 26, 2025 through August 4, 2025. The Defendant maintains multiple locations located in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Esq. JESELSKIS BRINKERHOFF AND JOSEPH, LLC 320 North Meridian Street, Suite 428 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 220-6290 Facsimile: (317) 220-6291 Email: kjeselskis@jbjlegal.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 936-2143 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com PETER MARCUS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. PETER MARCUS PARADIGM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07823 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed 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. Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://goodwipes.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Good Wipes online retail store, as well as the Good Wipes interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[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 PHH MORTGAGE: Martin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHH Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Wesley E. Martin, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al, Case No. 618291/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Comm-Contract." PHH Mortgage -- https://www.phhmortgage.com/ -- offers personalized solutions, great rates, and tools for buying, refinancing, or home equity.[BN] POLLARD & ASSOCIATES: Bell Files Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pollard & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Jaela Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pollard & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03137 (D. Md., Sept. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Pollard & Associates, LLC -- https://pollardandassociates.com/ -- is a premier trucking company that specializes in efficient hauling, safe delivery, and on-time transport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com POLLARD & ASSOCIATES: Foster Files Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pollard & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Hakeema Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pollard & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03155-ABA (D. Md., Sept. 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pollard & Associates, LLC -- https://pollardandassociates.com/ -- is a premier trucking company that specializes in efficient hauling, safe delivery, and on-time transport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com PRECISION DOSE: Hartford Seeks Relief of No Insurance Obligation ---------------------------------------------------------------- HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; and HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION DOSE INC.; TAGI PHARMA INC.; and SASB CORP d/b/a OKEECHOBEE DISCOUNT DRUGS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-50410 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 19, 2025) seeks a declaration, that the Plaintiffs owe no insurance coverage obligations to the Defendants for the claims raised in the class-action lawsuit styled SASB Corp dba Okeechobee Discount Drugs, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons and entities v. Precision Dose Inc and Tagi Pharma Inc. Case Number 2024-LA-0000329, pending in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, Illinois. Precision Dose, Inc. wholesales and distributes prescription, proprietary drugs, and toiletries. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Duffy, Esq. Michael J. O'Malley, Esq. Joanna C. Kocol, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 161 N Clark, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 704-0550 Email: Michael.Duffy@wilsonelser.com Michael.O'Malley@wilsonelser.com Joanna.Kocol@wilsonelser.com PRINTING INDUSTRIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Larsen Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF ST. LOUIS, INC. d/b/a PRINT MEDIA ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01409 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit 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"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the 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 suit. Printing Industries of St. Louis, Inc. is now known as the Print Media Association (PMA), a local nonprofit trade association for the printing and graphic arts industry in St. Louis. [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 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas, Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McPhee Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MCPHEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-07947 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and similarly situated Class Members' sensitive personally identifying information, which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable or adequate data security measures, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including their full names in combination with Social Security numbers, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer concrete injuries. Prosper Funding LLC offers financial technology services. The Company offers a marketplace that enables borrower members to borrow money and its investor members to purchase borrower payment dependent notes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelbserglaw.com R&M WHOLESALE: Guzman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN G. GUZMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R&M WHOLESALE BAGELS INC. d/b/a BRICKTOWN BAGEL & CAFE, MUJAHID CHAUDHRY, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05062 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt dishwasher, porter, and food delivery worker at the restaurant from on or about February 17, 2024, through on or about July 25, 2025. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the collective action members overtime compensation in the lawful amount for all hours worked in excess of the maximum hours provided for in the FLSA and the NYLL. R&M Wholesale Bagels Inc. owns and operates a restaurant doing business as Bricktown Bagel & Cafe, located at 51-06 Vernon, Long Island City, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 R.C.S. CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ceron Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- GERMAN HERNANDEZ CERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.C.S. CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and TONY NIOKAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05408-JPB (N.D. Ga., Sept. 22, 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 Ceron was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker. R.C.S. Construction, Inc. provides construction services. The Company offers earthwork, paving, piling, carpentry, and construction of drainage and sewers, bridges, piers, foundation, and debris cleanups. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Moshe Boroosan, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS 2800 N Druid Hills NE, Building A, Suite D Atlanta, GA 30329 Telephone: (718) 887-2926 Facsimile: (718) 247-8020 Email: mboroosan@consumerattorneys.com - and - Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423-2327 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc RCI HOSPITALITY: Hernandez Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- ALEX HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC.; ERIC S. LANGAN; and BRADLEY CHHAY, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-04477 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 21, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded RCI securities between December 15, 2021 and September 16, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the reports of the Defendants with the Securities and Exchange Commissions were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants 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. The price of RCI stock fell $5.53 per share, or 16%, to close at $28.79 on September 16, 2025. The next day, it fell a further $2.99, or 10.38%, to close at $25.80 per share on September 17, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and bar operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq., Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com RED COATS INC: Jackson Files Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Coats, Inc. The case is styled as Jermaine Jackson, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Coats, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-03169-DLB (D. Md., Sept. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Red Coats -- https://www.redcoats.com/ -- is a facilities services company specializing in green cleaning and janitorial cleaning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com RED COATS INC: Smith Files Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Coats, Inc. The case is styled as Chloris Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Coats, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-03131-TDC (D. Md., Sept. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Red Coats -- https://www.redcoats.com/ -- is a facilities services company specializing in green cleaning and janitorial cleaning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com RIVIERA SUN: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------ Victor Ariza, on behalf of others similarly situated v. RIVIERA SUN, INC., d/b/a VILEBREQUIN, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24410-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.vilebrequin.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise that is also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been blind and visually disabled in that he suffers from optical nerve atrophy, a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of retail stores selling men, women, and children's swimwear, apparel, and accessories including the store located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com ROBLOX CORP: Fails to Make Platform Safe for Minors, Davis Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LACRYSTAL DAVIS, TODD GOSS, STEPHEN VACCARO, TYREE CALDWELL, ZACHARY ROHRS, and JAMES DEKOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07818-LJC (N.D. Cal., September 12, 2025) is a class action brought against the Defendant for its repeated and blatant failure to warn parents about the lack of protection and security afforded to users -- mainly minors -- on its Roblox gaming, marketplace, and social media platform. According to the complaint, parents have been left with limited and harmful options of either protecting their children by withdrawing them from the Platform -- thereby forfeiting any money spent on Roblox's digital currency, often consisting of investments of hundreds or even thousands of real U.S. dollars spent on virtual currency and in-game items -- or spend additional money on safety tools to safeguard their children's experience on the Platform. This burden of ensuring a safe environment on the Platform should not fall on parents' shoulders alone; safety on the Platform begins and ends with Roblox's design of the Platform, asserts the suit. Due to Roblox's failures to make the Platform safe and/or warn users of its dangers, as well as its campaign of concealment and misrepresentation, parents of minor Roblox users have been forced to either: (1) deactivate their Roblox accounts, forfeiting all associated purchases made with Robux; or (2) spend additional money on safety features sold by Roblox that should be available to parents as part of the Platform in the first instance. As a result of Roblox's actions, the value of Robux purchased by parents has decreased, and potentially been destroyed while Roblox retains its profits from its dangerous Platform, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Davis is a citizen and resident of Illinois and had several minor children who played on the Platform, causing Plaintiff Davis to spend at least $1000 on Robux for her children. Roblox Corp. is an American video game developer based in San Mateo, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street, East Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Christopher V. DeVivo, 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 cdevivo@zlk.com ROCKET EXPEDITING: Ontiveros Sues Over Fraudulent Lease Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAYME ONTIVEROS, Plaintiff v. ROCKET EXPEDITING, LLC, FLOYD, INC. d/b/a FLOYD LOGISTICS, EGO EXPRESS, INC. SUPER EGO HOLDING, LLC NINA DORDEVIC a/k/a NINA DJODJEVIC, ALEKSANDAR MIMIC, BILJANA MIMIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11069 (N.D. Ill., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Truth-in-Leasing Act and its implementing regulations and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was and is a long-haul truck driver and at all times material to this complaint maintained a commercial driver's license to operate commercial motor vehicle equipment. The Plaintiff's relationship with Defendants constituted a "lease," as Plaintiff was granted the use of equipment for a specified period for use in the regulated transportation of property, in exchange for compensation. The complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to provide a written lease with any of the substantive terms required under TILA and its implementing regulations. In violation of TILA, the Defendants failed to specify in writing the amount of compensation to be paid to Plaintiff for the use of his equipment and services. The Defendants also willfully violated FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff the federal minimum wage for all hours worked, says the suit. Rocket Expediting, LLC is authorized by the United States Department of Transportation to operate as an interstate freight hauling motor carrier. It operates as a chameleon carrier shell company for the Super Ego Enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Kreitman, Esq. KREITMAN LAW, LLC 505 North La Salle Dr. Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (847) 970-0575 E-mail: njk@kreitmanlaw.com S. DANIELLA INSURANCE: Falley Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sean Falley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S. Daniella Insurance LLC, Case No. 502025CA008267XXXAMB was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Sept. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-81160-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Terence Michael Mullen, Esq. Scott W. Atherton, Esq. ATHERTON GALARDI MULLEN & REEDER PA 224 Datura Street, Suite 815 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 293-2530 Email: terence@athertonlg.com scott@athertonlg.com SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- STACI JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08011 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information in connection with a data security event disclosed by Defendant in or about July 2025. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the Data Breach in the future. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII with which it was entrusted to protect, says the suit. Salesforce, Inc. operates as a cloud-based software company. The Company develops customer relationship management software and applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing automation, analytics, and application development. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen L. Fewer, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 376-2097 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: cfewer@bergermontague.com SALESFORCE INC: Plude Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salesforce, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Roland Plude, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salesforce, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-08095-AGT (N.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Salesforce, Inc. -- https://www.salesforce.com/ap/ -- is an American cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Email: rschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law SARMIENTOS CONSTRUCTION: Figueroa Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Oscar Orlando Figueroa, Oscar Figuera, Jr., Brayan Nabil Herrera, Martha Delia Diaz, and others similarly situated v. SARMIENTOS CONSTRUCTION, INC., MAGDIELA ACOSTA, COMPLETE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, MICHAEL KRUEGER, Case No. 25-CA-005301 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02582. The Complaint asserts five counts, all arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Plaintiffs also purport to proceed on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey J. Wilcox, Esq. HILL WARD & HENDERSON, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: (813) 221-3900 Facsimile: (813) 221-2900 Email: jeff.wilcox@hwhlaw.com regina.bigness@hwhlaw.com - and - Luis A. Santos, Esq. Madonna M. Snowden, Esq. 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 418-2300 Facsimile: (407) 418-2327 Email: lsantos@fordharrison.com msnowden@fordharrison.com SHAKE SHACK: Sparks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jhante Sparks, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC, SSE Holdings, LLC, Shake Shack California, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 25CV144286 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). Shake Shack -- https://shakeshack.com/ -- is an American multinational fast casual restaurant chain based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Hannah Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com SHERATON OPERATING: Gerl Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Barbara Gerl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SHERATON OPERATING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV09923 was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02145. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks recovery for actual and compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts unlawfully obtained by Defendants, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing the unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices described in the complaint, a declaration asserting that Defendants' acts and practices are unlawful, and certification of the proposed class.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex Terepka, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 839-3317 Email: alex@wtlaw.com TOSH INC: Surapaneni Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tosh Inc. The case is styled as Naveen Surapaneni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tosh Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00834-TC (D. Utah, Sept. 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Tosh Inc. operates in the commercial industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW OFFICE 1887 N 270 E Orem, UT 84057 Phone: (801) 845-2581 Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com TRANS UNION LLC: Alexander FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05265 was removed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11552 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beena Mallya McDonald, Esq. Steven A Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: bmm@chimicles.com sas@chimicles.com TURBO DEBT LLC: Moody Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turbo Debt LLC. The case is styled as Anna Moody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Turbo Debt LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61912-DSL (S.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TurboDebt -- https://www.turbodebt.com/ -- offers debt relief info in order to help take control of finances and work towards a debt-free life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com UNITED AIRLINES: Tripp Seeks Flight Attendants' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ LAUREN TRIPP individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-15509 (D.N.J., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's (1) failure to timely pay earned hourly wages semi-monthly, and (2) failure to provide accurate wage statements, during the applicable statute of limitations periods prior to the date of the filing of this action. Plaintiff Tripp worked as a Flight Attendant for United in the Newark Liberty Airport in Newark, New Jersey from October 2018 until November 2022. United Airlines, Inc. provides retail air transportation in New Jersey and on a national and international basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com - and - David R. Markham, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect St., Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com - and - Ian Pancer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IAN PANCER 105 West F St. #400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 955-6644 Facsimile: (619) 374-7410 E-mail: ian@sandiegolegal.net UNITED STEEL: Faces Perry Suit for Breach of Duty, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- DRACUS PERRY v. UNITED STEEL WORKERS LOCAL 13-189 UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC ABC Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-01894 (E.D. La., September 12, 2025) is a class action brought by Plaintiff, Dracus Perry, against his union, United Steelworkers Local 189, AFL-CIO, CLC, for breach of the duty of fair representation and for unlawful retaliation. The Plaintiff alleges that Local 189 failed to represent him fairly and in good faith during his grievance process following his termination from International Paper Company. Instead of providing him with honest, consistent, and competent representation, the union misled Plaintiff about critical meetings, allowed unauthorized individuals to speak on his behalf, withheld information and documentation he requested, and ultimately abandoned his grievance without proper explanation. The Plaintiff further alleges that Local 189 retaliated against him by withdrawing his grievance from arbitration shortly after he filed a federal lawsuit against his employer, International Paper. This retaliation not only deprived him of due process under the collective bargaining agreement but also demonstrated bad faith and discriminatory treatment compared to how the union represented similarly situated white employees, says the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Perry was a qualified hard working employee of International Paper and a former dues paying member of United Steelworkers Local 189 Union, currently domiciled in the State of Louisiana, Parish of Washington. United Steel Workers Local 189 is a labor organization representing employees in Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lillian M. Ratliff, Esq. 904 Columbia Street Bogalusa, LA 70427 Telephone: (985) 630-0437 E-mail: ratlifflaw@att.net VOLUME EYE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moon Alleges --------------------------------------------------- JINA MOON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLUME EYE LASH INC. doing business as VOLUME EYE LASH; and JENNY CUI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05241 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 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 Moon was employed by the Defendants as a cosmetologist. Volume Eye Lash Inc. is a beauty salon specializing in eyelash extensions and enhancements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (718) 573-1111 Email: ryan@ryankimlaw.com [^] SEC Continues Operations on Limited Basis --------------------------------------------- Due to a lapse in appropriations, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said it is currently operating in accordance with the agency's plan for operating during a shutdown. A copy of the plan is available at https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-plan-operations-during-lapse-appropriations.pdf Effective Wed., October 1, 2025 and until further notice, the agency said it will have a very limited number of staff members available. "The SEC has staff available to respond to emergency situations with a focus on the market integrity and investor protection components of our mission. Our plan calls for the continuing operation of certain Commission systems, including EDGAR." "We plan to post any changes in operational status on this page. Additional information is available from the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Trading and Markets, the Division of Examinations, and the Division of Investment Management and from a joint statement from the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Investment Management." [^] U.S. Government Seeks Stay of Deadlines Amid Shutdown --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are among federal government institutions that have asked the courts to a stay of certain matters in cases they are involved in in light of the lapse of appropriations. In the jointly administered bankruptcy cases of Aviation Safety Resources, Inc., S.E., Inc. d/b/a Strong Enterprises, and Pioneer Aerospace Corporation d/b/a ASR-Pioneer, Elizabeth N. Duncan, Trial Attorney, DOJ Tax Division, asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando, which is overseeing the case, for a stay of all deadlines, including the deadline to file status reports, in the case "until Congress has restored appropriations to the Department." In the personal Chapter 11 case of Annette Christina Cuza also pending in Orlando bankruptcy court, Jill Ellen Kelso, Trial Attorney, on behalf of Guy Van Baalen, the Acting United States Trustee, Region 21, sought a stay of the trial on the U.S. Trustee's Emergency Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice and all related deadlines and other matters scheduled for hearing on Oct. 2. Both DOJ filings recount that at the end of the day on September 30, 2025, the appropriations act that had been funding the DOJ expired and those appropriations to the Department lapsed. The same is true for the majority of other Executive agencies, including the Department of Justice. The DOJ also requested stays in antitrust cases. "The Department does not know when such funding will be restored by Congress," the DOJ filings said. "Absent an appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal government are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including 'emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.'" "Although we greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the other litigants, the Government hereby moves for a stay of the deadline to conduct in-person mediation and submit pretrial filings in this case until Department of Justice attorneys are permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions." The Federal Trade Commission moved for a temporary stay of all deadlines in Federal Trade Commission et al v. ACIA17 Automotive, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-13047 (N.D. Ill.), informing the Hon. Jorge L Alonso of the same predicament. "At the end of the day on September 30, 2025, the continuing resolution that had been funding the FTC expired, and appropriations to the FTC lapsed. The FTC currently lacks appropriated funds to continue operating, and does not know when funding will be restored," the FTC's Rachel F. Granetz said. "Absent an appropriation, FTC attorneys and other employees are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including 'emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,'" citing 31 U.S.C. section 1342. "Therefore, although we greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the other litigants, the FTC hereby moves for a stay of deadlines in this case until FTC attorneys are permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions." ********* 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 ***