---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 198

                            Headlines

7 CUPS OF TEA: Harb Sues Over Unauthorized Counseling Services' Use
AARP: Court Deems Bids for Class Certification Withdrawn
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Electrolyte Drinks
ALAN KIKUCHI: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of "Gross" Suit
ALBERT CORP: Faces Wurm Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

AMERICAN INCOME: Settles Robocalls Class Action Lawsuit for $14MM
AMERICAN WOODMARK: M&A Investigates Sale to MasterBrand Inc
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unsecured Gift Cards
ARCADIS US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jahangiri Due March 8, 2027
ASCENDANT CAPITAL: $46MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 24

ASCENSION HEALTH: Federal Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Privacy Suit
B & J PROPERTY: Appellate Ruling in "Hathaway" Affirmed
BEI FRAMING: Kempf Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
BENWORTH CAPITAL: Maxwell Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
BETTERHELP INC: Seeks to Seal Certain Exhibits in C.M. Suit

BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Class Cert Bid in Greene Suit Due Jan. 5, 2026
BIRNER STL: Redus Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Measure Technicians
BON SECOURS: Wood Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info
BRAVO PIZZA: Bids for Summary Judgment Due August 30, 2026
BROWN-DAUB CHEVROLET: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 23, 2026

CAKE 5332: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alvarez Due Nov. 24
CARMAX INC: Bleichmar Investigates Potential Securities Claims
CHENEGA GLOBAL: Court Extends to File Class Cert Reply
CHENEGA GLOBAL: Kalantari Seeks More Time to File Class Reply
CITY OF KINGSTON: Wins Appeal Over Canopy Ownership

CLAIMPIX: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach
CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks to Certify Classes
COHN LIFLAND: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Moore" FDCPA Suit
COINBASE INC: Filing of Bid to Dismiss Pearl Suit Due Oct. 13
CREATE MUSIC: Standing Order Entered in Litman Class Suit

CUSTOMS AND BORDER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Loses Bid for Class Certification
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Noriega Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
DAUPHIN, PA: Little Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
DAVID SALINAS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought

DELTA DENTAL: Court Denies Class Action Status in Antitrust Suit
DMS HEALTH: Class Discovery Filing in Kolkind Due May 1, 2026
DOREL HOME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Step Stools' Recall
DOREL HOME: Faces Lam Class Suit Over Defective Kitchen Steppers
DUFOUR PASTRY: Mora Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Dough Workers

DUKE UNIVERSITY: Reaches $2.35-Mil. Settlement in ERISA Class Suit
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Bah Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
EPIC ETAILERS: Davis Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
EPISOURCE LLC: Dunlap Suit Transferred From E.D. to C.D. California
ERHCO INC: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: W.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Remand Bowden Suit
FASTLY INC: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Floyd Suit Seeks to Certify Class
FLO HEALTH: Meta's Post-Trial Bids for Decertification Tossed
FLORIDA NATURAL: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Florida-Grown Oranges

FORTINET INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 21
FORTRA LLC: $20M Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Final OK
FRESH CLEAN: Rodriguez Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
FRIENDLY HOME: Class Certification in "Konstantynovska" Reversed
GALINDO LAW: Faces Corley Class Suit Over Insurance Claims

GEICO: Class Cert Discovery in Cude Closes by Feb. 9, 2026
GIORGIO ARMANI: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Nov. 3
GOEASY LTD: Kalloghlian Probes Potential Investor Class Action Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Class Certification Order in AP-Fonden Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn

HALFTEES LLC: Faces Sherman Suit Over TCPA Breach
HARBORVIEW HEALTH: Court Certifies Class of Nurses in Rome, Georgia
HERSHEY COMPANY: Wins Class Suit Over Candy's Misleading Labels
HRM RESOURCES: Fact Discovery in McCormick Class Suit Due Dec. 19
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Dec. 18

INSTALLED BUILDING: Paladino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Nov. 18
JBC MACHINE: Faces Dean Class Suit Over Shaving Working Time
JOBBLE INC: Faces Graybill Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sacchi Alleges Fraudulent Credit Card Memberships

KAMA DISTRIBUTION: 7-OH Products "Addictive," Kernisky Suit Says
KANSAS STAR: $981K Settlement Stalled Over Attorney Fee Fight
KBR INC: Faces Norrman Suit Over 9.94% Drop of Stock Price
KEN PAXTON: Huang Seeks OK of Provisional Class Cert. Bid
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Appeals Court Dismisses Consumer Class Action

L.A. VINAS: Faces Penzera Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
LEAF HOME: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 31, 2026
LEE MEMORIAL: Wins Dismissal of "Mack" Data Privacy Class Suit
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Jackson Appeals Court Order to 4th Circuit
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment in Insurance Coverage Suit

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
LIFE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid in Hoffman Suit Due Oct. 27
LIFEAID BEVERAGE: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Scheitinger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Ballpark App Class Suit Over Data Breaches

MAPLE & ASH MIAMI: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination
MARC GLASSMAN: Neal Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 14, 2026
MASON COMPANIES: Demaio Suit Seeks Damages Over Unwanted Robocalls
MASONIC CARE: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Shabazz Says

MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Missing Features
MEGA CONTRACTING: Kitsos Sues Over Age Discrimination, Retaliation
MELLOY BROTHERS: Appeals Court Flips Arbitration Order in Martinez
META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Docs Under Seal
METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Frankfort Suit

MEYER CORP: Sends Unsolicited Sales Calls, Villaverde Claims
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Suit Due Oct. 27
MINT MOBILE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss May Suit Set for Oct. 22
MOINIAN GROUP: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach
MOLSON COORS: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Dismissal of "Anthony" TCPA Suit Affirmed
NATIONAL SHOOTING: Misuses Firearm Purchasers' Info, Suit Says
NEVADA GOLD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
NEW YORK CITY: Must Pay $350K Incentive Award to Wilds-Bethea
NEW YORK: Faces Karwas Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info

NEXTCARE HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing in Begay Due March 16, 2026
NIKE INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement of Class Claims Due Oct. 7
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Charging System
NORTH AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid in Blisten Suit Due Oct. 27
NUTRISYSTEM LLC: Villaverde Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls

ONEBLOOD INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1-Mil.
OWLET INC: Class Settlement in Butala Suit Gets Initial Nod
PARAMOUNT GROUP: M&A Investigates Sale to Rithm Capital
PARKER PLASTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Generose Due Nov. 12
PAYCOR INC: Collects Website Visitor's Data, Velasco Suit Alleges

PAYLESS CAR: Settles Unlawful Fees Class Action Suit for $19-Mil.
PEKIN, IL: Supreme Court Backs Withholding Tax on Disability Pay
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Jackson Appeals Court Order to 4th Circuit
PERFECT BAR: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PF CALI: Strandholt Seeks to Continue Class Cert Briefing Deadlines

PFIZER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Contraceptives' Side Effects
PIXELOGIC MEDIA: Faces D.N. Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Settles Debt Collection Class Suit for $500,000
PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Final Class Settlement in "Knight" OK'd
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Matthews Seeks to Certify Class Action

QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Xanol Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
R.C. BIGELOW: Appeals Judgment Order in Banks Suit to 9th Circuit
RCI HOSPITALITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 20
REAL TRUCKING: Rivera Balks at Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid to Exclude Damages Expert Testimony Tossed

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Customer Class in Pietoso Wins Certification
RITCHIE TRUCKING: $1.9M Class Deal in Imber Suit Has Prelim. Nod
ROOT INC: Robinson Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, MMWL
RYVYL INC: $300,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 19
SALESFORCE INC: Yadav Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access

SAMSONITE COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Fake Discount Ads
SAZERAC CO: Court Certifies Classes in Fireball Parrot Bay Suit
SCHNEIDER SADDLERY: Faces Deamaio Over Text Message Sales Calls
SEVEN WEST: Faces Class Action Suit Over Staff Underpayment
SINA CORP: Misleads Shareholders to Approve Merger, Lu Says

SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 17
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Bid to Restrict Access to Exhibit OK'd
SOUTHERN GRAPHICS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Greenwood Says
SOUTHERN VALLEY: Seeks Order Setting Hearing on Class Cert Bid
STEPHEN JAMES: Class Cert Responses Due Oct. 17

STEVEN SANDERS: George Suit Seeks to Certify Tenant Class
SUNFLOWER BANK: Court Grants Final OK of "Besser" Class Settlement
SUNO INC: Faces Suit for Bypassing YouTube's Anti-Piracy Tech
SWITCHGEAR POWER: Hansen Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA, WWPCL
SYSCO SAN DIEGO: Colbourne Removed from State Court to S.D. Cal.

TAKARA SAKE: Tunick Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
TARGET CORP: Court Stays Buckmaster Suit Pending Mediation
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Court Partially Grants Dismissal in "Harman"
TC HEARTLAND: Garcia Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
THOMSON REUTERS: Jackson Appeals Court Ruling to 4th Circuit

THRYV INC: Jackson Appeals Daniel's Law Suit Ruling to 4th Circuit
TOSH INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Wheeler Suit Says
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Allowed to File Docs Under Seal
TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Selesnick Says
TRICOLOR HOLDINGS: Campos Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice

TRIPLE CANOPY: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 27, 2026
TWIN CITIES: Fails to Properly Secure Patients' Info, Severson Says
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS: Class Cert Bid in Vargas Due March 6, 2026
UNION HOME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Contee Says
UNION PACIFIC: Walschmidt Wins Bid to Certify Class

UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
UNITED FOOD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
UNITED NETWORK: Court Narrows Claims in White Data Breach Suit
UNITED STATES: ACLU of Maine Sues Over Immigration Detentions
UNITED STATES: AMT Seeks Class Certification

UNITED STATES: Appalachian Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit
UNITED STATES: Court Halts Deportation of Guatemalan Child Migrants
UTZ QUALITY: Rangel Sues Over TCPA Breach
V.F. CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 12
VINEYARD VINES: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Emails

VIOLET GREY: Hampton Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VITAL PROTEINS: Unlawfully Transmits Marketing Calls, Mackey Says
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ditmore Says
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Cert Filing Deadline Moved to Nov. 24
WALGREEN EASTERN: Neale Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Store Managers

WASTE MANAGEMENT: $30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 16
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bell Amended Class Cert. Bid Tossed
WELLSPAN HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 15, 2026
WESTGATE RESORTS: Moore Bid for Class Certification Tossed
WHITEPAGES INC: Jackson Appeals Daniel's Law Suit Order to 4th Cir.

WHITESTONE HOME: Class Settlement in Douglass Gets Final Nod
WHOLE FOODS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Jan. 15, 2026
WILSON AIR: Yates Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZILLOW INC: Requires Flex Agents to Pay Hidden Fees, Taylor Says

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Still Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EIDP Inc. to Pay $9MM to Mesothelioma Victim


                            *********

7 CUPS OF TEA: Harb Sues Over Unauthorized Counseling Services' Use
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN HARB, MICHELLE RAYFIELD, and CAROLYN BALL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 7 CUPS OF TEA, CO.,
d/b/a/ 7 CUPS, a Delaware corporation; GLEN MORIARTY, and DOES 1-10
Case No. 1:25-cv-05356-BMC (C.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2025) arises under
15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act, as well as state
unfair competition statutes including Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
section 17200 and Cal. Civil Code section 3344.

According to the complaint, as a part of its online advertising,
the Defendants have included the names, credentials and background
information of licensed therapists, marriage counselors, and other
related service providers, including each of the Plaintiffs, as if
the services of such individuals were available through 7 Cups.

The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the number of such
licensed individuals listed on  the Defendants' website is at least
many thousands. These profiles were obtained by Defendants from
profiles that the actual providers, including the Plaintiffs, made
available on Psychology Today, a nationally well-known magazine
also available for viewing through its website on the Internet, or
some similar professional listing service. Although Defendants'
website provides the impression that the Plaintiffs and putative
class and sub-class members listed on its website are/were, in
fact, available for services on behalf of Defendants, they were
not, the suit says.

The Defendants had never notified Plaintiffs or putative class and
sub-class members of the advertising of their services on
Defendants' website and had no intention to use them for any work,
nor even provided any leads to them unless they paid a fee to
Defendants. Instead, after baiting its users to use it to select
the services of Plaintiffs and other class and sub-class members,
the Defendants would then switch any individual who contacted them
asking for one of the unauthorized profiles to someone who actually
worked for them, more often than not, to an unlicensed person. The
Defendants would then charge its users a fee for providing this
counseling service.

All the Plaintiffs and putative class and sub-class members are
professional psychologists, marriage counselors, and other licensed
professionals in the field of therapeutic mental health treatment.


Plaintiff Harb is a licensed Doctor of Psychology who resides and
maintains a private practice in Los Angeles, California. She
advertises her services in the nationally known publication
Psychology Today.

Plaintiff Rayfield is a licensed Family and Marriage Counselor who
resides and maintains a private practice in Los Angeles,
California. She advertises her services in the nationally known
publication Psychology Today.

Plaintiff Ball is a licensed professional counselor who resides and
maintains a private practice in Denton County, Texas. They
advertise their services in the nationally known publication
Psychology Today and in the Lotus Flower Mound website found at
www.lotus-counseling.com.

All the Plaintiffs and putative class and sub-class members are
licensed to practice under the laws of their respective states.

The Defendant has held itself out to the general public in its
registration with the California Secretary of State and on its
website as a provider of counseling services, including both
licensed and unlicensed providers, throughout the United States and
beyond.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome H. Mooney, Esq.
          Rebekah F. Frushtick, Esq.
          G. Randall Garrou, Esq.
          WESTON, GARROU & MOONEY
          12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 525
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1176
          Telephone: (310) 442-0072
          Facsimile: (310) 442-0899
          E-mail: jerrym@mooneylaw.com
                  rff@wgdlaw.com
                  randygarrou@wgdlaw.com

AARP: Court Deems Bids for Class Certification Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MARKELS, ET AL., V.
AARP, Case No. 4:22-cv-05499-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order deeming motions for class
certification and to exclude expert report withdrawn.

In light of the Court's granting the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the parties' negotiated settlement, the
Court considers the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the defendant's Daubert motion in connection therewith to be
withdrawn.

If the Court denies the motion for final approval of the parties'
proposed settlement, or the parties' proposed settlement is
terminated for any other reason, and plaintiffs intend to seek
class certification, the parties shall refile their docketed
motions in connection with the class certification briefing within
14 days of such denial or termination, absent further order of the
Court.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qldfOw at no extra
charge.[CC]

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Electrolyte Drinks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges that Pedialyte electrolyte drinks and
powders are falsely marketed as healthy, hydrating and safe despite
containing sucralose, a sugar substitute connected to various
severe health risks.

The 42-page lawsuit against Pedialyte maker Abbott Laboratories
states that the company prominently advertises Pedialyte
electrolyte hydration products as health-conscious, zero-sugar
alternatives to sugary competitors, capitalizing on both consumers'
desire for health-forward products and the subsequent popularity of
alternative sweeteners such as sucralose.

However, the complaint claims that Abbott Labs, in an apparent
attempt to position Pedialyte Advancedcare, Advancedcare Plus,
Sport, Immune Support, Classic, Fast Hydration and Electrolyte
Drink Mix varieties as healthy in comparison to competitors'
products sweetened with sugar, has intentionally avoided disclosing
to the public the significant health risks associated with
sucralose and its byproduct, sucralose-6-acetate.

"Instead, Defendant markets and suggests the Products be used when
children and adults are sick and dehydrated," the class action
lawsuit reads. "Thus, Defendant charges a price premium based on
its representations of the Products as healthier zero sugar
hydration beverages and powders and its omissions concerning
sucralose's and sucralose-6-acetate's dangers."

Sucralose linked to increased risk of serious health conditions,
class action says
Per the filing, several studies have reported that sucralose, which
is roughly 600 times sweeter than regular sugar, can significantly
interfere with the body's processes for controlling glucose and
energy homeostasis, which can, in turn, induce or significantly
worsen metabolic syndrome, obesity, insulin resistance,
hypertension, cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes.

The ingestion of sucralose, the complaint relays, can also lead to
blood sugar destabilization and subsequent spikes, as well as
increased glucose and insulin levels, which the suit argues are the
complete opposite of what many consumers in search of sugar-free
drinks, particularly those who are diabetic, are looking for.

The lawsuit goes on to state that aside from changes to blood sugar
and insulin -- which can negatively impact healthy, diabetic and
pre-diabetic people alike -- sucralose can cause gut dysbiosis,
meaning it can significantly disrupt and cause imbalance in the
body's gut microbiome. This can lead to inflammation, potentially
worsened insulin resistance and increased sugar cravings, the case
shares. Moreover, heightened sugar cravings, the suit notes, can
lead to the overconsumption of food and, subsequently, weight gain
and potential obesity.

Crucially, however, the most dangerous effects of sucralose
consumption come from its byproduct, sucralose-6-acetate, the
Pedialyte class action lawsuit emphasizes.

Per the complaint, sucralose-6-acetate is a genotoxin, a substance
that breaks up DNA strands, irreparably damaging a person's DNA.
The filing specifically notes that several studies have highlighted
that sucralose-6-acetate showed increased activity in genes
associated with oxidative stress, inflammation and cancer risk when
exposed to the intestines.

The lawsuit emphasizes that even though the Pedialyte electrolyte
drink products do not contain sucralose-6-acetate as an ingredient,
it is always created as a byproduct when the human body metabolizes
sucralose, meaning anyone who consumes the at-issue drinks or drink
powders is still exposed to the genotoxin and its harmful effects.

Pedialyte lawsuit alleges sucralose content renders "healthy"
claims false

Despite the well-researched health risks surrounding sucralose and
sucralose-6-acetate, Abbott Labs nevertheless markets Pedialyte
electrolyte drinks and powders as healthy, capitalizing on the
increase in health-concerned consumers, the subsequent popularity
of sugar alternatives and, the suit alleges, the average consumer's
lack of knowledge of the dangers of sucralose.

According to the suit, Abbott Labs continues to tout Pedialyte as
"zero sugar," containing "zinc and magnesium for immune support,"
having "only 5 calories per serving" and "backed by science…
since 1966," purportedly to gain the interest and trust of
consumers. The defendant even compares Pedialyte to competitors'
products that are sweetened with sugar, stating on Fast Hydration
Powder Packs, for example, that the product "[h]as 2x the
electrolytes and ½ the sugar of the leading sports drink" and is
"[s]cientifically designed to work better for hydration."

However, the complaint claims that if Pedialyte is "scientifically
designed" and "backed by science," then the manufacturer should
have been aware of the health risks of sucralose, and especially of
the genotoxic effects of digested sucralose being turned into
sucralose-6-acetate.

The filing argues, though, that the most health-hazardous Pedialyte
marketing tactic employed by Abbott Labs is its consistent
messaging that the electrolyte drinks and powders are advisable for
consumption by children and the elderly, when, in fact, very young
or very old bodies are the most at risk for the negative effects of
sucralose.

Who's covered by the Pedialyte lawsuit?

The Pedialyte class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in
Illinois, California, Massachusetts or New York who purchased
Pedialyte electrolyte drinks and powders containing sucralose
within the applicable statute of limitations period.

How do I get involved in the Pedialyte class action lawsuit?

Generally, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a
class action lawsuit when it is initially filed. However, if the
case later resolves with a class action settlement, the settlement
class members (meaning the people covered by the lawsuit) will
usually be notified of the settlement and given instructions on how
to claim any potential settlement benefits.

If you've bought any Pedialyte electrolyte products or just want to
stay informed on class action lawsuit and class action settlement
news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN]

ALAN KIKUCHI: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of "Gross" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Frederick Gross et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Alan Kikuchi et al.,
Defendants-Respondents, VS Management Partner LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Index No. 656290/23, Appeal No. 4732, Case No.
2024-07027 (1st Dept), Justice Jennifer G. Schecter of the Supreme
Court, New York County, entered an order on October 24, 2024, which
the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed on
September 25, 2025. The appellate panel, consisting of Webber,
J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Higgitt, and Hagler, JJ., affirmed the
dismissal of all causes of action and denied the Plaintiff's
cross-motion to amend the complaint and for expedited discovery.

The Court properly dismissed the first cause of action for breach
of an oral agreement because the alleged oral agreement was too
indefinite and lacked consideration. The Court noted that in their
appellate brief, the Plaintiff claimed the consideration was their
forbearance, but this was insufficient because neither the
complaint nor the Plaintiff's affidavits in opposition to the
Defendant's motions made reference to any evidence that supports
their claim.

The Court correctly dismissed the second cause of action for breach
of contract because neither the second cause of action nor the
preceding allegations in the complaint incorporated by reference
identified the provisions of the operating agreement of defendant
VS Management Partners, LLC that were breached. The Plaintiff's
affidavits in opposition to the Defendant's motions did not remedy
this defect. In their brief, the Plaintiff claimed they were suing
for other contracts in addition to the operating agreement, but the
complaint itself merely alleged that the Defendant breached the
operating agreement.

The Court properly dismissed the fourth cause of action for breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the oral
agreement. The Court stated that no implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing arises in the absence of a contract. Since the
motion court found there was no enforceable oral agreement, the
Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant necessarily
failed.

The Court correctly dismissed the third cause of action for breach
of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleged that a fiduciary
relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
because the Plaintiff were equity holders and substantial investors
in the Fund Entities. Under Delaware law, a cause of action for
breach of fiduciary duty requires the existence of a fiduciary duty
and breach of that duty by the defendant. The Plaintiff cited no
authority for the proposition that a Fund Entity owes a fiduciary
duty to its investors.

Kikuchi and Krieger were managers of the Management Firm, which was
a Delaware LLC. However, by the time of the alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, the Plaintiff were no longer members: they withdrew
as of December 31, 2013, and they alleged that the class action
settled in or about May of 2018. Moreover, the Management Firm,
Fund Entities, and defendant VS Capital Partners, LP were all
dissolved or cancelled between August 2014 and January 2015. Upon
dissolution, any fiduciary duty that the Defendant would have owed
to the Plaintiff had ceased.

The Plaintiff also contended that the fiduciary duty at issue was
that which the Defendant owed to the Plaintiff at the time of their
redemption and withdrawal, which was the point at which net asset
values were understated due to an undisclosed contingent
receivable. However, the Plaintiff did not allege that at the time
of their withdrawal and redemption on December 31, 2013, the
Defendant knew that the Fund Entities would eventually be entitled
to part of the class action settlement. At oral argument in Supreme
Court, the Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that, at the time the
Plaintiff withdrew and were compensated, the Defendant had no
knowledge of the class action claim.

Moreover, if the Defendant breached their fiduciary duty as of
December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred. The
statute of limitations on a breach of fiduciary duty claim is three
years. The Plaintiff did not sue until December 6, 2023, almost 10
years later.

If the breach occurred in or after May 2018 when the class action
settled and Kikuchi and Krieger refused to give any of the
settlement to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff were former members. The
Plaintiff cited no authority for the proposition that a manager of
a Delaware LLC owes a fiduciary duty to former as opposed to
current members.

The Court properly dismissed the last cause of action, which sought
a declaration that the Defendant breached their Operating Agreement
and Oral Agreement. This claim was duplicative of the contract
claims.

The Court providently exercised its discretion by denying the
Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend their complaint. The
Plaintiff failed to submit a proposed amended complaint, and their
claim that they could not do so due to the Defendant's lack of
transparency and the limited discovery available at this early
stage was unavailing. The Plaintiff should already possess copies
of the Fund Entities' partnership agreements or the subscription
agreements by which they became investors in the Fund Entities.

The Court also providently exercised its discretion by denying the
Plaintiff's cross-motion for expedited discovery. As noted above,
the Plaintiff did not need discovery to remedy the defects of the
complaint.

A copy of the Court's Decision and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=inZQ9K from Pacermonitor.com

ALBERT CORP: Faces Wurm Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALBERT CORPORATION, Case No. CACE-25-014288 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward Cty., Sept. 19, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes
and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to
Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules
violations are not subject to Fla. Stat. section 501.059(10)(c),
which requires notice and an opportunity to cease sending unwanted
text message solicitations, before claims for "text message
solicitations the called party does not consent to receive" can be
brought.

The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

The Defendant is a Brookline-based condominium management
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

AMERICAN INCOME: Settles Robocalls Class Action Lawsuit for $14MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $14 million
settlement will end a class action lawsuit that alleged American
Income Life Insurance placed unsolicited, automated sales calls to
nearly 50,000 unique phone numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry.

The American Income Life Insurance Company class action settlement
received preliminary court approval on August 29, 2025.

The robocall settlement covers anyone associated with the 49,695
unique phone numbers identified by American Income, which were
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days,
and received at least two calls from the company within any
12-month period between August 11, 2019 and December 4, 2024,
despite not being insured by American Income Life Insurance.

The court-approved website for the American Income do-not-call
settlement can be found at DoNotCallSettlement.com.

American Income Life Insurance settlement class members who submit
a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a pro rata, or
equal share, cash payout from the $14 million settlement fund.

ClassAction.org will update this page when the claim submission
form has been added to the American Income Life Insurance class
action settlement website.

All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later
than November 25, 2025.

A hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2026 to determine whether
the robocall settlement will receive final approval from the court.
Payments will begin to be distributed to settlement class members
only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have
been resolved.

The American Income Life Insurance class action lawsuit claimed
that the insurance company illegally sent several sales calls to
tens of thousands of phone numbers that are not associated with its
customers and are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. [GN]

AMERICAN WOODMARK: M&A Investigates Sale to MasterBrand Inc
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars
for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at
the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating.

  -- American Woodmark Corporation (NASDAQ: AMWD) related to its
sale to MasterBrand, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, each share of American common stock will be exchanged
for 5.150 shares of MasterBrand common stock.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 30, 2025.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-woodmark-corporation/ .  It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Performant Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: PHLT) related to its sale
to Machinify. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
Performant shareholders will receive $7.75 in cash per share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 17, 2025.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/performant-healthcare-inc/ . It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Aris Water Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ARIS) related to its sale to
Western Midstream Partners LP. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Aris shareholders will receive either 0.625 common
units of Western for each Aris share or $25.00 per share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 14, 2025.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aris-water-solutions-inc/ .  It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Mural Oncology plc (NASDAQ: MURA) related to its sale to XOMA
Royalty Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
Mural shareholders will receive $2.035 in cash per share and, up to
an additional $0.205 per share under certain conditions.

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/mural-oncology-plc . It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unsecured Gift Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports plaintiff Jessica Pinczewski has filed a
class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. and its subsidiary Apple
Value Services LLC.

Why: The plaintiff claims Apple gift cards are unsecured and
susceptible to fraud.

Where: The Apple gift card class action lawsuit was filed in
California federal court.

A new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges Apple has been
selling gift cards that are not secure and easily susceptible to
fraud, causing consumers to lose money.

Plaintiff Jessica Pinczewski filed the Apple card class action
complaint against Apple Inc. and its subsidiary Apple Value
Services LLC on Sept. 11 in California federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.

Pinczewski claims she purchased two $50 Apple gift cards from
Target in June 2023 as graduation gifts. However, when the
recipients tried to use the cards, they were told that the funds
had already been redeemed and the cards were valueless, she
alleges.

Apple refused to refund the money or provide any information about
who redeemed the cards, the lawsuit says.

Apple gift cards have been subject to fraud for years, lawsuit
alleges

Pinczewski accuses Apple of failing to implement reasonable
security measures to protect the personal identification numbers
(PINs) associated with the gift cards.

She claims unauthorized third parties can easily access the PINs
and drain the balance of the cards after they are activated but
before the intended user can use them.

The class action lawsuit alleges that Apple has known about this
issue for years but has done nothing to fix it.

Pinczewski claims Apple has received thousands of complaints from
consumers who have been victims of the fraudulent scheme, yet the
company continues to sell gift cards with the same security
deficiencies.

As a result, Pinczewski is looking to represent anyone in the
United States who purchased an Apple gift card from January 2020 to
present and whose card was redeemed by an unauthorized third party
before the consumer or intended user could use it.

She is suing for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
Unfair Competition Law, negligent misrepresentation and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability. She is seeking certification
of the Apple gift card class action lawsuit, damages, restitution,
disgorgement of Apple's revenues, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and corrective advertising.

In another recent Apple lawsuit, two authors are suing Apple for
allegedly using pirated books to train its Apple Intelligence AI
models.

What do you think of the claims made in this Apple card class
action? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Darrell P. White and Douglas C.
Stastny of Kimura London & White LLP.

The Apple gift card class action lawsuit is Pinczewski v. Apple
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02362-TWR-MMP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. [GN]

ARCADIS US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jahangiri Due March 8, 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY JAHANGIRI, v. ARCADIS
U.S., INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03682-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Sallie Kim entered a case management and pretrial order (jury).

  Jury trial will begin on Oct. 19, 2027 at 8:30 a.m.

  All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than Dec.
  29, 2026.

  All expert discovery shall be completed no later than Mar. 05,
  2027.

  The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by

  no later than March 8, 2027.

  The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification
shall be filed by no later than March 22, 2027.

  The Plaintiff's reply in support of their motion for class
certification shall be filed by no later than March 29, 2027.

  the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be noticed
  for a hearing on April 12, 2027.

  The pretrial conference will be held on Sept. 17, 2027 at 1:30
  p.m.

Arcadis provides design, engineering, consulting, and management
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iqBebx at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


ASCENDANT CAPITAL: $46MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you hold an interest in a GPB Fund, you may be entitled to a
payment from a proposed settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

KINNIE MA INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, et al.,
                        Plaintiffs,

            v.        

ASCENDANT CAPITAL, LLC, et al.,
                        Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-CV-1050-ADA (WD Tex.)

BARBARA DELUCA, et al.,
                        Plaintiffs,
           v.                    
GPB HOLDINGS, LP, et al.,
                        Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-CV-1050-JW (SDNY)


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTIONS AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT WITH CERTAIN DEFENDANTS; (II) FINAL APPROVAL HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All Persons who, directly or through an intermediary, purchased
or otherwise acquired limited partnership units in any of the GPB
Funds during the Class Period (January 1, 2013 through December 31,
2018, inclusive) and suffered a loss thereby, as well as any
Persons who are transferees of such limited partnership units
(except for certain individuals and entities that have been
excluded from the Settlement Class, as described below).

"GPB Funds" are: (i) GPB Holdings, LP; (ii) GPB Holdings Qualified,
LP; (iii) GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP; (iv) GPB Holdings II, LP;
(v) GPB Waste Management, LP (also known as Armada Waste Management
LP); (vi) GPB Cold Storage, LP; (vii) GPB NYC Development, LP;
and/or (viii) GPB Holdings III, LP; and each of their predecessors,
successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates.

Why Am I Receiving This Notice? If you hold an interest in a GPB
Fund, you may be entitled to a payment from a proposed settlement
with certain Defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Austin Division, known as Kinnie Ma Individual Ret. Acct.,
et al. v. Ascendant Capital, LLC, et al., No. 1:19-CV-1050-ADA,
which is related to a separate putative class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, known as DeLuca, et al. v. GPB Holdings, LP,
et al., No. 1:19-CV-10498-LAK-JW (the "Actions").

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form online at www.GPBSecuritiesSettlement.com (submitted no later
than November 14, 2025) or by mail (postmarked no later than
November 14, 2025) to this address: GPB Securities Settlement, P.O.
Box 2916, Portland, OR 97208-2916. A copy of the Detailed Notice of
(I) Pendency of Class Actions and Proposed Settlement with Certain
Defendants; (II) Final Approval Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Notice") and Claim Form
are available for download at www.GPBSecuritiesSettlement.com.

You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you
request to be excluded, in the manner and form explained in the
Notice referred to above.

A hearing will be held on November 24, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. CT, via
Zoom, before the Honorable Alan D. Albright, United States District
Judge (the "Court") ("Settlement Hearing"), to determine whether a
proposed settlement of the claims (the "Settlement") asserted
against Defendants CohnReznick LLP; Crowe LLP; Margolin, Winer &
Evens LLP; RSM US LLP; and WithumSmith+Brown, PC (collectively
"Settling Defendants"), for the combined sum of Forty-Six Million
United States dollars ($46,000,000) in cash (the "Settlement
Amount"), should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Plaintiffs in the Actions have asserted claims against
other Defendants who are not part of this proposed Settlement. If
approved, this Settlement will resolve claims against the Settling
Defendants only. Claims against other Defendants in the Actions
will continue in accordance with the schedule and other terms
directed by the Court.

The Settling Defendants deny all the allegations and deny that have
committed any wrongdoing. The Court did not decide in favor of the
Plaintiffs in either of the Actions (collectively "Settlement Class
Representatives") or the Settling Defendants. Instead, counsel for
the Settlement Class Representatives ("Settlement Class Counsel")
and the Settling Defendants, with the assistance of experienced
mediators, have negotiated a Settlement that they believe is in the
best interests of their respective clients and the Settlement
Class. The terms of the proposed Settlement are set forth in the
Parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 3,
2024 (the "Settlement Agreement"), which is available for review at
www.GPBSecuritiesSettlement.com.

What Will Happen at the Hearing? At the Settlement Hearing, the
Court will determine whether, for purposes of the proposed
Settlement only, the claims asserted in the Kinnie Ma Action
against the Settling Defendants should be certified as a class
action, thus creating a "Settlement Class"; whether Plaintiffs
should be appointed as the representatives for the Settlement
Class; and whether the proposed "Plan of Allocation" of settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and therefore should be
approved. The Court will also consider Settlement Class Counsel's
request for payment of reasonable attorneys' fees (not to exceed
30% of the Settlement Amount) and reimbursement of litigation
expenses, both to be paid out of the Settlement Amount, as well as
whether the Settlement Class Representatives should receive awards
(not to exceed $10,000 each) for their time and effort in
representing the Settlement Class.

If the Settlement is approved, all claims asserted in the Actions
against the Settling Defendants, would be dismissed with prejudice.
That dismissal will prevent members of the Settlement Class ("Class
Members") from ever being part of any other lawsuit against the
Settling Defendants (and parties related to them) in any way
related to the legal claims being resolved by and through this
Settlement. Claims asserted in the Actions against Defendants other
than the Settling Defendants may continue separate and apart from
this Settlement, or as provided by order of the Court.

How Do I Know If I Am Part of the Settlement? The "Settlement
Class" consists of all Persons who, directly or through an
intermediary, purchased or otherwise acquired limited partnership
units in any of the GPB Funds between January 1, 2013 through
December 31, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered a
loss thereby, as well as any Persons who are transferees of such
limited partnership units (except for certain individuals and
entities that have been excluded from the Settlement Class, as
described immediately below). If you meet these criteria, your
rights may be affected by the Actions and this Settlement.

The Settlement Class does not include: (a) Defendants named in the
DeLuca and Kinnie Ma Actions or their affiliates; (b) present or
former executive directors or officers of GPB Capital Holdings,
LLC, the GPB Funds, Ascendant Capital, LLC, Ascendant Alternative
Strategies, LLC, and/or Axiom Capital Management, Inc.; (c) the
legal representatives, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of
any Person within subsection (a) or (b) of this Paragraph; (d)
members of the immediate family of any natural Person within
subsection (a) or (b) of this Paragraph; (e) any entity in which
any Person within subsection (a) or (b) of this Paragraph has, or
had during the Class Period, a controlling interest; and (f) any
affiliate of GPB Capital Holdings, LLC.

What Does the Settlement Provide? The Settlement provides for
forty-six million United States dollars ($46,000,000) to be paid
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. This amount is subject to
deductions for any taxes, notice and administration costs,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, incentive awards, and any
other costs and fees as may be approved by the Court ("Net
Settlement Fund").

If the Court ultimately approves the Settlement, you will be
eligible to receive a payment if you submitted a timely, complete
Claim Form and the Claims Administrator determines that you
suffered a "Net Loss" resulting from your investment in any GPB
Fund(s). The amount of your payment will be a proportional or "pro
rata" share of the Net Settlement Fund based on your Net Loss
resulting from your investment in any GPB Fund(s).

For purposes of this calculation, "Net Loss" means the total
principal amount that an individual Class Member invested in any
GPB Fund(s) during the Class Period, minus any prior amounts
received by that Class Member on account of his or her
investment(s) (including any amounts previously received as
redemptions, dividends, or from any other source including, but not
limited to, as a result of any actual or threatened litigation or
arbitration concerning the GPB Funds). Class Members who have
received amounts (through redemptions, dividends, or any other
sources) greater than the total principal amount that Class Member
invested in any GPB Fund(s) have not suffered a Net Loss and will
not receive any payment from the Net Settlement Fund or otherwise
in connection with this Settlement.

How Do I Get a Payment? To be eligible to receive a settlement
payment, Class Members must submit a claim by November 14, 2025. If
the Court ultimately approves the Settlement, you will be eligible
to receive a payment if you submitted a timely, complete Claim Form
and the Claims Administrator determines that you suffered a "Net
Loss" resulting from your investment in any GPB Funds. The amount
of your payment will be a proportional or "pro rata" share of the
Net Settlement Fund based on your Net Loss resulting from your
investment in any GPB Fund(s). Net Loss and calculation of
settlement payments are explained in more detail in the Plan of
Allocation, available for download at
www.GPBSecuritiesSettlement.com.

Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq" or "Claims
Administrator") has been appointed as the "Claims Administrator"
responsible for administering the Settlement. After you submit your
timely Claim Form, Epiq will determine each claimant's Net Loss as
set forth in the Plan of Allocation using information provided
and/or verified by claimants during the claims process.

If your Claim Form is deemed deficient or rejected, you will have
an opportunity to contest and/or cure the basis for the
deficiencies or rejection by providing additional information and
supporting documents.

Once all disputes are resolved, Epiq will finalize the Net Loss
amounts and calculate each claimant's individual settlement payment
and share of the Net Settlement Fund as described in the Plan of
Allocation, available for download at
www.GPBSecuritiesSettlement.com.

What Are My Other Rights and Options? You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Kinnie Ma Action concerning the Settlement
and/or the Settling Defendants (including the releases of all known
and unknown claims provided in the Settlement) unless you request
to be excluded from the proposed Settlement Class.

Unless you exclude yourself, you will remain in the Settlement
Class, and that means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be
part of any other lawsuit against the Settling Defendants in any
way related to the issues that have been asserted in the Actions or
that could have been asserted in the Actions or the GPB Funds. All
of the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you and
you will release the Settling Defendants and related parties from
the released claims, including any and all known and unknown claims
and causes of action of every nature and description, whether
arising under federal, state, statutory, regulatory, common,
foreign, or other law, that arise in any way from or relate to the
Actions. If you do not want a payment from the Settlement, but you
want to keep any right you may have to sue or continue to sue the
Settling Defendants and related parties on your own about the legal
claims released by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class.

The proposed Settlement does not impact your rights against other,
non-settling Defendants in the Actions. The claims against
non-settling Defendants will proceed in the Kinnie Ma Action.

If you wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than October 30,
2025 and follow the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will receive no
settlement payment and will have no right to object to the
Settlement. You will also forfeit any right to take part in future
class recovery (if any) against any non-settling Defendants and
will not participate in proceedings in the Kinnie Ma Action or be
legally bound by any of the Court's orders or judgments in the
Kinnie Ma Action. However, you will retain any individual rights
you may still have with respect to the Settling Defendants or other
non-settling Defendants related to the matters alleged in the
Actions.

If you are a Settlement Class Member (and have not excluded
yourself from the Settlement Class), you can object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Settlement Class Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees, charges, and expenses in
representing the Settlement Class. You may also ask the Court for
permission to speak at the Settlement Hearing. Any objection to any
aspect of the Settlement or any of the matters to be addressed at
the Settlement Hearing must be filed with the Clerk of the Court
for the Western District of Texas and received by designated
Settlement Class Counsel and the Settling Defendants' Counsel no
later than,
November 3, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

How Do I Get More Information? For more information, including a
copy of the Notice, the Settlement Agreement, the Plan of
Allocation, and Settlement Class Counsel's fee and expense
application, or to submit a claim online or print out a hard copy
Claim Form to file by mail, visit www.GPBSecuritiesSettlement.com.
You could also call Epiq at (888) 550-9942, Monday through Friday
between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET.

DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District of Texas – Austin Division

See www.GPBSecuritiesSettlement.com


ASCENSION HEALTH: Federal Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Muoio, writing for FIERCE Healthcare, reports that a federal
judge has denied Ascension's bid to dismiss a nationwide
class-action lawsuit brought by individuals who say they were
harmed by last year's major cybersecurity breach, though he tossed
several of the proposed counts brought by plaintiffs.

Judge John Ross, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, wrote in a Sept. 23 order that plaintiffs may
move ahead on a nationwide class action asserting negligence and
negligence per se as well as on several subclass claims related to
state laws in Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and
Indiana.

Multiple nationwide class claims, including breach of express
contract and invasion of privacy, as well as a claim specific to
Oklahoma law were tossed.

Ascension, one of the country's largest nonprofit health systems
with ownership or other interests in about 120 hospitals, faced
weeks of downtime procedures and months of volume declines due to
the breach detected in May 2024.

The organization has said the breach stemmed from a contractor
clicking on a malicious link in February 2024. Malware downloaded
onto the contractor's laptop then spread into an organization-wide
user account directory, giving the attackers privileged access and
allowing them to copy sensitive data while pushing ransomware to
thousands of other Ascension computers.

The 13 named plaintiffs on the consolidated class action were
patients at the time of the breach and said they had given
Ascension their protected health information and personally
identifiable information.

"Plaintiffs further plead that Ascension was negligent in failing
to maintain adequate security, protect patient information, monitor
its IT systems for intrusions, train its employees to avoid
phishing, comply with FTC cybersecurity guidelines and HIPAA, and
adhere to industry standards," according to court documents.
"Consequently, Plaintiffs face an imminent and ongoing risk of
fraud and identity theft that was well-known and foreseeable."

Ascension, in notices sent to consumers in December 2024, said 5.6
million patients and employees were exposed and had offered those
affected 24 months of credit monitoring, a $1 million insurance
policy and identity theft recovery services. In its move to
dismiss, the system had argued the plaintiffs "suffered no actual
injury caused by the attack and therefore lack standing to sue"
alongside other points on specific claims' viability.

Legal issues aside, the 2024 cyberattack has already had a lasting
impact on the health system's finances and operations. In financial
statements, Ascension management described backlogs in payment
claims and a multi-quarter recovery of elective procedure volumes
that affected performance. That translated to an acute impact on
its fiscal year 2024 operating loss of $1.8 billion and a
prolonged, but steadily improving, drag on fiscal year 2025's
$490.9 million operating loss. [GN]

B & J PROPERTY: Appellate Ruling in "Hathaway" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Loren Hathaway, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated within the state of Oregon; Gennise
Hathaway, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
within the state of Oregon; and Heather Noble, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated within the state of Oregon,
Petitioners on Review, v. B & J Property Investments, Inc., an
Oregon corporation; Better Business Management, Inc., an Oregon
corporation doing business as Salem RV Park; and William J. Berman,
an individual, Respondents on Review, No. 36, 374 Or 212 (2025),
Justice Garrett of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon
affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reversed the
judgment of the circuit court, remanding the case to the circuit
court for further proceedings.

The case involved a class action brought by the Petitioners
concerning the application of a discovery rule to the statute of
limitations under ORS 12.125. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter
following arguments submitted on November 7, 2024. Justice Garrett
authored the opinion for the court, with Chief Justice Flynn and
Justices Duncan, DeHoog, James, and Masih participating, along with
Judge Aoyagi serving as Justice pro tempore.

The Petitioners advanced the argument that the text of ORS 12.125
itself unambiguously reflects a discovery rule. However, the court
found this argument unconvincing. The court explained that the
phrase arising under, when used in a statute of limitations,
functions as a subject matter description. The court noted that the
legislature has used phrases such as arising from and arising out
of in multiple statutes that expressly contain discovery rules,
which indicates that the legislature does not associate a discovery
rule with the word arising itself. Rather, those statutes suggest
that the legislature intends the phrase arising under in the manner
described and has deliberately added discovery rules as it deems
appropriate.

The Petitioners and amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association
advanced a related contextual argument that presented a closer
question. This contextual argument relied on the fact that the
relevant statute of limitations, ORS 12.125, is found in ORS
chapter 12. A separate provision, ORS 12.010, states that actions
shall only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this
chapter, after the cause of action shall have accrued, except where
a different limitation is prescribed by statute. The Petitioners
contended that, under the court's decision in Berry v. Branner, 245
Or 307, 421 P2d 996 (1966), a cause of action accrues when the
plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the claim.

The Petitioners further relied on Rice, where the Supreme Court,
drawing on Berry, explained that statutes under the purview of ORS
12.010 contain a discovery rule. In the Petitioners' view, ORS
12.125 falls under the purview of ORS 12.010 because of its
location within ORS chapter 12. The Court of Appeals correctly
rejected that argument.

The court began its analysis with Berry, which concerned the
two-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1) for actions in
tort. Just two years earlier, the court had held that, for medical
malpractice claims, the two-year period begins to run upon the
occurrence of the malpractice rather than upon its discovery in
Vaughn v. Langmack, 236 Or 542, 390 P2d 142 (1964). In so
concluding, the court relied on the fact that, within that same
statute, the legislature had expressly provided that, in an action
at law based upon fraud or deceit, the limitation shall be deemed
to commence only from the discovery of the fraud or deceit. Because
no similar discovery rule had been included for other types of
claims covered by the statute, the court reasoned that the omission
reflected an intentional choice.

The court reversed course two years later in Berry, faulting the
Vaughn majority for placing too much emphasis upon legislative
intent as deduced from the statutory history and not enough upon
legislative intent as determined from the ordinary legal meaning of
the word accrued. The court construed that term within the meaning
of ORS 12.010 as follows: The word accrue is derived from the Latin
ad and creso to grow to. When applied to independent or original
demands it means to arise, to happen, to come into force or
existence. When used with reference to a cause of action it means
when an action may be maintained thereon. It accrues whenever one
person may sue another. The cause of action must necessarily accrue
to some person or legal entity. To say that a cause of action
accrues to a person when she may maintain an action thereon and, at
the same time, that it accrues before she has or can reasonably be
expected to have knowledge of any wrong inflicted upon her is
patently inconsistent and unrealistic.

The court opined that, in the absence of a statutory direction that
the limitation period begins running before a person could know of
the claim, to ascribe to the legislature any such intention by
their use of the word accrue seems to us unreasonable. The court
also looked to the purpose of the statutory limitations period,
noting that, in malpractice cases, the goal was to protect medical
practitioners from the assertion of stale claims and to remedy any
delay in the assertion of a legal right by one who had slumbered
for the statutory period during which process was within his reach.


Even with that purpose in mind, the court did not believe that the
legislature intended to limit patients asserting malpractice
claims, who by the very nature of the treatment had no way of
immediately ascertaining their injury, to the same overall period
of time that is allowed for bringing other tort actions that are
normally immediately ascertainable upon commission of the wrong.
The protection of the medical profession from stale claims does not
require such a harsh rule. Accordingly, the court determined that
the plaintiff's malpractice claim accrued at the time the plaintiff
obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge of
the tort committed upon her person by the defendant.

Since deciding Berry, the Supreme Court has held that a discovery
rule applies to other types of tort claims. The court's most recent
treatment of the issue was in Rice, where it held that a discovery
rule applies to the six-year statute of limitations in ORS
12.080(4) for claims for conversion and replevin. In Rice, the
court observed that the relevant statute of limitations was silent
as to a discovery rule. The plaintiff pointed to ORS 12.010 and
contended that, when ORS 12.010 and ORS 12.080(4) were considered
together, the relevant question reduced to when a cause of action
accrues. The plaintiff argued that the court had answered that very
question in Berry. The court agreed, concluding that a cause of
action under ORS 12.080(4) accrues within the meaning of ORS
12.010, at the time a plaintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably
should have obtained knowledge of the tort committed upon her
person by a defendant.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of
the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the
circuit court for further proceedings.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6lclRI from PacerMonitor.com

BEI FRAMING: Kempf Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER KEMPF, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
BEI FRAMING LLC, a domestic limited liability company; CLAYTON
NICHOLSON, an individual, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:25-cv-00527-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify the
proposed class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

BEI offers customized and specific high-quality end products for
commercial and residential building projects.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IpTybT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28 th St. SW

          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
 


BENWORTH CAPITAL: Maxwell Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
EARLINE MAXWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-24321 (S.D. Fla., September 19, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment/quasi
contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach on or about May 18, 2025. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.

Benworth Capital Partners LLC is a financial institution with its
principal place of business located in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
         Steven Sukert, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
         1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 525-4100
         Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                sukert@kolawyers.com

BETTERHELP INC: Seeks to Seal Certain Exhibits in C.M. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc.
(RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No.
3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order sealing certain exhibits and portions of exhibits filed in
support of its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

BetterHelp requests that the Court seal documents and testimony
that disclose BetterHelp’s financial performance; BetterHelp’s
business and marketing strategies; how BetterHelp designs
and configures its website and app; and the manner in which
BetterHelp partners with third parties to develop its business and
market to potential users.

This is highly confidential information that, if disclosed to
competitors, would give them valuable insight into how BetterHelp
operates its business and thus give them an advantage in the highly
competitive and growing business of online counseling. Declaration
of Sara Brooks.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DKvhR7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          Jeffrey Hammer, Esq.
          Craig H. Bessenger, Esq.
          James A. Unger, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
                  jhammer@kslaw.com
                  cbessenger@kslaw.com
                  junger@kslaw.com

BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Class Cert Bid in Greene Suit Due Jan. 5, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN GREENE and DEONDRE
MARQUES JONES in their Individual and Representative Capacities on
Behalf of a Class of All Persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS, MARK STAINBROOK, JERRY WHITTAKER, PIERRE ROMAIN,
SEAN REYNOLDS, JAKE SPURGEON, ERIC PENA and MATTHEW LOPEZ, all sued
in their individual capacities, Case No. 2:24-cv-05916-FMO-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order
on stipulation to modify scheduling order:

  1. The Parties have agreed that the deposition of the
     Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) witness shall proceed on Oct. 8,
     2025, subject to the Court approval.

  2. The date for the parties to serve initial expert witness
     disclosures currently set for Oct. 6, 2025, shall be extended

     to Nov. 12, 2025.

  3. The date for the parties to serve rebuttal expert witness
     disclosures currently set for Nov. 6, 2025, shall be extended

     to Dec. 12, 2025.

  4. The date for the parties to complete all expert discovery
     currently set for Dec. 5, 2025, shall be extended to Jan. 30,

     2026.

  5. The last date for any motion for class certification to be
     filed currently set for Jan. 5, 2026, shall be extended to
     Mar. 26, 2026.

Beverly Hills is located in the middle of Los Angeles County.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ozEowd at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


BIRNER STL: Redus Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Measure Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD STEPHEN REDUS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIRNER STL LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-01387 (E.D. Mo., September 15, 2025) is a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

During his employment, the Plaintiff routinely worked between 48
and 52 hours per week, and often as long as 12 hours per day.
Despite working these long hours, the Plaintiff was paid only for
40 hours per week during the first 9 to 10 weeks of his employment,
which Defendant labeled as "training." Even after the purported
training period ended, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff all
overtime wages owed, asserts the suit.

The Plaintiff worked as a measure technician whose duties included
visiting job sites post-sale, taking precise measurements of window
and door openings, and preparing detailed job orders typically 35
to 40 pages in length.

BIRNER STL LLC owns and operates Renewal by Andersen businesses in
St. Louis, Springfield, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri, providing
window and door replacement services throughout those regions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip E. Oliphant, Esq.
          THE ROLWES EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
          254 Court Avenue, Suite 305
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 519-9135
          Facsimile: (901) 979-2499
          E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com

               - and -

          Edward J. Rolwes, Esq.
          THE ROLWES EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
          2333 South Hanley Road, S. 104
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 806-9626
          Facsimile: (314) 472-0900
          E-mail: erolwes@rolweslaw.com

BON SECOURS: Wood Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOLDEN WOOD and TERRANCE GUNTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs  v.  BON SECOURS MERCY
HEALTH d/b/a MERCY HEALTH-WESTERN KENTUCKY ORTHOPEDICS, Defendant,
Case No. 5:25-cv-00153-BJB (W.D. Ky., September 15, 2025) arises
out of Defendant WKO's failures to properly secure, safeguard,
encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and other
patients' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had
acquired and stored for its business purposes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to secure and
monitor its network resulted in a September 2025 data breach of
highly sensitive documents and information stored on its computer
network. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure
to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or
both, says the suit.

Through this Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals
whose private information was accessed during the data breach.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied
contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment,
and (vi) declaratory relief.

Bon Secours Mercy Health d/b/a Mercy Health-Western Kentucky
Orthopedics is an orthopedic service provider.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN PLLC
          19 North Main St.
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 821-0656
          E-mail: jwhitfield@wcfjustice.com

              - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.com

BRAVO PIZZA: Bids for Summary Judgment Due August 30, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE GONZALEZ, et al., v.
BRAVO PIZZA ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00268-GHW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered a civil case
management plan and scheduling order as follows:

-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 30,
    2026.

-- Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, 31 shall be
    completed by July 30, 2026.

-- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 30,

    2026.

-- Motions for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed no later
    than Aug. 30, 2026.

-- The Court will hold a status conference on July 16, 2026 at
    4:00 p.m.

-- Any motion for conditional certification of a collective under

   the FLSA must be filed no later than Nov. 29, 2025.

Bravo operates pizza restaurants.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NgFEa4 at no extra
charge.[CC]



BROWN-DAUB CHEVROLET: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 23, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE PERO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROWN-DAUB CHEVROLET OF NAZARETH, Case No. 2:25-cv-01859-TJS (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Savage entered a scheduling order as
follows:

  1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class certification

     shall be completed by Jan. 2, 2026.

  2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
     certification no later than Jan. 23, 2026.  

  3. The Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' motion for class

     certification shall be filed no later than Feb. 13, 2026.

  4. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendant's
     response no later than Feb. 23, 2026.

  5. Oral argument on the plaintiff's motion for class
     certification shall be heard on Monday, March 23, 2026, at
     10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9A.

The Defendant is a car dealership company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uv9h4u at no extra
charge.[CC]

CAKE 5332: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alvarez Due Nov. 24
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and
SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, v. CAKE 5332, LLC and ABDUL HAMIDEH, Case No.
4:22-cv-00697-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan,
Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows:

  1. All discovery pursuant to Rule 23 is due by Oct. 31, 2025.

  2. Any motion for Rule 23 class certification is due by Nov. 24,

     2025. Responses in opposition to this motion are due by Dec.
     15, 2025. Reply suggestions are due by Dec. 29, 2025.

  3. Once the Court has ruled on Rule 23 certification, the
     parties will be directed to file a proposed scheduling order
     as to all remaining issues in Phase II.

  4. The deadline to issue notice will be Nov. 21, 2025. The
     Defendants shall bear the cost of additional notice measures.

     Analytics shall serve as the notice administrator. Notice
     shall include electronic notice, email, text, and written
     notice.

  5. The opt-in period for the new notice shall close on March 31,

     2026. Late opt-ins will not be barred from participation, but

     rather, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss
     procedures for their inclusion in the litigation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Olf4z at no extra
charge.[CC] 


CARMAX INC: Bleichmar Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an
investigation into CarMax, Inc. (NYSE: KMX) for potential
violations of the federal securities laws.

If you invested in CarMax, you are encouraged to obtain additional
information by visiting:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/carmax-inc-class-action.

Why Is CarMax being Investigated?

CarMax sells used cars. During the relevant period, the Company
touted the strong and sustainable demand for its cars, driven by
factors such as a seamless customer experience.

In truth, it appears that the announcement of U.S. tariffs imposed
on cars provided a short-term boost to demand, as customers
purchased cars prior to the tariffs taking effect.

The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed

On September 25, 2025, the Company reported earnings for fiscal Q2
2025. For that quarter, CarMax announced sales declines across the
board, including a 5.4% decline in retail used unit sales, a 6.3%
decline in comparable store used unit sales, and a 2.2% decline in
wholesale units. The Company also posted a disappointing Q2 net
earnings of about $95.4 million, down from $132.8 million over the
prior year. A main reason for the declines, according to CarMax,
was a "pull forward" in demand into Q1 due to the announcement of
tariffs. On this news, the price of CarMax stock fell $11.45 per
share, or roughly 20%, from $57.05 per share on September 24, 2025,
to $45.60 per share on September 25, 2025.

Click here for more information:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/carmax-inc-class-action.

What Can You Do?

If you invested in CarMax you may have legal options and are
encouraged to submit your information to the firm.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost
to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or
expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any
potential fees and expenses.

Submit your information by visiting:

https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/carmax-inc-class-action

Or contact:

     Ross Shikowitz
     ross@bfalaw.com
     (212) 789-3619

Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?

BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in
securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been
named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and
ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers"
by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff
Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by
Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent
notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from
Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva
Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN]

CHENEGA GLOBAL: Court Extends to File Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kalantari, et al., v.
Chenega Global Protection, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00961 (D. Colo.,
Filed March 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered
an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file
reply as to motion to certify class action and collective action.

The Plaintiff's reply is now due on or before Oct. 10, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Chenega provides facilities support management and consulting
services.[CC]

CHENEGA GLOBAL: Kalantari Seeks More Time to File Class Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYA KALANTARI and ETHAN
LAGE, v. CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00961-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order permitting the Plaintiffs until Oct. 10, 2025, to
file a reply in support of their motion for conditional class and
collective action certification.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional class and
collective action certification on Aug. 1, 2025.

Chenega provides facilities support management and consulting
services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WUZoGL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
          David H. Miller, Esq.
          THE WILHITE AND MILLER LAW FIRM  
          1600 N. Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 839-1650
          E-mail: ttaylor@wilhitelawfirm.com
                  dmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com
 


CITY OF KINGSTON: Wins Appeal Over Canopy Ownership
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as 306 Wall Street Owners, LLC, et al., on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants,
v. City of Kingston, Respondent, CV-25-0145 (Appellate Division,
Third Department), Justice James P. Lynch, Jr. and Justices
Ceresia, Fisher, Powers and Mackey modified an order of the Supreme
Court entered January 28, 2025 in Ulster County. The Court declared
that the Pike Plan canopies are owned by the Defendant and are not
immovable fixtures.

In 1969, artist John Pike, in conjunction with the Kingston
Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission, proposed a
preservation-inspired urban renewal project that involved the
installation of a contiguous row of 19th-century-style wooden
canopies on several storefronts in the City of Kingston, Ulster
County. The proposal, known as the Pike Plan, called for the
Kingston Urban Renewal Agency to obtain easements from impacted
property owners. Each of the property owners entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Kingston Urban Renewal Agency and
Defendant, providing the Kingston Urban Renewal Agency with an
easement to construct the canopies over the sidewalks and attach
same to the front facades of their respective buildings for
support. Thereafter, the Kingston Urban Renewal Agency constructed
canopies on over 40 storefronts in the Stockade District, an
eight-block area located within an Architectural Design District.

In 2011, Defendant became the successor in interest to the Kingston
Urban Renewal Agency and embarked on a restoration process to
address deterioration of the canopies that had developed in the
decades since their installation. Despite these efforts,
substantial deterioration persisted into 2024. During a meeting
before the Finance and Audit Committee of Defendant's Common
Council held in July 2024, Defendant's Mayor proposed removing the
canopies and restoring the impacted storefronts to their historic
facades, submitting a draft resolution to allocate $1.2 million for
the first phase of the project.

Plaintiffs commenced this class action challenging the Mayor's plan
and separately moved for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction to preclude any removal action. Plaintiffs'
first cause of action sought a declaration that the Pike Plan
canopies are permanent and immovable fixtures that cannot be
removed from their properties without their consent, along with a
permanent injunction precluding demolition. Plaintiffs' second
cause of action sought a declaration that the canopies cannot be
altered in any way until, at a minimum, the local historic landmark
designation process has concluded under Chapter 264 of the City of
Kingston Code.

Defendant opposed Plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive
relief and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR
3211 (a) (1) and (7). Following a court conference, Supreme Court
denied Plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief,
granted Defendant's cross-motion and dismissed the complaint.
Relying on the plain language of the written agreements
memorializing the Pike Plan easements, the court concluded, as a
matter of law, that the Pike Plan canopies were intended to remain
City property and were not immovable fixtures. As for Plaintiffs'
second cause of action seeking declaratory relief under Chapter 264
of the City Code, Supreme Court noted that this code chapter was
repealed by Common Council Resolution 157 of 2024, dated September
10, 2024, rendering the requested relief no longer viable.

The Appellate Division reviewed the Memorandums of Agreement
pertaining to the Pike Plan canopies, which constitute documentary
evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211 (a) (1). The Court agreed
with Supreme Court that no viable cause of action lies with respect
to Plaintiffs' fixture claim. To meet the common-law definition of
fixture, the personalty in question must: (1) be actually annexed
to real property or something appurtenant thereto; (2) be applied
to the use or purpose to which that part of the realty with which
it is connected is appropriated; and, (3) be intended by the
parties as a permanent accession to the freehold. While all three
factors should be considered, the intent of the parties and not the
manner of annexation is often controlling.

The Memorandums of Agreement granted the Kingston Urban Renewal
Agency an easement to construct a canopy along the sidewalk portion
of the buildings owned by Plaintiffs' predecessors in title and to
attach the canopies to the facades of the buildings. The easements
were described as perpetual covenants running with the land, but no
part of the fee of the soil upon which the canopy or its supports
were to stand would pass to or be vested in the Kingston Urban
Renewal Agency or its assigns. Plaintiffs' predecessors in title
were referred to as the owners of properties specifically
benefitted by such canopy structures, and they acknowledged that
the structures were a street and sidewalk appurtenance subject to
repair and maintenance assessments imposable against them under
Section 145 of the Kingston Charter, being Chapter 747 of the Laws
of 1896, for the operational and maintenance costs incurred by said
Municipality.

The Court found that while the canopies have been actually annexed
to Plaintiffs' real property for several decades, the canopies were
not erected for the use or purpose of the buildings to which they
are attached. Rather, as demonstrated by the agreements' reference
to Section 145 of the 1896 Kingston Charter and description of the
canopies as street and sidewalk appurtenances, the canopies were
erected as part of a municipal improvement project to provide a
district-wide benefit to the public at large.

Moreover, the plain language of the Memorandums of Agreement, which
is the best evidence of the parties' intent, refutes Plaintiffs'
contention that the canopies were intended to become permanent
accessions to the freeholds. To the contrary, the agreements
carefully delineated the parties' rights and responsibilities
relative to the canopies, referencing Plaintiffs' ownership
interest only in regard to the real property and soil on which the
canopies were attached. At the same time, Defendant was authorized
to impose annual assessments on the property owners for the
operational and maintenance costs incurred by Defendant for the
upkeep of the improvements. Defendant's responsibility for the
upkeep demonstrates its retained ownership interest in the canopy
structures. More importantly, having defined the canopy structure
as a street and sidewalk appurtenance, the parties to the
Memorandums of Agreement confirmed Defendant's retained ownership
interest.

The Court concluded that the documentary evidence utterly refutes
the viability of Plaintiffs' first cause of action seeking a
declaration that the Pike Plan canopies are permanent fixtures
belonging to Plaintiffs.

Having properly concluded that Plaintiffs lack any viable claim for
the declaratory relief they seek and that no question of fact is
presented by the controversy, the Court modified the judgment and
declared that Defendant is the owner of the Pike Plan canopies. In
light of this determination, Plaintiffs' argument that Supreme
Court erred in denying their motion for injunctive relief is
unavailing.

The Court ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without
costs, by reversing so much thereof as dismissed the complaint.

A copy of the case is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sQFfl3
from PacerMonitor.com

CLAIMPIX: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of a report about a
potential ClaimPix data breach.

As part of their investigation, they need to hear from ClaimPix
users who may have been impacted.

ClaimPix Security Incident: What Happened?

In late September 2025, cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler
reported discovering an unprotected database containing 5.1 million
files linked to ClaimPix. Illinois-based ClaimPix offers a platform
used in the insurance claims process, vehicle transportation for
damage inspections and bill of lading receipts.

According to Fowler, the publicly exposed database was not
encrypted or password-protected and contained sensitive documents
such as powers of attorney, vehicle registrations, repair invoices,
and images showing license plates and VINs. Fowler's investigation
into the potential ClaimPix data breach reportedly found personal
details in the insurance documents, including names, addresses and
contact information. Internal documents, including software license
agreements, were also improperly accessible.

Fowler specified that it was unclear whether the database was
managed by ClaimPix or a third party, or how long it was exposed.
After Fowler's notification, the database was restricted from
public access, and ClaimPix reportedly confirmed the issue in a
reply.

What You Can Do After the ClaimPix Data Breach

If you believe your information may have been exposed, attorneys
want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action
lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent
dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.

A successful case could also force ClaimPix to ensure it takes
proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with.

Take Action

An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.

Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]

CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN IASELLA, for himself,
and for others similarly situated, v. Clint Miller, Case No.
3:025-cv-00032-HRH (D. Alaska), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the following class:

    "All persons who, during the period 2020 to date, prepaid fees

    to the Defendant Clint Miller to act as their hunting guide,
    who were not provided those services, and who have not
    received a full refund of their prepaid fees."

    Excluded from the class are the Defendant's past and present
    employees, agents or affiliates; counsel who have entered an
    appearance in this action; and any judge who presides over
    this action.

The Plaintiff also ask the Court to enter an order:

-- appointing himself  as the class representative;

-- appointing Tim Cook as counsel for the Class.

-- certifying the following common claim for the Class:

    Defendant's violations of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices
    and Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gEvwUU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim Cook, Esq.
          COOK & ASSOCIATES
          3901 Taiga Drive
          Anchorage, AK 99516
          Telephone: (907) 336-5291
          E-mail: AkLaw911@Outlook.com

COHN LIFLAND: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Moore" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Helisha Moore, Appellant, v. Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP and Christina N. Stripp, No. 24-1456
(3d Cir.), Circuit Judges Bibas, Phipps, and Ambro of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act claims as time-barred.

Circuit Judge Phipps authored the opinion addressing whether a law
firm's filing of a time-barred debt collection lawsuit and
subsequent collection efforts constitute actionable violations
under the FDCPA. In August 2014, Moore borrowed $16,317 from
USAlliance Federal Credit Union to buy a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze.
After unforeseen financial hardships, Moore ceased making her
monthly payments in January 2016 and ultimately defaulted on the
loan in May of that year. With the loan in default, the credit
union repossessed the car in July 2016 and sold it. The sale price,
however, did not cover Moore's outstanding balance, and the credit
union sent her a deficiency letter on October 18, 2016, seeking an
additional $12,386.

Represented by Christina N. Stripp at the law firm Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, the credit union commenced suit
against Moore in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Mercer County, on August 23, 2021, more than five years after
Moore's May 2016 default on the loan. New Jersey, however, has a
four-year statute of limitations for contracts for the sale of
goods. Moore, who denies receiving service of the complaint, did
not answer or otherwise assert a statute-of-limitations defense. On
January 10, 2022, the credit union moved for default judgment for
approximately $28,489 -- a figure based on principal, accrued
interest, and attorneys' fees, less the amount recouped. The
Superior Court granted the motion and entered default judgment in
that amount against Moore on February 4, 2022.

The Defendant, on behalf of the credit union, tried to collect on
that judgment through court filings beginning in April 2022, which
resulted in a writ of execution against Moore's wages to satisfy
the judgment against her. The Defendant arranged to serve that writ
on Moore's employer, and her wages were garnished for the three pay
periods spanning from July 10, 2022, through August 20, 2022, for a
total garnishment of approximately $422.

Moore sued the Defendant and attorney Stripp in the Superior Court
of New Jersey on January 10, 2023, approximately 16 months after
the filing of the debt collection suit. Her putative class action
also included a second count for unjust enrichment. The Defendant
removed the case to the District Court and moved to dismiss Moore's
complaint as untimely. The District Court granted that motion and
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Moore amended her complaint to emphasize seven debt collection
practices that occurred within the year preceding her FDCPA suit:
moving for default judgment on January 10, 2022; serving an
information subpoena on March 30, 2022; applying for a writ of
execution against wages on April 28, 2022; uploading the writ of
execution to the Superior Court's docket on May 11, 2022;
garnishing approximately $165 of wages due in the pay period ending
July 23, 2022; garnishing approximately $138 of wages due in the
pay period ending August 6, 2022; and garnishing approximately $119
of wages due in the pay period ending August 20, 2022.

Moore defended her FDCPA claims by invoking the continuing
violation theory, arguing that her suit was timely because the
Defendant's post-complaint conduct, which occurred within the
statute of limitations, formed part of a single course of unlawful
conduct. Moore separately contended that the post-complaint actions
cited in her amended complaint represented independent, timely
violations of the FDCPA.

The Court of Appeals held that the continuing violation theory does
not apply to FDCPA claims. The Court noted that no federal
appellate court has extended the continuing violation theory to
FDCPA claims. The Court explained that doing so would broaden the
theory in a manner inconsistent with its original justification by
allowing it to apply to discrete debt collection efforts, which
unlike claims for hostile work environment, are separately
actionable without relation to any other violations of the FDCPA.
Thus, the District Court did not err in rejecting the application
of the continuing violation theory to Moore's FDCPA claim.

The Court of Appeals also rejected Moore's argument that the
Defendant's post-complaint debt collection efforts are
independently actionable under the FDCPA. The Court noted that the
Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting the FDCPA as
empowering a debt-owing consumer to stop the communications
inherent in an ordinary lawsuit and thereby cause an ordinary
debt-collecting lawsuit to grind to a halt. According to the Court
of Appeals  "By basing her claim on the Defendant's filing for
default, serving documents, and subsequent wage-garnishment
efforts, Moore contravenes that admonition. Therefore, the District
Court did not err in dismissing Moore's FDCPA claim." Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order.

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rUjO8u from PacerMonitor.com

COINBASE INC: Filing of Bid to Dismiss Pearl Suit Due Oct. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY PEARL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COINBASE, INC.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-03561-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine
Chesney entered an order setting briefing schedule for the
Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike and order:

The Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss and motion to strike
class allegations or deny class certification by Oct. 13, 2025.

The Plaintiff shall file his oppositions to Defendant’s motion to
dismiss and motion to strike class allegations or deny class
certification by Nov. 17, 2025.

The Defendant shall file its replies in support of its motion to
dismiss and motion to strike class allegations or deny class
certification by December 8, 2025; and

The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until the Court
resolves Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class
allegations or deny class certification.

Coinbase is an American publicly traded company that operates a
cryptocurrency exchange platform.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FKNgAt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie c. Erickson, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
          Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
          ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP  
          959 Natoma Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103  
          Telephone: (415) 635-0631
          E-mail: julie@eko.law  
                  elizabeth@eko.law
                  kevin@eko.law

The Defendant is represented by:

          Randall S. Luskey, Esq.
          Kristina A. Bunting, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (628) 432-5100
          Facsimile: (628) 232-3101
          E-mail: rluskey@paulweiss.com
                  kbunting@paulweiss.com

CREATE MUSIC: Standing Order Entered in Litman Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LITMAN, et al., v.
CREATE MUSIC GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08229-SPG-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered a
standing order for newly assigned civil cases:

Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve this Order on all
parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was
removed from state court, the defendant that removed the case must
serve this Order on all other parties

The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to
Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). A

All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States
Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.16(b), the Court will issue an Order
Setting Scheduling Conference.

Motions for Class Certification. If this action is a putative class
action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery
immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be
filed expeditiously.

Create is an independent American music distribution, publishing,
and data analytics company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnPjw8 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


CUSTOMS AND BORDER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN SANCHEZ MORA et
al., v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-03136-BAH (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting an extension of time until Oct. 17, 2025, to
oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to extend
the Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply until Oct. 31, 2025.

Due to the complex class certification issues, the Defendants need
additional time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. At the time the undersigned counsel negotiated and
agreed to the current briefing schedule, the undersigned did not
appreciate the complexity of the class action issues raised by the
Plaintiff and the need for a declaration from CBP to address
Plaintiff's class arguments.

Pursuant to the Court's August 8, 2025, Minute Order, the current
deadline for the Defendant's response is Sept. 26, 2025.

The Plaintiffs are three immigration attorneys and three
non-citizens who allege that CBP has a policy and practice of
failing to make determinations on Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA") requests within the statutory deadline.

Consistent with the Court's August 8 briefing schedule, on Sept.
12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to represent a
class of:

    "All persons who filed, or will file, a FOIA request for
    records related to an individual with CBP which has been
    pending, or will be pending, with CBP for more than 30
    business days without a determination."

Customs is responsible for securing the nation's borders,
facilitating legitimate trade and travel, and enforcing U.S. laws.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tY8auC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John J. Bardo, Esq.
          601 D Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 870-6770

DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Loses Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKIKO FUKAYA, v. DAISO
CALIFORNIA LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Rita Lin entered an order denying Fukaya's motion for class
certification.

Fukaya points out that when Daiso's motion to dismiss was denied,
the order found that Fukaya's purchase of two similarly mislabeled
products "supports an inference that other products are also
mislabeled."

However, at class certification, Fukaya may no longer rely only on
allegations that could permit plausible inferences in her favor.
Instead, she must actually identify evidence of a widespread policy
or practice affecting the class.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly label
its pre-packaged food products as containing tree nuts on its
English-language ingredient lists.

Fukaya, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
alleges that Daiso's improper labeling violates California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and constitutes a breach of express
warranty. Fukaya filed a motion for class certification on May 29,
2025.

According to the evidence submitted in support of this motion,
Fukaya, who is allergic to tree nuts, suffered a severe allergic
reaction after eating a Tiramisu Twist Cookie ("Tiramisu") that she
purchased from a Daiso in Daly City, California on July 15, 2022.

Fukaya proposes the following classes:

A. Restitutionary Relief Classes

   "All people who purchased "Tiramisu Twist Cookie" product from
   a Daiso retail store and resided in the State of California,
   Arizona, Washington, Nevada, Texas, New Jersey, or New York
   from Oct. 1, 2019 through Oct. 27, 2022 and who were not
   directly employed by Daiso."

   Excluded from the proposed class are the Defendants, the
   Defendants' employees, and the Court and its staff.



   "All people who purchased "Caramel Corn" product from a Daiso
   retail store and resided in the State of California, Arizona,
   Washington, Nevada, Texas, New Jersey, or New York from Jan. 1,

   2022 through Jan. 10, 2023 and who were not directly employed
   by Daiso."

   Excluded from the proposed class are the Defendants, the
   Defendants' employees, and the Court and its staff.

B. Injunctive Relief Class

   "All people who purchased Tiramisu Twist Cookie and/or Caramel
   Corn product from a Daiso retail store and resided in the State

   of California, Arizona, Washington, Nevada, Texas, New Jersey,
   or New York from Oct. 1, 2019 through Jan. 10, 2023 who were
   not directly employed by Daiso."

   Excluded from the proposed class are the Defendants, the
   Defendants' employees, and the Court and its staff.

Daiso is a retail store that offers a wide variety of affordable
household items, stationery, and Japanese snacks.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YYvJSE at no extra
charge.[CC]

DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Noriega Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN JAMES NORIEGA,
DARIUS LATRELL RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, Case No.
3:25-cv-01567-B (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting their motion by entering the undersigned as class
counsel and certifying the following classes and subclasses:

  1. "Sentenced to Incarceration Class":

     "All persons who, on or after June 18, 2023, were detained at

     the Dallas County Jail after being sentenced to a term of
     incarceration, but were not released within a timely manner,
     following the completion of their sentences due to the
     actions or omissions of Dallas County and its agents and
     employees.

     a. "Jail Sentence 'Time-Served' Subclass:"

        "All persons who, on or after June 18, 2023, were detained

        at the Dallas County Jail after being sentenced to serve a

        term of confinement in the Dallas County Jail, fully
        completed that sentence, were thereafter detained in the
        Dallas County Jail beyond their lawful release date, due
        to the actions or omissions of Dallas County and its
        agents and employees, and for whom no other legal
        authority for continued detention existed[HY1]."

     b. "Texas Department of Criminal Justice 'Time-Served'
        Subclass":

        "All persons who, on or after June 18, 2023, were detained

        at the Dallas County Jail after being sentenced to serve a

        term of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal
        Justice, whose sentencing orders reflected that they had
        sufficient time credit to complete their sentences, were
        thereafter detained in the Dallas County Jail beyond their

        lawful release date, due to the actions or omissions of
        Dallas County and its agents and employees, and for whom
        no other legal authority for continued detention existed."

     c. "Texas Department of Criminal Justice 'Time Left to Serve'

        Subclass:"

        "All persons who, on or after June 18, 2023, were detained

        at the Dallas County Jail after being sentenced to serve a

        term of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal
        Justice, whose sentencing orders reflected that they had
        insufficient credit to complete their sentences at the
        time of sentencing, but served their complete sentence
        while in the custody of Dallas County, and were thereafter

        detained in the Dallas County Jail beyond their lawful
        release date due to the actions or omissions of Dallas
        County and its agents and employees, and for whom no other

        legal authority for continued detention existed."

  2. "Probation Release Class:"

     "All persons who, on or after June 18, 2023, were detained at

     the Dallas County Jail after receiving a sentence of
     probation, were not released within 24 hours of sentencing,
     and for whom no other legal authority for continued detention

     existed."

  3. "Dismissed/Rejected Case Class:"

     "All persons who, on or after June 18, 2023, were detained at

     the Dallas County Jail after their criminal charges were
     dismissed, rejected by the prosecutor, or otherwise disposed
     of in a manner requiring release, were not released within24
     hours of the dismissal, rejection, or disposition, and for
     whom no other legal authority for continued detention
     existed."

Dallas is a city in the U.S. state of Texas, located in the state's
northern region.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X9RCIP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Spangler, Jr., Esq.
          Huma T. Yasin, Esq.
          David A. Burns, Esq.
          SPANGLER LAW PLLC
          1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 2620
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 932-3030
          E-mail: jim@spanglerlaw.com
                  hyasin@spanglerlaw.com
                  dburns@spanglerlaw.com

DAUPHIN, PA: Little Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANI LITTLE; HECTOR RAMOS;
JAMES PATTERSON, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; v. DAUPHIN COUNTY; GREGORY BRIGGS, Warden of
Dauphin County Prison, in his Individual Capacity; LIONEL PIERRE;
Chief Deputy Warden, in his Individual Capacity; ROGER LUCAS,
Custody Major, in his individual Capacity; MARK SKELTON,
Lieutenant, in his Individual Capacity; and JOHN DOES No. 1-12, in
their Individual Capacities, Case No. 4:24-cv-02169-KM (M.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time
for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification nunc pro tunc
under Local Rule 23.3 until 120 days after the parties' Rule 26(f)
conference, or a reasonable and practicable time set by the court
otherwise.

Despite the Plaintiffs' extensive efforts, the Defendants have
still not met with the Plaintiffs to begin the discovery
proceedings. Additionally, there is no scheduling order in place
for this case.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of:

    "All persons confined at Dauphin County Prison in units P-3,
    P-5, and/or P-6 of the Restricted Housing Unit at any point
    from Nov. 16, 2023, to Dec. 19, 2023."

The Plaintiffs' complaint seeks compensation for the Defendants'
retaliatory and punitive campaign towards putative class members,
wherein the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of personal and hygienic
items, methods of communication with anyone outside of DCP,
religious materials, recreational time, and light and heat during
Nov. 16, 2023, through Dec. 19, 2023 – a period of over a month.


The Plaintiffs proceed under Section 1983 for violations of the
Fourteenth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and First Amendment; Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act;
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Dauphin is a county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ezecim at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raymond Durham, Esq.
          Douglas E. Lieb, Esq.
          KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP
          18 East 48th Street, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 660-2332
          E-mail: dlieb@kllf-law.com
                  rdurham@kllflaw.com  

                - and -

          Margaret Hu, Esq.
          Bret Grote, Esq.
          ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
          990 Spring Garden, Suite 306
          Philadelphia, PA 19123
          Telephone: (412) 654-9070
          E-mail: bretgrote@alcenter.org
                  margo@alcenter.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Norfleet, Esq.
          Frank Lavery, Esq.
          LAVERY LAW
          225 Market Street, Suite 304
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 233-6633

DAVID SALINAS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER TAFT, KIRSTEN
GONZALEZ, CHEYENNE HENRY, YURIDIA CERON, and VANESSA ZAPATA, v.
DAVID SALINAS, an individual; et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00697-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting joint motion re deadline to file class
certification and extension re discovery matters by 4 weeks.

Presently, there are several discovery issues pending and the
deadline for Plaintiff to file their motion for Class Certification
is Oct. 10, 2025.

The Court sets a Discovery Conference regarding Defendants'
Interrogatories and requests for production, for September 19,
2025, at 3:00 PM, before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher,
Counsel must first meet and confer further concerning their
discovery dispute.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due
Oct. 10, 2025.

It appears the Defendants Veronica Salinas and David Salinas will
be filing individual bankruptcy petitions imminently, which would
automatically stay this action. Further, counsel for the parties
have several scheduling issues and would like to further meet and
confer. Counsel for Defendant will be out of the country from Sept.
25, 2025, through Oct. 6, 2025.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V6vWSl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan W. Pease, Esq.
          PEASE LAW
          3960 West Point Loma Blvd., Suite H-2562
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 723-0369
          Email: bryan@peaselaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph M. Aliberti, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES JOSEPH M. ALIBERTI
          4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 290
          Newport Beach Ca. 92660
          Telephone: (866) 779-9749
          E-mail: jma@alibertilaw.com


DELTA DENTAL: Court Denies Class Action Status in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADANews reports that a federal district court ruled Sept. 22 that
it's denying a group of dentists' motion to certify an antitrust
case against Delta Dental as a class action.

The case is still proceeding, and the plaintiffs have the option to
ask the court of appeals for permission to immediately appeal the
ruling by filing a petition before Oct. 6.

In 2019, the ADA filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that Delta
Dental Plans and the Delta Dental Plans Association violated the
antitrust laws by agreeing to reduce reimbursements to
participating dentists through territorial restrictions, fix prices
for specific dental goods and services and restrict competition
from other competitors. The plaintiffs are seeking appropriate
money damages to be awarded to class members as well as an
injunction making Delta change its practices.

Numerous individual dentists also filed class action complaints
against Delta, and the allegations in the various complaints were
later combined into a single consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs estimate that around 240,000 dental providers have been
harmed by the alleged conspiracy and asked the trial court to allow
the case to proceed on behalf of a nationwide class of Delta
providers. In the court's ruling, it stated that because Delta
Dental admitted that its member companies were parties to an
agreement that plaintiffs allege was anti-competitive, the primary
issue in deciding class certification was whether all dental
providers nationwide were impacted by Delta Dental's conduct. The
court found that because patients generally chose dental services
where they live and work, and because Delta Dental's market share
varies significantly across states, there was insufficient evidence
to show that substantially all dental providers were impacted
nationwide.

"The plaintiffs strongly disagree with the court's analysis," said
Scott Fowkes, J.D., ADA general counsel.

Gustavo E. Bamberger, Ph.D., an economics expert witness for the
plaintiffs who created an economic model to determine how class
members were affected and whose expert testimony was considered by
the court, estimated that "nearly every class member was impacted,
with over 99% of the class suffering gross impact and over 98%
suffering net impact," according to the ruling. They suffered
damages in the form of lower reimbursement because of Delta
Dental's anticompetitive conspiracy, regardless of any
state-specific differences, Dr. Bamberger testified.

If the appellate court grants the plaintiffs permission to appeal
the ruling, the case will proceed in the trial court while the
appeal is pending unless either the appellate court or the district
court issue a stay. The interim class certification decision does
not immediately impact any dental provider's ultimate right to
recovery. [GN]

DMS HEALTH: Class Discovery Filing in Kolkind Due May 1, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Kolkind,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DMS
Health Technologies, Case No. 3:23-cv-00204-ARS (D.N.D.), the Hon.
Judge Alice R. Senechal entered an order adopting the Parties'
Scheduling/Discovery Plan with the following modifications:

   (1) the parties shall have until May 1, 2026, to file motions
       regarding class discovery;

   (2) interrogatories are limited as described in Federal Rule of

       Civil Procedure 33;

   (3) no dispositive motion deadline will be set at this time;

   (4) plaintiff shall have until April 1, 2026 to disclose expert

       witnesses regarding class certification;

   (5) defendants shall have until June 1, 2026 to disclose expert

       witnesses regarding class certification; and

   (6) each side may take up to five fact depositions related to  

       class certification.

Pursuant to this Court's August 6 Order, the Parties submit
proposed deadlines for each of the following discovery items:

  Deadline to file a motion to amend the         Dec. 17, 2025
  pleadings or add parties:

  Deadline for discovery phase one - class       Apr. 17, 2026
  certification:

  Deadline to file motion for class              May 17, 2026
  certification:

  Deadline to file class certification           July 17, 2026
  opposition brief:

  Deadline to file class certification reply:    Aug. 17, 2026

DMS develops, installs, and produces medical equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kBMvoJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          Daniel Tomascik, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
          Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
                  dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com

                - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Saran Q. Edwards, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com
                  sedwards@classlawdc.com

                - and -

          Todd Miller, Esq.
          SOLBERG STEWART MILLER
          1123 5th Ave. South
          Fargo, ND 58107
          Telephone: (701) 237-3166
          E-mail: miller@solberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James W. Davidson, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER LLC
          One East Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 422-6100
          Facsimile: (312) 422-6110
          E-mail: jdavidson@ohaganmeyer.com

DOREL HOME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Step Stools' Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that the maker of Cosco
Kitchen Steppers faces a proposed class action lawsuit after
roughly 302,000 of the folding step stools were recalled due to an
apparent defect that can hamper users' stability and balance.

The 18-page class action lawsuit against Dorel Home Furnishings
says that the Cosco Kitchen Steppers at issue, which are marketed
for use by both adults and children, come with a safety bar that,
unbeknownst to consumers, can detach or break during use. Per the
recall notice, there have been at least 34 reported incidents of
the safety bar breaking or disconnecting, causing at least two head
injuries.

According to the complaint, Dorel's remedy for consumers who bought
a recalled Cosco Kitchen Stepper—that is, contacting the company
to receive a free repair kit, which includes a "sliding locking
mechanism" that attaches to the safety bar to prevent it from
detaching or breaking during use -- is inadequate, as proposed
class members are still burdened with a devalued and potentially
dangerous product.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) specifies that the
Cosco Kitchen Steppers recall concerns products bearing the model
numbers 11349WHG1E, 11349GRN1E, 11349NVY1E, 11349WHG2, 11349GRN4,
11349GRN12, 11349WHG12C, 11349WHG12W, 11349WHG4F and 11349CBWH4T.
Affected products were sold at retailers such as Target, Lowe's,
Home Depot, Amazon and Walmart in white/gray, navy, green and blue,
and have the Cosco logo molded onto the handle, the CPSC states.

The plaintiff, a Staten Island, New York resident, states in the
lawsuit that she fell while using the Cosco Kitchen Stepper after
the safety bar detached during use. The plaintiff sustained "minor
injuries and experienced body pain," the suit shares.

"Based on Defendant's active and persistent promotions touting the
quality of its Kitchen Steppers and her admiration of Dorel Kitchen
Steppers, Plaintiff considered Dorel a quality company with a
strong reputation for producing reliable Kitchen Steppers," the
filing reads.

Head to this page to contact Cosco to receive a free repair kit,
with shipping included, for the recalled folding kitchen step
stools.

The CPSC stresses that consumers should "stop using the safety bar
on the recalled kitchen stepper immediately and store the stepper
away from children until repaired."

The Cosco Kitchen Steppers class action lawsuit looks to cover all
consumers in the United States who bought one of the recalled Dorel
kitchen stepper products. [GN]

DOREL HOME: Faces Lam Class Suit Over Defective Kitchen Steppers
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA LAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOREL HOME FURNISHINGS, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-05380-SEG (E.D. Mo., Sept. 19, 2025) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated persons
who purchased any of the Defendant's "Cosco Kitchen Steppers" sold
at several major retailers, such as Walmart, Target, Amazon and
others.

The action is brought to remedy various violations of law in
connection with Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising,
selling and warranting of the Recalled Kitchen Steppers.
Specifically, the Recalled Kitchen Steppers have a dangerous defect
that involves the bar handle used for consumer stability and
balance. The safety bar can detach and even break off during use by
the consumer. This is due to a weak connection to the main frame of
the unit, asserts the suit.

There have been 34 reported instances of this bar breaking or
disconnecting during use, causing head injuries. Around August
2025, Dorel recalled about 302,000 of the above referenced Recalled
Kitchen Steppers.  The 302,000 Kitchen Steppers sold for between
$56 and $70, the suit adds.

On Aug. 24, 2024, the Plaintiff purchased a "Cosco Kitchen Stepper"
from Amazon for $56. During the use of the Cosco Kitchen Stepper,
the safety bar detached, causing the Plaintiff to fall. As a result
of the fall, the Plaintiff allegedly sustained minor injuries and
experienced body pain.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes,
services, repairs, and sells Kitchen Steppers, including the
Recalled Kitchen Steppers, nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 678-1064
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY
          ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                 cmad@poulinwilley.com

DUFOUR PASTRY: Mora Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Dough Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON MORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUFOUR PASTRY KITCHENS INC. and CARLA
KRASNER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07792 (S.D.N.Y., September
19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
wages, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Dufour Pastry Kitchens as a dough
worker from approximately December 2019 to March 2020, and again
from June 2021 to January 2025.

Dufour Pastry Kitchens Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of
frozen, ready to bake puff pastry dough, with a principal place of
business located in Bronx, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

DUKE UNIVERSITY: Reaches $2.35-Mil. Settlement in ERISA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke reached a $2.35 million settlement agreement in September in
response to a 2023 class-action lawsuit filed by retired Duke
Health nurse Joy Franklin, who alleged that the University had been
underpaying her and other former employees' retirement benefits.

Duke had previously announced its intention to settle in January,
weeks before oral arguments on an appeal were set to begin. The
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement was
filed Sept. 15 and must be approved by a district court.

In the lawsuit Franklin claimed the University had used an outdated
methodology to calculate retirement payments, resulting in a loss
of millions of dollars to over 700 retired Duke employees and
directly violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Franklin claimed personal losses of over $10,300 in benefits since
March 2018.

The lawsuit's class members are retirees who selected a pension
plan other than the standard single-life annuity. Franklin selected
the qualified joint survivor annuity, which pays her a monthly
annuity for the rest of her life and half the amount of the monthly
annuity to her spouse if she dies.

The University changed how they calculated joint survivor annuities
effective July 1, 2023, but reportedly did not update their methods
for recipients who were already receiving payments, causing the
underpayments.

The $2.35 million settlement totals to around 20% of the estimated
class-wide damages between the approximately 720 class members.
These individuals began receiving retirement benefits on or after
Sept. 29, 2017 but before July 1, 2023, meaning they did not
receive the benefits of the updated retirement calculations
methodology.

The settlement amounts to an average of an extra $14 per month for
each participant for the rest of their life, a payment that will
continue to their beneficiaries post-mortem. Beneficiaries will
receive their updated increased monthly annuity amounts starting
Dec. 31 in amounts proportional to their calculated losses.

The University initially motioned to strike down some of Franklin's
claims and resolve the matter outside of court, arguing that a 2021
plan amendment required claims go through individual arbitration. A
federal district judge found the agreement unenforceable and struck
it down because Franklin was not aware of it and had not agreed to
the amendment.

The University also attempted to dismiss the suit on the basis that
Franklin did not have standing to file a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of other former employees on the retirement plan because any
new addition to the plan would not impact Franklin's benefits. The
judge disagreed, ruling that if Franklin's case were successful,
she could receive an injunction requiring the University to
recalculate and ultimately increase her retirement benefits.

Although Duke had appealed the district court's decision, both
Franklin and the University requested the appeals court pause
consideration of the case in January when the settlement was
announced. Both parties said the court no longer has jurisdiction
over the issue due to their agreement outside of court. [GN]

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Bah Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH, v.
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC, and ENTERPRISE
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), Court
entered an order as follows:

  1. The motion for class certification is denied without
     prejudice.

  2. The parties shall confer and, by Sept. 24, 2025, file,
     jointly if possible but separately, if necessary, a proposal
     and schedule for reasonable additional discovery to develop
     an adequate record for a decision on a renewed motion for
     class certification.

     If the parties do not file jointly, the court may adopt the
     proposed discovery and schedule that is most reasonable.

Enterprise is an American car rental agency headquartered in
Clayton, Missouri.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 16, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=67mCI9
at no extra charge.[CC]

EPIC ETAILERS: Davis Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Epic Etailers, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11414 (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 22, 2025) alleges that Epic failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Beautybyearth.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, Beautybyearth.com contains significant
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually-impaired customers to use the website.

The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class
under the ADA.

Beautybyearth.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Epic
Etailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

EPISOURCE LLC: Dunlap Suit Transferred From E.D. to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Lowell Dunlap, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs v.
EpiSource LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02604-DAD-SCR (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants the parties' joint
stipulation to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On September 16, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation
requesting that this action be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The parties
stated that other individuals filed putative class action
complaints in the Central District of California based on
substantially similar facts and claims as those raised in this
action and 21 of those actions have been consolidated before Judge
Stanley Blumenfeld.

The court noted that for the convenience of parties and witnesses,
in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The parties' stipulation
showed that all parties consented to transferring this case to the
Central District of California.

Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' stipulated request to
transfer this action, and for the sake of judicial economy and
efficiency, and in the interest of justice, the court transferred
this action to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p4SVtP from PacerMonitor.com


ERHCO INC: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Erhco, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11415 (N.D. Ill., Sept.
22, 2025) alleges that Erhco failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, Shoemill.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, Shoemill.com contains significant
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually-impaired customers to use the website.

The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class
under the ADA.

Shoemill.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Epi
Erhco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: W.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Remand Bowden Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Garrett Bowden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Express Scripts,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-261 (W.D. Pa.), Judge
Robert J. Colville of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

The Court rules that the case must remain in federal court under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act preemption.

Plaintiff Garrett Bowden initiated this putative class action in
the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County on August 15, 2025.
Express Scripts, Inc., Cigna Corporation, and Evernorth Health
Services removed the case to federal court on August 19, 2025. The
case involves Martella's Pharmacies, described as a critical
healthcare provider in Cambria County operating six community-based
retail pharmacy locations serving thousands of residents.

Plaintiff maintains a health benefit plan with UPMC and is a
longtime patient of Martella's, an in-network pharmacy under the
plan. Express Scripts is a pharmacy benefits manager organized in
Missouri and licensed in Pennsylvania that administers pharmacy
benefits and maintains a network of pharmacies within which members
of health plans that have contracted with ESI can fill
prescriptions. Cigna is Express Scripts' parent company and
Evernorth is a Cigna subsidiary that manages Express Scripts'
operations. UPMC and Highmark are Pennsylvania health insurance
providers that contract with Express Scripts for pharmacy
benefits.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants, led by Express Scripts,
announced their intent to terminate their contracts with Martella's
and remove Martella's as an in-network pharmacy provider under
health plans administered by UPMC and Highmark, and have done so
without providing adequate alternative access to care or a path for
Martella's to remain an in-network provider. The putative class
members face imminent loss of access to their medications and
pharmacy services due to the Defendants' decision to terminate, as
of August 15, 2025, Martella's from their provider networks.

Plaintiff averred that Martella's termination from the UPMC and
Highmark pharmacy networks will cause immediate, wide-spread harm
to patients with disabilities and those that are elderly or
medically fragile, many of whom are unable to travel, manage
complicated medication regimens, or find comparable alternatives.
He asserted that the putative class members will now no longer be
able to fill prescriptions at Martella's or receive home delivery
of their medication, and that no meaningful alternatives exist for
most putative class members.

The putative class is defined as: All individuals residing in
Pennsylvania who, as of August 2025, are patients of Martella's
Pharmacies and are enrolled in a health plan administered by UPMC
Health Plan or Highmark Inc. using Express Scripts or Evernorth as
the pharmacy benefit manager. The class potentially includes
thousands of individuals, with at least 135 individuals having
contacted Plaintiff's counsel.

Plaintiff asserted four claims: (1) a claim for violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law;
(2) a claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Benefit
Reform Act (Act 77 of 2024); (3) a claim for tortious interference
with business relations; and (4) an independent claim seeking
injunctive relief.

The Court found that Plaintiff's claims are completely preempted by
ERISA. Under Section 502(a) of ERISA, a participant or beneficiary
of an employee benefit plan may bring a civil action to recover
benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his
rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to
future benefits under the terms of the plan.

The Court determined that Plaintiff seeks relief based upon the
putative class members' purported inability to acquire prescription
medications from Martella's pursuant to their health benefit plans
following Defendant's removal of Martella's as an in-network
pharmacy. Each of the putative class members has a health insurance
plan with UPMC or Highmark, and Plaintiff takes issue with
Defendants' removal of Martella's as an in-network provider,
arguing that the same was done without adequate notice and without
appropriate alternatives.

The Court explained that the status of Martella's, or any pharmacy,
as an in-network pharmacy under the putative class members' health
benefit plans is a benefit under the plans, and the putative class
members clearly seek to enforce and/or clarify their rights under
their plans in this lawsuit. Plaintiff's claims implicate the
administration of a health benefit plan, which pharmacies qualify
as in-network pharmacies. As such, Plaintiff could have brought
this action under Section 502(a), and the first complete preemption
requirement is met.

The Court found that no other legal duty supports Plaintiff's
claims. With respect to the tortious interference claim, the Court
noted that if the only controversy exists between Martella's, a
non-party, and Express Scripts, the Court finds difficulty in
identifying how Plaintiff or the putative class could have standing
to pursue a contract claim where the class members are not parties
to the contract at issue.

The Court rejected Plaintiff's assertion that he does not seek to
force Express Scripts to modify its network design, stating:
Plaintiff seeks to have Martella's reinstated as an in-network
pharmacy following Express Scripts' decision to remove Martella's
under the terms of Express Scripts' and Martella's contract.
Plaintiff's attempt to maintain the status quo in the face of
Express Scripts' decision seems to be a plain attempt to
modify/control the scope of Express Scripts' pharmacy network.

Regarding the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law claim, the Court found it preempted for the same
reasons. The Court noted that Plaintiff cites to the putative class
members' health benefit plans in explaining the expectation that
they would be able to utilize Martella's as an in-network pharmacy.
The issue in this case, as pled by Plaintiff, is whether
Defendants' removal of Martella's as an in-network provider
complied with the requirements of the putative class members'
health benefit plans.

As to Plaintiff's purported claim under Act 77, which covers any
contract between a pharmacy or a PBM and a health insurer or a
health benefit plan, Plaintiff seemingly acknowledges that the Act
does not provide pharmacy patients with a private civil cause of
action against PBMs or health care providers. The Court found that
Plaintiff has all but conceded that Act 77 does not create a
private cause of action for pharmacy patients, and certainly offers
no substantive support for a conclusion to the contrary.

The Court briefly addressed removal under the Class Action Fairness
Act, finding that removal would also be appropriate. The only CAFA
requirement at issue is the $5 million amount in controversy
requirement. The Court noted that Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, punitive damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees on behalf of thousands of class members, and
asserted the possibility of severe injury, including death, as a
result of Defendants' actions.

The Court denied the Motion to Remand, finding that Plaintiff's
claims arise out of their health benefit plans and necessarily
depend upon interpretation of the rights and benefits under the
plans, and they are thus preempted by ERISA. Whether Defendants
improperly removed Martella's as an in-network option or failed to
provide adequate notice or reasonable alternatives, Plaintiff seeks
to enforce or clarify his benefits, and no other independent legal
duty is implicated.

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
asserting a claim under ERISA. In an abundance of caution, the
Court permits Plaintiff a final opportunity to, in the alternative,
attempt to address the issues discussed by way of an amended
complaint. Any amended complaint shall be filed by October 7, 2025.
Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of
this matter with prejudice.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=94ZHxV from PacerMonitor.com.


FASTLY INC: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as In re Fastly, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 24-cv-03170-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. This is a proposed class
action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of a class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired Fastly securities between
November 15, 2023 and August 7, 2024.

The Plaintiffs allege securities fraud against Fastly, Inc.
(Fastly), CEO Todd Nightingale, and CFO Ronald Kisling. The action
is brought under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Upon careful examination, Plaintiffs allege that beginning November
15, 2023, and throughout the class period, the Defendant misled
investors about the customer pullback and macroeconomic impacts
that Fastly was experiencing. According to the Court, the
company’s revenues rely heavily on existing enterprise customers
and any decline could create volatility in the company’s revenue
and materially impact Fastly’s business". Plaintiffs argue Fastly
made incomplete or misleading statements about customer behavior
and market conditions, resulting in artificial inflation of share
prices.

According to the Court  "Plaintiffs allege that these misleading
statements caused losses when information about customer pullback
and weakening revenues became public: "Plaintiffs further allege
that they and members of the proposed class suffered losses when
the price of Fastly’s stock decreased following the
materialization of certain risks that Defendants concealed from
investors, which occurred on February 14, 2024, and when corrective
disclosures were made on May 1, 2024, and August 7, 2024."

The Court noted that the present motion seeks dismissal in its
entirety.

The Court affirmed that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that,
when accepted as true, states a claim that is plausible on its
face. The Court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true
and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff.

Claims are asserted under Section 10(b), SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, premised on allegedly misleading
statements in SEC filings, earnings calls, and investor
conferences. Defendants move to dismiss for lack of sufficient
facts supporting falsity, scienter, and loss causation.

Upon review, the Court applies the standards for material
misrepresentation or omission, requiring a statement that was false
or misleading as to a material fact … Information is material if
a reasonable investor would have acted differently if the
misrepresentation had not been made or the truth had been
disclosed." The order addresses which statements made by Fastly and
its executives may have been misleading or omitted material facts.

On a November 15, 2023 call, Defendant Nightingale made a statement
that "Fastly was not seeing the slowing in growth that its
competitors were seeing at that time." The Court finds, Because
Defendant Nightingale touted that Fastly was not seeing any slowing
in growth like its competitors were seeing at the time that
Statement 2 was made, he was required to disclose adverse
information that cut against that positive statement… Plaintiffs
have plausibly alleged that Statement 2 was misleading when made."

However, as for another statement regarding the company's exposure
in the SMB market, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
Statement 1 was false or misleading when made.

The Court examines several additional statements on earnings calls
or in public filings, determining for each whether the Plaintiff
has plausibly alleged falsity or misleading nature. For example,
with respect to certain risk disclosures, the Court denies
Defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent that it is premised
on arguments that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Statement 8 was
false or misleading when made. However, some claims are dismissed
where information was actually disclosed or where facts alleged
were insufficient, such as, the Court grants Defendant’s motion
to dismiss to the extent that it is premised on arguments that
Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Statement 10 was false
or misleading when made.

The Court then considers scienter, or intent to deceive. The order
states, allegations in the AC, when considered holistically, raise
a strong inference of scienter with respect to individual
Defendants Nightingale and Kisling. The Court finds the alleged
facts strongly indicate that the individual Defendants knew of the
declines in usage and revenues from Fastly’s large or enterprise
customers in Q4 2023 that were associated with macroeconomic
conditions.

Regarding loss causation, the Court writes, "Plaintiffs have
alleged facts that satisfy the requirements for alleging loss
causation under a materialization-of-the-risk theory."
Specifically, the decline or volatility in revenue allegedly
concealed from the market began to materialize, causing the stock
price drop and investor losses.

Upon review of the loss causation argument for several challenged
statements, the Court finds for the Plaintiffs regarding Statement
2: The Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent
that it is premised on arguments that Plaintiffs have failed to
allege loss causation with respect to Statement 2." With respect to
several later statements, though, "The Court grants Defendant’s
motion to dismiss to the extent that it is premised on arguments
that Plaintiffs have not alleged loss causation with respect to
Statements 5, 6, 7, and 8."

As to the Section 20(a) claim for control person liability, Because
Plaintiffs Section 10(b) claim is not subject to dismissal to the
extent that it is predicated on that statement, the motion to
dismiss the Section 20(a) claim is otherwise GRANTED for the
reasons set forth above in connection with Plaintiffs claims under
Section 10(b)."

The conclusion provides clear orders: "For the foregoing reasons,
the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the extent that such
claims are premised on Statement 2. The Court grants, with leave to
amend, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the extent that they are
premised on the remaining statements challenged in the Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30 days
of the date this order is filed to cure the deficiencies discussed
herein.

Therefore, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The
class action status of the case is confirmed as a proposed class
action on behalf of all who purchased Fastly securities during the
designated period.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xxUDn6 from PacerMonitor.com

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Floyd Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachariah Tobias Floyd, v.
Federal Express Corporation, and John Does 1-5, Case No.
4:25-cv-06485-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a class of:

   "All individuals or businesses in the United States who, within

   the applicable statute of limitations, shipped gods via FedEx,
   experienced package loss or the theft during interstate
   transportation, and were denied full reimbursement or recovery
   due to FedEx's application of declared value limitations,
   uniform terms and conditions, or reliance on pre-emption
   defenses under federal law."

Federal provides transportation, e-commerce, and business
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a03NO1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.




FLO HEALTH: Meta's Post-Trial Bids for Decertification Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., v.
FLO HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying Meta's
post-trial motions for decertification, judgment as a matter of
law, or for a new trial.

Meta asks to decertify the California class for the CIPA Section
632 claim or to modify the class definition to narrow the scope of
the class. Overall, Meta's request is nothing more than an improper
attempt to seek reconsideration of the certification order.

Meta's arguments have virtually nothing to do with the evidence
admitted at trial and are not based on materially new facts or law
that might warrant reconsideration. Most of its contentions simply
rehash prior arguments that were unsuccessful. This is enough to
deny the request without further discussion.

On May 19, 2025, the Court certified two classes under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

  1. All Flo App users in the United States who entered
     menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health

     App between Nov. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019, inclusive, for
     the breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, and
     California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA),

     Cal. Civ. Code sections 56 et seq., claims against Flo.

  2. All Flo App users in California who entered menstruation
     and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App while
     residing in California between Nov. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28,
     2019, inclusive, for the invasion of privacy claim against
     Flo under Art. I, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution, and
     the CIPA section 632 claim against Meta and Google.

Flo develops a women's health app that provides access to cycle
tracking, health insights, and a private community.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZLQJVq at no extra
charge.[CC] 


FLORIDA NATURAL: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Florida-Grown Oranges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims that Florida's Natural falsely advertises
that its orange juice is made exclusively from Florida-grown
oranges.

According to the 18-page lawsuit, Florida's Natural strongly
implies that its orange juice is made from 100 percent
Florida-grown oranges to capitalize on U.S. consumers' perception
that oranges grown in the state are of a higher quality and their
willingness to pay more for that perceived quality.

However, the complaint alleges that Florida's Natural orange juice
is made with juice from Brazil and Mexico, rendering the company's
Florida-made representations false and misleading to consumers.

Per the filing, the packaging of each Florida's Natural orange
juice carton is labeled with the claim "Owned By Florida Farmers"
printed next to an American flag. The complaint writes that,
according to the Federal Trade Commission, the use of an American
flag constitutes an implied "Made in the USA" claim. Even an
implied "Made in the USA" claim, the lawsuit relays, means that all
or virtually all of the ingredients in a product must be sourced
and made in the United States.

The lawsuit claims that this false Florida-sourced advertising is
bolstered by the mission statement on the side panel of the
packaging, which reiterates that Florida's Natural is owned by
"hundreds of hardworking Florida farmers and their families."

While the complaint acknowledges that, in the past, the company did
produce its orange juice exclusively from Florida oranges, it
alleges that Florida's Natural began to include juice from Brazil
and Mexico in May 2022 in an attempt to maintain its market share
and meet consumer demand in spite of plant diseases like citrus
canker and citrus greening negatively impacting Florida's citrus
groves.

Because Florida's Natural failed to disclose this change in
sourcing and continued to use implied "Made in the USA" claims on
its packaging, the company has knowingly deceived consumers who
thought the juice came exclusively from Florida-grown oranges, the
lawsuit alleges. The source of the juice, the complaint writes, is
a significant factor in purchasing decisions, and consumers either
would not have bought the product, or would have paid less for it,
had they known the juice did not come from 100% Florida-grown
oranges.

The Florida's Natural class action lawsuit seeks to represent
anyone who bought at least one Florida's Natural Orange Juice
product in New York within the applicable statute of limitations
period. [GN]

FORTINET INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired
Fortinet, Inc. ("Fortinet" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:FTNT)
securities during the period of November 8, 2024 through August 6,
2025, inclusive ("the Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Fortinet investments, you have until
November 21, 2025 to request lead plaintiff appointment.

What Happened?

On August 6, 2025, Fortinet released its second quarter 2025
financial results, revealing that the Company was "approximately
40% to 50% of the way through the 2026 [firewall] upgrade cycle at
the end of the second quarter based on the remaining active units
and service contracts." Additionally, the Company issued weaker
than expected revenue guidance for the upcoming third quarter,
projecting revenue between $1.67 billion and $1.73 billion. On this
news, the price of Fortinet shares declined by $21.28 per share, or
approximately 22%, from $96.58 per share on August 6, 2025 to close
at $75.30 on August 7, 2025.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements concerning the
business impact and sustainability of a purportedly "record" round
of FortiGate unit upgrades. Defendants represented that this
"refresh cycle" was "by far the largest we've seen probably ever,"
would generate "around $400 million to $450 million in product
revenue" in 2025 and 2026, and would create strong opportunities to
cross-sell additional products and services. Defendants also
represented that the refresh cycle would "gain momentum" in the
second half of 2025 and beyond. These statements were materially
false and misleading. In truth, Defendants knew that the refresh
cycle would never be as lucrative as they represented because it
consisted of old products that were a "small percentage" of the
Company's business. Moreover, Defendants misrepresented and
concealed that they did not have a clear picture of the true number
of FortiGate firewalls that could be upgraded. And while telling
investors that the refresh would gain momentum over the course of
two years, Fortinet misrepresented and concealed that it had
aggressively pushed through roughly half of the refresh in a period
of just a few months, by the end of 2Q 2025.

What Should I Do?

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fortinet securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about this investigation,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at
no cost.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]

FORTRA LLC: $20M Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as In re: Fortra File Transfer Software Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 24-MD-03090-RAR (S.D. Fla.),
Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Global Settlement Agreement and
Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

The Court approved a $20 million settlement for approximately six
million affected individuals following a major data security
breach.

The case was certified as a class action and centralized with all
other Fortra GoAnywhere MFT related cases into MDL-3090. This
Action is a putative class action that has been centralized with
all other Fortra GoAnywhere MFT related cases into MDL-3090 before
this Court. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaints alleged that
Defendants failed to adequately protect the Private Information of
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class from unauthorized access and
asserted multiple common law and statutory claims for relief.

In January of 2023, a Data Incident occurred, which involved a
criminal attack by a Russian-linked ransomware group, involving a
previously unknown, zero-day 'remote code injunction exploit' that
affected certain instances of Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, and that may
have resulted in the unauthorized access to or acquisition of
approximately six million individuals' Private Information.

The settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. On
February 4-5, 2025, the Parties participated in a two-day private
mediation before experienced class action mediator Michael Ungar,
Esq." The Action did not resolve that day, but the Parties
continued to negotiate over the next several days, ultimately
agreeing to all material terms of the Settlement on February 9,
2025.

The Settlement provides monetary relief that includes a
non-reversionary all-cash common Settlement Fund of $20,000,000.
The Settlement Fund was designated to pay: (i) Settlement Class
Member Benefits; (ii) any attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the
Court; and (iii) all Settlement Administration Costs.

The Court finally certified Settlement Class and Settlement
Subclasses for settlement purposes.

Settlement Class: All living individuals residing in the United
States who received notice of the Data Incident indicating that
their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data
Incident.

The Court also certified ten separate Settlement Subclasses for
different defendants, including:

- Brightline Settlement Subclass
- Aetna Settlement Subclass
- Community Health Settlement Subclass
- Elevance Health Settlement Subclass
- Fortra Settlement Subclass
- Hatch Bank Settlement Subclass
- Imagine360 Settlement Subclass
- Intellihartx Settlement Subclass
- NationsBenefits Settlement Subclass
- Santa Clara Settlement Subclass

The Court found that all Rule 23(a) factors were satisfied. The
numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied because the
Settlement Class includes approximately six million individuals.
The joinder of approximately six million Settlement Class members
would certainly be impracticable and, thus, numerosity is
satisfied.

Plaintiffs and Settlement Class members all had their Private
Information impacted by the Data Incident. The Court found that
Plaintiffs' claims turn on whether Defendants' data security
environments, or their practices or procedures related to the
collection of sensitive data or selection of third parties who are
given access to that data, was adequate to protect Plaintiffs' and
the Settlement Class' Private Information.

Plaintiffs' interests are aligned with the Settlement Class in that
they all were sent a notice letter indicating their Private
Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident and were
therefore all affected by the same purportedly inadequate security
that allegedly harmed Settlement Class members.

The Court found both the class representatives and class counsel
adequate. Class Counsel are highly qualified and have a great deal
of experience litigating consumer class actions, including in the
data privacy context, demonstrating their adequacy.

Common issues of fact and law predominate if they have a direct
impact on every class member's effort to establish liability and on
every class member's entitlement to injunctive and monetary
relief." The Court found that common questions predominate because
all claims arise out of a common course of conduct by Defendants.

Adjudicating individual actions would be impractical. The amount in
dispute for individual class members is too small, the technical
issues involved too complex, and the expert testimony and document
review too costly.

The Court confirmed that Article III standing was met. "Standing
exists when a plaintiff's sensitive personal information is
allegedly accessed and exfiltrated in a data breach.

The Court noted that Plaintiffs' allegations that a criminal
ransomware group accessed their Private Information and published
it to its data leak site, and that two Plaintiffs' Private
Information is now on the dark web, supports that misuse.

The Court analyzed the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) and found all
factors satisfied: (A) Adequacy of Representation: Lead Counsel and
the other Class Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement
Class' interests for purposes of Final Approval; (B) Arm's Length
Negotiations: "The Settlement was reached in the absence of
collusion and is the result of good faith, informed, and
arm's-length negotiations between experienced attorneys who are
familiar with class action litigation; (C) Adequacy of Settlement
Relief: The Court found the relief reasonable considering the risks
of continued litigation. "Data breach class actions are risky
cases. The Settlement provides outstanding benefits, including Cash
Payments, Dark Web Monitoring, and injunctive relief for all
Settlement Class Members; and (D) Equitable Treatment: All
Settlement Class members are given an equal opportunity to claim
Settlement Class Member Benefits.

Each Settlement Class Member has two options: 1. Reimbursement for
documented losses up to $5,000.00, or 2. A flat cash payment of
$85.00.

Additionally, all Settlement Class Members may elect Dark Web
Monitoring.

Special provisions apply to Brightline Settlement Subclass Members
to avoid double recovery, as they had a separate settlement with
Brightline.

The Court found the Notice Program satisfied Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and
due process requirements. "The form, content, and method of giving
notice to the Settlement Class as described in the Notice Program,
including the forms of Email Notice, Postcard Notice, and Long Form
Notice, Settlement Website, Settlement telephone line for
frequently asked questions, and Claim Form was (a) the best
practicable notice to the Settlement Class.

The response from the Settlement Class was overwhelmingly
favorable. Only 238 Settlement Class members have opted out, who
are identified on attached Exhibit A. The Court noted that Zero
objections were submitted by members of the Settlement Class.

The Court awarded attorneys' fees equal to 33.33% of the Settlement
Fund. "The Court hereby awards $6,666,666.66 for attorneys' fees,
which is equal to 33.33% of the $20,000,000.00 Settlement Fund, and
$263,851.10 for reasonable litigation costs."

The Court applied the Camden I factors and found the fee request
reasonable. "The requested attorneys' fee award is within the range
of reason under the factors listed in Camden I Condo. Association.
v. Dunkle." The Court noted that district courts in the Eleventh
Circuit routinely approve fee awards of one-third of the common
fund settlement.

As part of the Settlement, Defendants Fortra, NationsBenefits,
Intellihartx, Imagine360, and Community Health provided Lead
Counsel with security attestations confirming modifications and
enhancements implemented following the Data Incident to help
protect against future cybersecurity breaches.

The Court designated the Electronic Privacy Information Center as
the cy pres recipient for any residual funds. Any residual funds in
the Settlement Fund 240 days following the date Settlement Class
members are sent an email to select their form of payment shall be
distributed to the Electronic Privacy Information Center as the cy
pres recipient, finding that its mission matches the goals of this
Action, to redress and protect the privacy rights for consumers.

The Court entered final judgment dismissing the Action with
prejudice. Judgment shall be, and hereby is, entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice, on the merits, and without taxation of costs
in favor of or against any Party.

The Court noted "As of the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties
hereby fully and irrevocably release and forever discharge the
Released Parties of and from the Released Claims."

The Court enjoined Settlement Class Members from asserting related
claims against Defendants. All Settlement Class Members shall be
enjoined and barred from asserting any claims or continuing any
litigation against Defendants and the Released Parties arising out
of, relating to, or in connection with the Released Claims.

The Court retains and reserves jurisdiction over: (a)
implementation of this Settlement and any distributions from the
Settlement Fund; (b) the Action, until the Effective Date, and
until each and every act agreed to be performed by the Parties
shall have been performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Settlement Agreement; and (c) all Parties, for the purpose of
enforcing and administering the Settlement.

The Court granted final approval finding the settlement fair,
reasonable, and adequate for the approximately six million affected
individuals. The $20 million settlement provides meaningful
compensation while avoiding the risks and uncertainties of
continued litigation in what the Court recognized as a complex area
of law with uncertain outcomes for plaintiffs.

A copy of the Settlement order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FjZbb5 from PacerMonitor.com


FRESH CLEAN: Rodriguez Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESH CLEAN THREADS INC., a
Delaware corporation, d/b/a www.freshcleantees.com, Defendant, Case
No. 3:25-cv-02398-BEN-DDL (S.D. Cal., September 15, 2025) is an
action on behalf of the Plaintiff for her purchase of an
automatically renewing paid subscription from Fresh Clean Threads
Inc. via its website, www.freshcleantees.com, which caused her to
incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic
renewal or continuous service in violation of the California's
Automatic Renewal Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made unlawful automatic
renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers by: (1)
failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by
California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to
consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service
offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how
to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from the ongoing violations
of California law, as well as seek damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Fresh Clean Threads Inc. is an online retailer that sells products
nationwide and in California. It operates the website, which
markets and sells men's clothing, underwear, socks, and related
products.[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

FRIENDLY HOME: Class Certification in "Konstantynovska" Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Lyudmyla Konstantynovska, etc., Plaintiff,
v. Friendly Home Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2022-02946 (Index
No. 523015/17), Judge Angela G. Iannacci of the Appellate Division,
Second Judicial Department ordered that the order is reversed
insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of
discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion
which was for class certification is denied.

The plaintiff, a home health aide who was previously employed by
the defendant and who often worked 24-hour live-in shifts,
commenced this putative class action against the defendant on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees in
April 2017. The complaint alleged that the defendant violated the
Labor Law by failing to pay the required minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours premiums to home health aides and personal care
assistants who worked both 24-hour and hourly shifts.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class defined as all
individuals who performed work on behalf of defendant as
non-residential home health aides and personal care assistants in
the State of New York during a specified time period. The defendant
argued that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary burden to
certify a class and that the proposed class failed to satisfy the
prerequisites necessary for class certification pursuant to CPLR
901.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion and
certified the class of all individuals who performed work on behalf
of the defendant as non-residential home health aides and personal
care assistants in New York at any time between April 14, 2011, and
the date of the order. The defendant appealed.

The appellate court determined that pursuant to CPLR 901(a), a
party seeking class certification has the burden to satisfy the
requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of
representation, and superiority. The court noted that conclusory
assertions are insufficient to satisfy the statutory criteria and
that a class action certification must be founded upon an
evidentiary basis.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet her evidentiary
burden to demonstrate entitlement to class certification on the
question of whether the defendant violated the Labor Law by failing
to pay home health aides and personal care assistants for all hours
of a 24-hour live-in shift. The defendant was only required to pay
home health aides and personal care assistants who worked 24-hour
live-in shifts for 13 hours of work, unless they did not receive
the prescribed breaks.

The court ruled that while claims of uniform systemwide violations
are particularly appropriate for class certification, the plaintiff
failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the
defendant had a policy or practice of failing to afford the
prescribed breaks to home health aides and personal care assistants
who worked live-in shifts. Without sufficient evidence
demonstrating that the putative class members did not receive the
prescribed breaks, there was no basis for certifying a class on the
question of whether the defendant was required to pay the putative
class members for all hours of their 24-hour shifts.

According to the Court "The plaintiff also failed to provide an
evidentiary basis for concluding that the defendant had a policy of
failing to pay overtime, spread-of-hours premiums, and wages in
accordance with Administrative Code of the City of New York Section
6-109 and Public Health Law Section 3614-c and wages in compliance
with Labor Law Sections 191 and 193. The court found that pay stubs
submitted by the plaintiff provided evidence of a small number of
potential wage violations, but that small number of potential
violations did not demonstrate a policy or practice of unlawful
action on the part of the defendant, as would warrant class
treatment."

Accordingly, the Court held that the Supreme Court should have
denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for class
certification. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order
granting class certification.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WBRQko from PacerMonitor.com

GALINDO LAW: Faces Corley Class Suit Over Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JIMMIE CORLEY, JEFFREY MILES, JAMIE WHITE, PATRICIA TATE, JOHN
JONES, FOREST MARTIN, GAYE HEARD AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
ADAM KRAUSE, WILLIAM HUYE, GALINDO LAW TRIAL ATTORNEYS, KRAUSE AND
KINSMAN TRIAL LAWYERS, LLP AND ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 2:25-cv-01969 (E.D. La., Sept. 22, 2025) is class action suit
consisting of all "persons" who have a signed contract with MMA,
Krause and Kinsman Trial Lawyers, LLP, and Galindo Law who can no
longer bring a cause of action against their insurer for damage to
their property caused by Hurricanes Laura, Delta, Zeta, and Ida, as
a result of failures, acts, and/or omissions of Defendants.

On or about August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura swept through
Southwest Louisiana as the strongest hurricane to affect Southwest
Louisiana in recorded history.

On or about October 9, 2020, Hurricane Delta made landfall in
Southwest Louisiana.

On October 28, 2020, Hurricane Zeta made landfall as a Category 3
storm, causing catastrophic damage.

On August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana and
was declared a major disaster in Louisiana by President Joe Biden
the same day.

According to the complaint, these four storms left many Louisiana
communities devastated and caused billions of dollars of property
damage. This destruction caused thousands of homeowners to lose
their homes or incur significant expenses to repair their homes.

Class Members owned property which suffered damage from at least
one of these hurricanes (Laura, Delta, Zeta and/or Ida). Class
Members had entered into a contract with an insurance company that
was in effect at all relevant times. The policies provided
insurance coverage for property damage caused by at least one
hurricane (Laura, Delta, Zeta, and/or Ida).

Class Members had valid claims for loss that needed to be presented
to their insurance providers. Out of this devastation, William
Huye, the Louisiana managing partner of McClenny Moseley &
Associates (MMA), Adam Krause, and Galindo Law Trial Attorneys,
allegedly saw opportunity.

The Defendants contracted with thousands of homeowners ostensibly
to represent them in connection with their respective insurance
claims. The Defendants essentially set up a scheme in an attempt to
quickly settle thousands of cases and collect an exorbitant fee
which they would all share.

The scheme was set up in the following way: Adam Krause was
responsible for bringing in an infrastructure as well as processes
and procedures to teach William Huye and MMA how to operate on a
large scale. Galindo Law was responsible for client intake, vetting
the cases, obtaining the class member's insurance information, and
client outreach. William Huye would then theoretically file all of
the cases and perform the legal work.

To begin this scheme, the Defendants engaged in wide-ranging
advertising and solicitation designed to profit themselves, without
any regard to the effect this would have on the unsuspecting Class
Members, the suit says.

Jimmie Corley, et al., are representatives of the Class defined as:


   All "persons" who entered into a legal services contract with
Defendants such that Defendants agreed to provide legal
representation to class members for their respective first-party
insurance claims arising out of hurricanes Laura, Delta, Zeta,
and/or Ida; and for these class members, Defendants breached their
contractual and/or legal obligations to provide significant,
competent, and/or meaningful legal services, including but, not
limited to, the following:

   (1) ensuring a valid claim was made against class members'
       respective insurers and/or a timely lawsuit was filed
       against the individual's insurance provider;

   (2) over-delegating its responsibilities to co-counsel
       resulting in various procedural and substantive errors
       being made;

   (3) and/or otherwise failing to fulfill any of its contractual
       and legal duties to respective clients to ensure
       protection/preservation of its clients legal rights
       resulting in all class members suffering cognizable and
       definite harm.

GALINDO LAW TRIAL ATTORNEYS is an American law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ravi K. Sangisetty, Esq.
          William Boyles, Esq.
          Amanda Olmsted, Esq.
          Brooke Long, Esq.
          3914 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 662-1016
          Facsimile: (504) 662-1318
          E-mail: rks@sangisettylaw.com
                  william@sangisettylaw.com
                  amanda@sangisettylaw.com

GEICO: Class Cert Discovery in Cude Closes by Feb. 9, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CUDE,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO., Case No.
3:25-cv-00475-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Godbey entered an
granting joint motion to modify class certification scheduling
order:

  The Defendant designates experts, if any:        Dec. 3, 2025

  The Plaintiffs designate rebuttal experts,       Jan. 9, 2026
  if any:

  Class certification discovery closes:            Feb. 9, 2026

  The Defendant serves (but does not file)         Feb. 25, 2026
  response to the Plaintiffs' motion for
  class certification, including all supporting
  evidence and supporting brief:  

  The Plaintiffs serve on Defendants (but do       March 25, 2026
  not file) their reply to the Defendant's
  response, including rebuttal evidence, if
  any, and supporting brief:

  Submission Date:                                 April 9, 2026

GEICO is an American vehicle insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n1GnHp at no extra
charge.[CC]

GIORGIO ARMANI: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Nov. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie
entered an order granting in part and denying in part joint motion
for extension on class certification deadline.

  1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
     certification is continued to Nov. 3, 2025.

  2. The Defendant's opposition and the Plaintiff's reply are to
     be filed in accordance with the deadlines set by this
     District's Local Rules and the undersigned's Chambers Rules.

Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and
lifestyle products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xKG5Zk at no extra
charge.[CC]

GOEASY LTD: Kalloghlian Probes Potential Investor Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kalloghlian Myers LLP is investigating a potential investor class
action against goeasy Ltd. (TSX: GSY).

On September 23, 2025, Jehoshaphat Research published a report
alleging that goeasy Ltd. had "improperly delayed credit losses and
unreported serious delinquencies". Jehoshaphat Research further
alleged that it "believe[d] that GSY has been suppressing its
reported delinquencies for years as part of a systemic approach".

On this news, the price of goeasy Ltd. shares dropped from $204.51
at the close of trading on September 19, 2025 to $184.33 at the
close of trading on September 22, 2025.

Kalloghlian Myers LLP is a leading Toronto-based law firm
specializing in investor class actions.

Contacts

If you purchased goeasy Ltd. shares, contact:

     Garth Myers
     (647) 969-4472
     garth@kalloghlianmyers.com [GN]

GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Class Certification Order in AP-Fonden Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Sjunde AP-Fonden,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-12084, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden ("Plaintiff" or "AP7") brings the
action against Individual Defendants Lloyd C. Blankfein Harvey M.
Schwartz, Gary D. Cohn, and Goldman, asserting violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

On Sept. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted in part and denied in part
on Sept. 4, 2025.

Judge Broderick certifies the following class: all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Goldman's common
stock between December 22, 2016, and November 8, 2018, inclusive,
and were damaged thereby, with the same exclusions noted in Section
II, footnote 4, supra. The Defendants' motion for leave to file a
reply brief and the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a
sur-reply are denied as moot.

The appellate case is entitled The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v.
Sjunde AP-Fonden, Case No. 25-2280, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025. [BN]

Defendants-Petitioners THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:

         Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq.
         Elaine J. Goldenberg, Esq.
         Daniel J. Kane, Esq.
         MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
         601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500E
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (202) 220-1100
         Email: donald.verrilli@mto.com

                  - and -

         John M. Gildersleeve, Esq.
         MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 683-9100
         Email: john.gildersleeve@mto.com

                  - and -

         Andrew J. Ehrlich, Esq.
         Kristina Bunting, Esq.
         Daniel S. Sinnreich, Esq.
         PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 373-3000

                  - and -

         Scott A. Edelman, Esq.
         MILBANK LLP
         55 Hudson Yards
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (212) 530-5000

GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order deeming motion to certify
class withdrawn.

In light of the plaintiffs' pending motion to certify a settlement
class and for final approval of class action settlement, the Court
considers plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification  to be
withdrawn.

If the Court denies the motion for final approval of the parties'
proposed settlement, or the parties' proposed settlement is
terminated for any other reason, and plaintiffs intend to seek
class certification, the parties shall refile their docketed
motions in connection with the class certification briefing within
14 days of such denial or termination, absent further order of the
Court.

Google specializes in internet related services and products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=litKeX at no extra
charge.[CC] 


HALFTEES LLC: Faces Sherman Suit Over TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
TREVION SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALFTEES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-02418 (C.D. Cal., September 15, 2025) is a putative class
action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages
in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times.

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 themselves and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

Halftees LLC is a limited liability company with its headquarters
located in Lindon, Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI  
          1515 NE 26th Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33305
          Telephone: (754) 444-7539
          E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com

HARBORVIEW HEALTH: Court Certifies Class of Nurses in Rome, Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Cristal Delk, individually on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harborview
Health Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-4269-ENV-JRC
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge James R. Cho of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants in part the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of the FLSA collective action and
denies the motion as to nurses at facilities other than the Rome,
Georgia location.

The Court granted in part Plaintiff's motion requesting conditional
certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and
permission to circulate a notice of pendency to all nurse employees
of Harborview Health Systems, Inc. in the past three years who were
paid 'straight time for overtime. However, the Court limited the
certification to nurses at a single facility location.

The Court found that plaintiff has made a modest showing that other
nurses at the Rome, Georgia Facility, where plaintiff worked, are
'similarly situated' to plaintiff with respect to her overtime
allegations. The Court noted that the plaintiff has failed to make
the requisite showing as to nurses at other Harborview locations.

Defendant Harborview is a domestic corporation incorporated in New
York that "operates approximately 27 'health centers located
throughout Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina.'" From April 2021
through April 2023, Plaintiff worked as a licensed practical nurse
at a Harborview facility located in Rome, Georgia.

Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage for all hours worked and worked
in excess of 40 hours in most, if not all, workweeks. Although she
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours, Plaintiff did not receive
statutory overtime pay and instead was paid at her regular rate of
pay for all hours that she worked in a single week, including the
hours that Plaintiff worked over 40 hours (i.e. 'straight time for
overtime')."

The Court noted that opt-in plaintiff Miriam Morris, who worked as
an hourly paid nurse at the Facility from March 2022 to date,
despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, Morris
was not paid an overtime premium for overtime hours. When Morris
asked her supervisor why she was not paid an overtime premium, the
supervisor responded that Harborview does not pay overtime.

Under the FLSA, any one or more employees may bring an action
against an employer for and in behalf of himself or themselves and
other employees similarly situated. The Court explained that the
courts in the Second Circuit apply a two-step test to determine
whether to approve a 'collective action' under the FLSA.

At the first stage, plaintiffs must make 'a modest factual showing
that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of
a common policy or plan that violated the law.'" The Court
emphasized that he 'modest factual showing' that plaintiffs must
make at the conditional certification stage 'cannot be satisfied
simply by 'unsupported assertions,' but it nevertheless should
remain a low standard of proof.

Since Harborview is not Plaintiff's direct employer, the Court
addressed whether Harborview operates as a single integrated
employer. The Court found that the plaintiff has made a modest
showing that Harborview is a single integrated employer based on
evidence of common ownership and management.

The Court noted that defendant's website refers to each of our
centers and states that Harborview now includes 27 health centers
across Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, caring for over 2,500
residents with equally committed team of healthcare professionals.
The Court also found that the staff at all Harborview facilities
pride themselves on going above and beyond to provide the very best
care possible.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the operation of all of
Harborview's facilities was interrelated, Harborview had
centralized/shared back-office operations, including but not
limited to human resources, and Harborview exerted operational
control over and had the authority to set pay practices at each of
the facilities.

While granting conditional certification, the Court limited the
scope to nurses at the Rome, Georgia facility only. The Court found
that plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing, however, as to
any location other than the Facility located in Rome, Georgia,
where plaintiff and Morris worked.

The Court explained that plaintiff must adduce enough evidence to
support an inference of a common wage policy across all locations
before a multi-location collective may be certified." The Court
noted that plaintiff and Morris do not claim to have worked at or
even visited any other Harborview facility, nor do their
declarations identify any employees who worked at any other
Harborview facility.

Although Morris and a co-worker were told by recruiters for other
facilities that they do not pay overtime, the Court found there is
no other information about the pay practices with respect to nurses
at those facilities; for example, whether those nurses work more
than 40 hours per week.

The Court authorized court supervised notice to all nurse employees
of Harborview Health Systems, Inc. employed at the Harborview
facility located in Rome, Georgia. The Court directed that the
parties meet and confer regarding the language of the proposed
notice and ordered that plaintiff shall file the revised proposed
notice by October 7, 2025.

The Court approved a three-year lookback period, finding it
appropriate to permit conditional certification of a collective
action for a three-year period since Plaintiff alleges willful
violations of the FLSA. However, the Court reduced the proposed
90-day opt-in period to 60 days, noting that a 60-day notice period
for potential plaintiffs is common practice under the FLSA.

The Court authorized multiple methods of notice dissemination,
ordering that in addition to regular mail, the notice shall be
disseminated by email and text message. The Court also approved the
use of electronic signatures, finding that the courts routinely
allow potential class members to opt in to FLSA collective actions
with an electronic signature.

The Court granted Plaintiff's request for contact information of
potential class members, ordering defendant to produce names, last
known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all
potential opt-in plaintiffs, dating three years from the date of
this Order, by September 30, 2025.

The Court noted that notably absent from the affidavit submitted by
defendant, and its arguments, is any claim that defendant does not
possess contact information for the nurses who worked at the
Facility." The Court ordered that this information shall be treated
by the parties as confidential and that defendant should produce
this information in a computer-readable file.

The Court granted in part Plaintiff's motion with the following
provisions: (1) this action is conditionally certified as a
collective action, with the potential opt-in plaintiffs including
any and all nurses who were employed at the Facility in Rome,
Georgia from September 16, 2022 through the present; (2) defendant
must produce contact information by September 30, 2025; (3)
Plaintiff is authorized to disseminate notice via multiple methods;
(4)  opt-in period ends 60 days from the date the Court approves
the final notice and opt-in consent form; and (5) the parties must
meet and confer regarding notice language.

A copy of the Court's order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PBPoAP from PacerMonitor.com.


HERSHEY COMPANY: Wins Class Suit Over Candy's Misleading Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Deppen, writing for Food Drive, reports that Hershey won a
class action lawsuit that claimed the chocolate giant deceived
customers who bought Halloween-themed Reese's candy expecting the
spooky designs featured on the packaging.

A federal judge last week granted Hershey's motion to dismiss the
complaint on grounds that the customers suffered no injury.

The class action was filed last year in southern Florida, with
plaintiffs claiming they were misled by the packaging of pumpkin-
and ghost-shaped candies that featured "cool, carved designs." The
customers claimed they bought the product based on the packaging
and were disappointed when the candies were blank.

Hershey argued the plaintiffs didn't suffer financial injury,
because they still received "delicious Reese's candy," noting the
customers did not allege the products were defective or did not
meet flavor expectations. The packaging also included pictures of
the uncarved designs, the food giant noted, in addition to
including a "decorating suggestion" disclaimer for the artistic
renderings.

The initial lawsuit sought at least $5 million in damages.

Anthony Russo, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the
court's order was a procedural ruling and not a decision based on
the merits of the case.

"[W]e're taking immediate steps to protect our clients and all
consumers and ensure truthful, non-misleading labeling," Russo said
in an email.

Hershey didn't immediately respond to Food Dive's request for
comment.

Hershey released several new products for Halloween this year,
including miniature Reese's in collaboration with Peanuts' "It's
the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown." It also released vampire-shaped
Kit Kats and Twizzlers in the form of ghosts.

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania-based Hershey announced that it
planned to raise candy prices by double-digits due to the
"unprecedented cost of cocoa." In its most recent earnings report,
Hershey saw consolidated net sales of $2.6 billion, which
represented a 26% year-over-year increase. The earnings were
boosted by earlier shipments of Halloween candy, as consumers
jumped on "summer-ween," according to the company's latest earnings
call. [GN]

HRM RESOURCES: Fact Discovery in McCormick Class Suit Due Dec. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCormick, et al., v. HRM
Resources, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00823 (D. Colo., Filed
March 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an
order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
to Extend Fact and Expert Discovery Deadlines and Reset Pretrial
Conference.

The Court further entered an order that the following deadlines are
modified:

-- Fact Discovery by Dec. 19, 2025

-- Expert Discovery by June 8, 2026

-- Expert Disclosures by Feb. 27, 2026

-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures by March 30, 2026.

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

HRM explores, extracts, and produces energy products.[CC]

INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Dec. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $17.5 million class
action settlement will end litigation against Infosys McCamish
Systems over a 2023 data breach that exposed the sensitive personal
information of approximately 3.7 million people.

The Infosys McCamish class action settlement received preliminary
approval from the court on July 16, 2025 and covers all United
States residents whose personal information was compromised in the
Infosys data breach, including the 3.7 million people who were
individually notified of the incident by Infosys McCamish Systems.

The court-approved website for the Infosys settlement can be found
at InfosysDataSettlement.com.

Infosys McCamish settlement class members who submit a timely,
valid claim form will be able to receive up to $6,000 in
reimbursement for monetary losses related to the data breach. The
class action settlement also offers credit monitoring and/or a pro
rata (equal share) residual cash payment, which the court estimates
will be approximately $30 per claimant.

According to the class action settlement website, losses related to
the Infosys data breach may include:

-- Professional fees such as attorneys' fees, accountants' fees
and fees for credit repair services;

-- Unreimbursed losses relating to fraud or identity theft;

-- Credit monitoring costs that were incurred between the time of
the data breach, which occurred between October 29, 2023 and
November 2, 2023, and the date the claim is submitted;

-- Costs associated with freezing or unfreezing credit with any
credit reporting agency; and

-- Miscellaneous expenses such as fax, postage, notary,
long-distance telephone charges and mileage.

In order to claim reimbursement for data breach-related monetary
losses, class members must submit reasonable documentation as
proof, the settlement website notes.

The credit monitoring offered by the Infosys McCamish Systems class
action settlement includes two years of one-bureau credit
monitoring and $1,000,000 in identity theft insurance protections,
the site relays.

The total amounts for the loss reimbursement and residual cash
payment benefits, as well as the duration of the credit monitoring
service benefit, may increase or decrease on a pro rata basis
depending on the total number of valid claims filed. According to
the settlement website, if enough claims are filed that the cost of
the reimbursements and credit monitoring services alone consume the
entire class member benefit portion of the $17.5 million settlement
fund, the residual cash payment will no longer be available.

To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page
and log in with the unique class member ID found in their copy of
the settlement notice.

Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill
out and mail back to the address listed on the form.

All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later
than December 1, 2025.

Infosys McCamish has also agreed, as part of the class action
settlement, to upgrade and update its cybersecurity systems and
protocols to better protect the sensitive information it
possesses.

A hearing is scheduled for December 18, 2025 to determine whether
the Infosys McCamish settlement will receive final court approval.
Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members
only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved.

The Infosys McCamish Systems class action lawsuit claimed that the
company, a tech platform provider for the insurance and investment
service industries, failed to properly protect the sensitive
personal data in its care from a cyberattack that occurred between
October 29, 2023 and November 2, 2023, during which unauthorized
third parties accessed the data of approximately 3.7 million
individuals. [GN]

INSTALLED BUILDING: Paladino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARWING PALADINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC,
d/b/a INSTALLED BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a IBP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-24303-JB (S.D. Fla., September 19,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an installer from
June 2019 until his alleged wrongful termination on January 9,
2025.

Installed Building Products, LLC, doing business as Installed
Business Products, Inc., doing business as IBP, INC., is a provider
of installation services based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Julisse Jimenez, Esq
         THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
         20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 200-23
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (305) 482-1475
         Email: julisse@legalopinionusa.com

JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Nov. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: JSPR) securities between
November 30, 2023 and July 3, 2025. Jasper, a clinical-stage
biotechnology company, focuses on developing therapeutics targeting
mast cell driven diseases such as Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria
("CSU"), Chronic Inducible Urticaria ("CIndU"), and Asthma.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. (JSPR) Misled Investors Regarding the
Commercial Prospects of its Lead Product Candidate Briquilimab

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Jasper lacked the controls and procedures necessary to ensure that
the third-party manufacturers on which it relied were manufacturing
products in full accordance with cGMP regulations and otherwise
suitable for use in clinical trials; (ii) the foregoing failure
increased the risk that results of ongoing studies would be
confounded, thereby negatively impacting the regulatory and
commercial prospects of the Company's products, including
briquilimab; (iii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of
disruptive cost-reduction measures; and (iv) accordingly, the
Company's business and/or financial prospects, as well as
briquilimab's clinical and/or commercial prospects, were
overstated.

When the truth was revealed on July 7, 2025, Jasper's stock price
fell $3.73 per share, or 55.1%, to close at $3.04 per share on July
7, 2025.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as
lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court
by November 18, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member. For more information, visit
https://robbinsllp.com/jasper-therapeutics-inc/

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN]

JBC MACHINE: Faces Dean Class Suit Over Shaving Working Time
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL DEAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. JBC MACHINE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01454-BBC (E.D.
Wis., Sept. 22, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Accordingly, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system
that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek by:

-- shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from  
    Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees'
    weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked
    and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and
    to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and
    WWPCL; and

-- failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
    compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards,
    and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular
    rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation
    of the FLSA and WWPCL.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees who work at, worked at, and/or were employed by Defendant
within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this
Complaint.

The Plaintiff performed similar job duties as other current and
former hourly paid, non-exempt employees in similarly-titled
positions who work at, worked at, and/or were employed by Defendant
at locations owned, operated, and managed by Defendant, and
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees were subject to the Defendant's same unlawful
compensation policies and practices.

The Defendant is a machine shop in Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

JOBBLE INC: Faces Graybill Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BROOK GRAYBILL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. JOBBLE INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12699-ADB (D. Mass., Sept. 22,
2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff uses her cell phone for personal use only. It is not
used as a business number. Despite this, the Plaintiff received the
following text messages from the Defendant in April of 2025.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the
following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

-- National DNC Class

    "All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers
    were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31
    days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call
    from or on behalf of Defendant promoting Jobble’s goods or
    services, (3) within a 12-month period (4) at any time in the
    period that begins four years before the date of filing this
    Complaint to trial."

    Excluded from the class are Defendant, Defendant's officers
    and directors, members of their immediate families and their
    legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any
    entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest.

Jobble operates as an online hiring platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sacchi Alleges Fraudulent Credit Card Memberships
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SACCHI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-07632 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2025) is a class action to
challenge the Defendants' alleged systematic practice of
fraudulently inducing consumers to purchase Company credit card
memberships and charge specified purchases on the Company-issued
credit card.

Plaintiff Sacchi was solicited by Company in or about the summer of
2025 to purchase a one-year Company credit card membership for $750
in reliance upon the Company's promises, inter alia, to
automatically provide credits for, inter alia, purchases at
specified restaurants for which Company promised a $150 semi-annual
credit and purchases for an on-line music service that were made on
the Chase Sapphire Reserve credit card.

The Defendants solicited and issued the subject credit card
memberships and wrongly denied the promised automatic credits for
purchases made, inter alia, at specified restaurants and/or for
specified products and/or services. The Defendants also failed to
reimburse the specified charges, which Plaintiff was then required
to pay as part of his credit card monthly statement in order to
avoid interest, late fees, penalties, and reporting of purported
unpaid "debt" to credit rating agencies, the suit alleges.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are corporations
incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in the Borough of
Manhattan in New York City that market and sell, inter alia,
banking services and credit card memberships throughout the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
          SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES
          30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 100
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (917) 621-5795
          E-mail: StephenSimoniLAW@gmail.com

KAMA DISTRIBUTION: 7-OH Products "Addictive," Kernisky Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW KERNISKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAMA DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-07787 (S.D.N.Y, September 19, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of New York's General
Business Law, fraud by omission, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of KAMA
7-Hydroxymitragynine ("7-OH") products and 7-Hydroxymitragynine +
Pseudo Indoxyl Tablets ("7-OH+") products. The Defendant failed to
disclose material facts regarding the dangers of 7-OH consumption
anywhere on the products' labeling, packaging, or marketing
material. 7-OH is extremely addictive, and as a result, tens of
thousands of unsuspecting consumers have developed 7-OH
dependencies that have caused them serious physical, psychological,
and financial harm, suit says.

KAMA Distribution LLC is a limited liability company based in
Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         Email: ndeckant@bursor.com

KANSAS STAR: $981K Settlement Stalled Over Attorney Fee Fight
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Aaron V. Perry, et al., Plaintiffs v.
Kansas Star Casino, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-1183-KHV
(D. Kan.), Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas sustains in part and overrules in part the
Plaintiff's motion for approval of a collective action settlement
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aaron Perry worked as a table games dealer earning a sub-minimum
wage plus tips at Kansas Star Casino, LLC near Wichita, Kansas.
Boyd Gaming Corporation owns and operates Kansas Star Casino and
the other defendants: Par-A-Dice Gaming Corporation, Blue Chip
Casino, LLC, Diamond Jo Worth, LLC, Belle of Orleans, L.L.C., Red
River Entertainment of Shreveport, L.L.C., Treasure Chest Casino,
L.L.C., Boyd Tunica, Inc. and Valley Forge Convention Center
Partners, LLC.

Defendants required plaintiff and other dealers to pool their tips
with their fellow dealers at each respective casino. Plaintiff
alleged that defendants violated the FLSA because they included a
dual job position in the tip pool for purposes of paying Paid Time
Off. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the Dual Rate Supervisor
position was improperly paid PTO from the dealer tip pool that the
individual earned while working in the non-tipped, managerial floor
supervisor capacity.

On October 11, 2024, plaintiff filed suit, alleging that
defendants' tip pooling arrangements at the nine casinos violated
the FLSA. Plaintiff alleged that defendants maintained unlawful,
mandatory tip pooling arrangements for its table games dealers
because they (1) failed to limit participation in the tip pool to
tipped employees as required by the FLSA, and (2) violated the FLSA
because employers kept tips received by employees so that managers
and supervisors received a portion of the employees' tips.

Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the court conditionally certified a
collective defined as follows: All persons employed as table games
dealers and included within a tip pooling arrangement at a casino
property operated by a defendant at any time from January 1, 2022
to March 8, 2024. On March 8, 2024, defendants ceased paying PTO to
Dual Rate Supervisors from dealer tip pools.

The court found that all conditionally certified class members
worked under defendants' tip pool policy and their jobs as dealers
were substantially similar. The employees in the collective
therefore are similarly situated. The factual and employment
settings of individual plaintiffs favor a collective action.
Defendants generally dispute liability as to all opt-in plaintiffs
and assert that Dual Rate Supervisors are permitted to participate
in the dealer tip pool because of the nature of their roles. It
does not appear that defendants assert or could assert any defense
that applies only to individual plaintiffs.

For these reasons and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the
court sustained plaintiff's request for final collective action
certification.

Plaintiffs and defendants reached a collective action settlement
limited to the 507 members of the tip pool who returned consent
forms to join the collective action.

According to the settlement, Defendants will pay $981,000 into a
Qualified Settlement Fund that will (1) make settlement payments to
collective members; (2) pay the cost of notice and settlement
administration ($19,956) to Analytics Consulting, LLC; (3) pay a
proposed service award of $10,000 to Perry; and (4) reimburse
plaintiffs' counsel's litigation expenses of $1,428.06.

The Qualified Settlement Fund represents 77% of the value of the
tip credit and misallocated tips at issue. Analytics Consulting
will pay each collective member a minimum payment of $100 plus a
pro rata share based on each individual's tip credit and
misallocated tip damages. The settlement fund will make payments to
the 507 collective members averaging $1,225 per member net of fees
and expenses. The largest settlement check is nearly $5,000, and
121 workers will recover more than $2,000.

The court found that the parties' settlement resolves a bona fide
dispute. Plaintiffs contend that defendants maintained unlawful tip
pools for dealers because the pools included non-tipped,
supervisory employees called Dual Rate Supervisors. Plaintiffs
allege that they are entitled to damages in the form of the tip
credit and return of the unlawfully distributed tips.  Defendants
argue that Dual Rate Supervisors are permitted to participate in
the dealer tip pool because of the nature of their roles. A genuine
dispute of FLSA coverage exists in this case.

The court determined that the parties substantially disagree over
the merits of plaintiffs' case. Defendants raised several arguments
that, if successful, would have resulted in the collective
recovering nothing. Plaintiffs acknowledge that to ultimately
prevail, they would have been required to take significant
discovery involving casinos in several states.  The parties showed
that serious questions of law and fact place the ultimate outcome
of the litigation in doubt.

The court found that the parties fairly and honestly negotiated the
proposed settlement. Under the settlement, collective members
recover some 77% of claimed tip credit damages and misallocated
tips damages, with the average settlement check totaling more than
$1,225. The high percentage of recovery, the limited release, the
direct mailing of checks with no claims process and the absence of
any reversion of uncollected payments to defendants demonstrate a
strong result for collective members. The court concluded that the
gross settlement fund of $981,000 is fair and equitable.

Plaintiff's counsel sought $327,000 in fees, which is one-third of
the total settlement amount. The court noted that plaintiff's
counsel collectively expended 210 hours but seeks an award of fees
of $327,000, a blended rate of $1,557 per hour. In a previous
similar case, James v. Boyd Gaming Corp., counsel requested and the
court approved a blended rate of $367 per hour.

Counsel stated that their total lodestar in this case is
$160,927.50, but they did not perform a full lodestar analysis.
Counsel conceded that they received a fee of roughly half of their
lodestar in James, but asked for a fee of twice their lodestar in
this case. The court found that absent a full lodestar analysis, it
cannot ascertain the reasonableness of the requested fee award.

The court noted that counsel's experience in FLSA cases in the
casino context and the fact that counsel litigated a nearly
identical case in James suggest that a straight percentage of fund
award which results in a blended rate of $1,557 per hour is not
reasonable. For these reasons, the court rejected the proposed fee
award of $327,000.

The parties sought a $10,000 service award to Mr. Perry as class
representative. According to the parties, Mr. Perry spent about 55
hours in the prosecution of this case. The parties sought a service
award of $10,000, which equals $181.82 per hour. The court found
that $20 per hour is a reasonable incentive fee based on precedent.
Under these cases, the court reduced the incentive award to $1,100.
The court found that the parties showed no reason to increase the
incentive fee by a multiple of more than nine.

Therefore, the court sustained plaintiff's request for final
collective action certification. The court overruled without
prejudice plaintiff's request for approval of the parties'
collective action settlement. The court directed plaintiff to file
a renewed motion for approval of the settlement agreement which
includes a full lodestar analysis for the requested fee award and a
$1,100 service award to Aaron Perry.

A copy of the Court's order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EcY2oD from PacerMonitor.com.


KBR INC: Faces Norrman Suit Over 9.94% Drop of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHAN NORRMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KBR, INC., STUART J. B. BRADIE, and MARK W.
SOPP, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-04464 (S.D. Tex., September 19,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding KBR's business, operations, and
prospects in order to trade KBR securities at artificially inflated
prices between May 6, 2025 and June 19, 2025. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Despite the knowledge that the U.S. Department
of Defense's Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) had, for months, had
material concerns with HomeSafe's ability to fulfill the Global
Household Goods Contract, the Defendants claimed that the
partnership was without issue, and would ramp up in future
quarters; and (2) as a result, the Defendants' statements about
KBR's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, the price of KBR stock fell $3.85 per
share, or 7.29 percent, to close at $48.93 on June 20, 2025. On
June 23, 2025, the next trading day, KBR stock fell a further
$1.30, or 2.65 percent, to close at $47.63 on June 23, 2025. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

KBR, Inc. is a provider of science, technology and engineering
solutions, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Phillip Kim, Esq.
       Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
       THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
       275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 686-1060
       Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
       Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com

KEN PAXTON: Huang Seeks OK of Provisional Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIN HUANG, QIONG DAI, and
JIAYIN DONG, v. KEN PAXTON, Attorney General of Texas, in his
Official Capacity, only, Case No. 1:25-cv-01509-ADA (W.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting provisional
motion for class certification.

The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of:

    "all people and entities who are covered by the law, that is,
    all citizens, members of ruling political parties, and agents
    of China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea (plus or minus, over
    time, any country added or removed from the list of designated

    countries), who are not United States citizens or lawful
    permanent residents, as well as all company or organization
    majority-owned or under the control of a person covered by the

    law, headquartered in a covered country, or "directly or
    indirectly controlled" by a covered government."

All named plaintiffs further seek to represent the "Chinese
subclass:"

    "All individuals and entities under the purported primary
    class who are covered because they are Chinese."

Finally, all named plaintiffs seek to represent the "lawfully
present non-permanent res idents" subclass. This is the subclass
of:

    "Individuals who are covered by the law because they are
    citizens of a designated country and are not United States
    citizens or lawful permanent residents (and therefore not
    domiciled in the United States)."

The Plaintiffs Min Huang and Qiong Dai separately seek to represent
the "investor" sub class. This is the subclass of:

    "All members of the SB 17 class who would like to purchase
    property not covered by the Homestead Exception."


The Plaintiffs' grievances are that SB 17 unlawfully prohibits them
from purchasing any real property (except for a homestead as
defined by Texas’s Property Code) or lease any property for one
year or longer.

The proposed class in this case is ideal for certification under
Rule 23(b)(2) because Texas has acted "on grounds that apply
generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cu939j at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zhanghaua Lai, Esq.
          KERB LAW GROUP
          13809 Research Blvd
          Austin, TX 78750
          Telephone: (512) 203-2649
          E-mail: ylai@kerblaw.com

                - and -

          Justin Sadowsky, Esq.
          CHINESE AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
          ALLIANCE
          4250 N. Fairfax Drive #600
          Arlington, VA 22203
          Telephone: (646) 785-9154
          E-mail: justins@caldausa.org

                - and -

          Keliang (Clay) Zhu, Esq.
          Andre Y. Bates, Esq.
          CHINESE AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
          ALLIANCE
          7901 Stoneridge Drive #208
          Pleasanton, CA 94588
          Telephone: (925) 399-6702
          E-mail: czhu@dehengsv.com
                  aybates@dehengsv.com

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Appeals Court Dismisses Consumer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Biddle, J.D., writing for Vital Law, reports that the class
failed to establish the required amount in controversy, failing to
wipe away the deficiencies despite multiple opportunities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco vacated a district court
judgment and ordered dismissal without prejudice of a consumer
class action against Kimberly-Clark Corporation that alleged the
Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes packaging was deceptive when it
stated it "wipes away 99% of germs from skin" but does not contain
any germicide. The appellate court ruled that neither the trial
court nor the appellate court possessed diversity jurisdiction over
the case because the plaintiffs failed to allege the minimum
$75,000 amount in controversy in their pleadings (Rosenwald v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., No. 24-299 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2025)).

The lawsuit centered on Kimberly-Clark's Kleenex Germ Removal Wet
Wipes, which are sold in packages bearing front and back labels.
The front label advertises that the wipes provide "germ removal"
and "safely wipes away 99% of germs from skin" with "no harsh
chemicals," accompanied by a "WIPES AWAY" banner in capital
letters. The back label states that the wipes provide "the
cleansing power of water" and lists ingredients showing the product
contains soaps but no germicides.

The plaintiffs filed suit in August 2022, alleging they purchased
the wipes based on labels that misled them into believing the
product contained germicides rather than merely soaps, and that the
wipes would kill germs rather than simply wipe them away. The
plaintiffs brought several California state law claims on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of consumers, seeking to invoke
federal diversity jurisdiction.

The federal district court in San Francisco dismissed both the
First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint, finding that
the labels would not deceive a reasonable consumer. The district
court also dismissed non-California plaintiffs' claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
their Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

Jurisdictional deficiencies. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
identified sua sponte that the case suffered from fundamental
jurisdictional defects. The SAC failed to allege two essential
elements of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332:
the defendant's citizenship and the amount in controversy.

Regarding corporate citizenship, the complaint alleged only that
each plaintiff was a citizen of California, Washington, or Wyoming,
but said nothing about Kimberly-Clark's citizenship. The court
rejected arguments that Kimberly-Clark's citizenship was
established through Exhibit 1, which was merely a letter to the
company's offices in Texas and Wisconsin. The panel emphasized that
a corporation can maintain offices in a state without being a
citizen of that state, and conversely, can be a citizen of its
state of incorporation even without maintaining offices there.

The court addressed a circuit split regarding whether district
courts may establish diversity of citizenship through judicial
notice. Disagreeing with the Fifth Circuit's position in Swindol v.
Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. 805 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2015), the
Ninth Circuit aligned with the Tenth Circuit's holding in Buell v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 321 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1963) ruling that
courts cannot establish diversity of citizenship purely through
judicial notice. The panel reasoned that allowing judicial notice
would undermine the fundamental principle that plaintiffs bear the
burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction. The
court noted that if judicial notice were permitted, there would be
no necessity for alleging diversity of citizenship between
corporate parties in federal courts, effectively nullifying
established pleading requirements.

The court also found Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2)
insufficient to support judicial notice in this context. While
courts can notice facts that can be accurately and readily
determined from unquestionable sources, determining a corporation's
principal place of business requires more than identifying its
state of incorporation. Courts must establish that the headquarters
serves as the actual center of direction, control, and
coordination, information rarely available from readily accessible
public sources.

Amount in controversy. Even more problematic was the complaint's
complete failure to allege any amount in controversy. The SAC
contained no dollar value for damages, either in jurisdictional
allegations or elsewhere. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when
plaintiffs originally file in federal court, the amount in
controversy must be determined from the face of the pleadings, and
plaintiffs must affirmatively allege all essential elements of
diversity jurisdiction.

The district court initially permitted plaintiffs to seek amendment
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1653, which allows correction of defective
jurisdictional allegations even on appeal. In their proposed Third
Amended Complaint, plaintiffs successfully alleged complete and
minimal diversity by establishing Kimberly-Clark's citizenship as
Delaware and Texas, creating diversity with all named plaintiffs.

However, plaintiffs conceded they could not allege the five million
dollars in controversy required under the Class Action Fairness
Act's minimal diversity provision. They therefore needed to
establish more than $75,000 in controversy under traditional
diversity jurisdiction, where claims cannot be aggregated and at
least one plaintiff must satisfy the threshold independently.

The court systematically dismantled the plaintiffs'
amount-in-controversy theories. Regarding actual damages,
plaintiffs misinterpreted California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
which requires a total class award of at least $1,000 but
establishes no individual floor. Given the widespread availability
of the wipes and the likelihood of thousands of California class
members, individual recoveries would amount to less than one dollar
each under this provision.

Even assuming individual plaintiffs could recover the full purchase
price ranging from 99 cents to $14.03, the court found these
amounts nowhere near the required threshold. The complaint provided
no basis to conclude any class member purchased sufficient
quantities to approach $1,000 in actual damages.

For punitive damages, while plaintiffs suggested they could recover
up to $10,000 by applying a ten-to-one ratio to actual damages,
this calculation depended on the erroneous $1,000 actual damage
figure. With actual damages well below that amount, punitive
damages would be correspondingly minimal.

Attorney fees cannot bridge the gap. The court rejected the
argument that attorney fees could bridge the gap to reach $75,000
per plaintiff. Under Ninth Circuit precedent in Goldberg v. CPC
International, Inc., 678 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1982), attorney fees
in class actions must be attributed pro rata among all class
members rather than concentrated on named plaintiffs.

The court calculated that even under generous assumptions about
class size—estimating approximately 53,500 California class
members based on Kimberly-Clark's six million dollars in nationwide
sales—each plaintiff would need $64,000 in pro rata attorney's
fees to reach the jurisdictional threshold when combined with
generous estimates of actual and punitive damages. This would
require total fees of $3.4 billion, an obviously implausible
figure. Even reducing the class size to a generous minimum of 1,000
members would still require $64 million dollars in total fees.

No constructive amendment. The court declined to constructively
amend the pleadings despite Kimberly-Clark's arguments that the
record supported finding CAFA jurisdiction. Applying a six-factor
test for constructive amendment, the panel found most factors cut
against amendment. Most importantly, plaintiffs themselves had
explicitly disclaimed the ability to allege five million dollars in
controversy in good faith, making constructive amendment
inappropriate where it would contradict the plaintiff's chosen
jurisdictional theory.

The court therefore vacated the district court's judgment and
remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied as moot plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend, finding that further amendment would not
serve judicial economy given plaintiffs' explicit concession
regarding CAFA jurisdiction and their demonstrated inability to
plausibly allege the required amount under traditional diversity
jurisdiction.

The Case is No. 24-299.

Judge: Smith, M.

Attorneys: David M. Rosenberg (Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, APC) for
Judah Rosenwald. Theodore J. Boutrous (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP) for Kimberly-Clark Corp.

Companies: Kimberly-Clark Corp. [GN]

L.A. VINAS: Faces Penzera Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
DAWN PENZERA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. L.A. VINAS, M.D., P.A., and LUIS A.
VINAS, MD, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-81135 (S.D. Fla., September
15, 2025) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a billing manager
from December 2024, until her resignation on or about May 9, 2025.
While employed by the Corporate Defendant, the Plaintiff worked
approximately an average of 40 hours per week without being
compensated at the mandatory minimum wage in Florida for the period
of April 12 to April 25, 2025. Although the Plaintiff regularly
worked only 48 hours every two weeks, she was asked to work an
additional 32 hours for the said pay period, relates the
complaint.

However, the Corporate Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff her full
minimum wage for at least 48 hours of employment from April 12 to
April 25, 2025, and gave her checks with non-sufficient funds which
caused Plaintiff to $250 in late rent fees and an additional $210
in bank fees, says the suit.

L.A. Vinas, M.D., P.A. is a plastic surgery and skin care
clinic.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 200-23
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 482-1475
          E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com

LEAF HOME: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 31, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH J. GETZEN III, v.
LEAF HOME WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11382-JJCG-KGA
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey entered a
scheduling order as follows:

  Initial Disclosures must be exchanged by:        Sept. 25, 2025

  Amendments to Pleadings or Joinder of Parties:   Sept. 30, 2025

  Fact Discovery must be completed by:             April 15, 2026

  The Plaintiff's motion for class certification:  July 31, 2026

  The Defendant's response in opposition:          Aug. 28, 2026

  The Plaintiff's reply:                           Sept. 18, 2026

Leaf provides whole home water treatment systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EKRNN6 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


LEE MEMORIAL: Wins Dismissal of "Mack" Data Privacy Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Laurie Mack, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lee Memorial Health
System, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00188-JLB-NPM, Judge John L.
Badalamenti of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims brought
by Plaintiff. The Court found that Defendant is entitled to
sovereign immunity on all claims.Accordingly, the Court ordered
that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted. Counts I, III, and V
of Plaintiff's Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. As to
Plaintiff's request to withdraw Count II, the invasion of privacy
claim under Florida's Constitution, the Court approved such.

Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated. Plaintiff alleged that when using Defendant's
publicly available website (www.leehealth.org), she and other
putative class members' confidential, personal medical information
was disclosed to Facebook via Facebook Pixel and Conversions
Application Programming Interface. The Pixel is coding on
Defendant's website installed by Defendant that tracks the user's
actions, including buttons clicked, pages viewed, and text typed.
The Pixel automatically sends the collected information to
Facebook. CAPI also tracks the website user's actions but stores
the data on Defendant's servers before transmitting the data to
Facebook.

When using Defendant's website, Plaintiff alleged that she and
other class members provided information on the type of medical
treatment sought, the individual's particular health condition, and
the fact that the individual attempted to or did book a medical
appointment. Further, Plaintiff alleged that she has used the
website to research sickness or disease, including her own
symptoms, treatment, and other issues pertaining to her health
conditions.

According to Plaintiff, Facebook can sell this private information
to third party marketers to geotarget Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Facebook pages if the website user has a Facebook account.
This puts Plaintiff and other class members at risk of targeted
advertisements based on that private information. Plaintiff
contended that Defendant's privacy policy does not inform users
that it shares private information with Facebook.

Plaintiff brought this suit against Defendant, alleging violation
of Section 934.10 of the Florida Security of Communications Act,
common law invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence. Defendant
moved to dismiss, arguing that it is entitled to sovereign immunity
as to all claims. Plaintiff filed a response and Defendant filed a
reply. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on the sovereign
immunity ground for dismissal. Defendant filed a supplement,
Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied.

The Court addressed whether Defendant is entitled to sovereign
immunity from Plaintiff's FSCA, invasion of privacy, and breach of
confidence claims. Article X, Section 13 of the Florida
Constitution provides absolute sovereign immunity for the state and
its agencies absent waiver by legislative enactment or
constitutional amendment. It is undisputed that Lee Memorial is a
political subdivision of Florida's government. There is no dispute
that Lee Health qualifies for sovereign immunity as an independent
special district of Florida.

Because sovereign immunity is the rule, rather than the exception,
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Florida
Legislature has waived sovereign immunity for any claim it brings
against Lee Memorial. Further, waiver of sovereign immunity cannot
be implied; rather, it must be clear, specific, and unequivocal. If
ambiguities arise, they must be construed narrowly in favor of the
government.

Regarding Defendant's entitlement to sovereign immunity from
Plaintiff's FSCA claim, the Court recognized that it sits in
diversity jurisdiction over this case and, therefore, it must apply
substantive state law. The FSCA provides a civil remedy against any
person or entity for those whose electronic communication is
intercepted or disclosed. Section 934.10 provides that any person
whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted,
disclosed, or used in violation of Sections 934.03-934.09 shall
have a civil cause of action against any person or entity who
intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or
entity to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications.

Though the Florida Supreme Court has not ruled on whether Section
934.10 waives sovereign immunity, Florida's Fourth District Court
of Appeal has held that Section 934.10 does not waive sovereign
immunity, holding that the legislature did not clearly and
unequivocally waive sovereign immunity. This Court is bound by
Kaplan unless there is persuasive evidence that the Supreme Court
of Florida would rule otherwise. The Court found that Plaintiff has
not met her burden of presenting persuasive evidence that the
Florida Supreme Court would oppose Kaplan's holding.

In arguing that sovereign immunity has been waived under Section
934.10, Plaintiff primarily relied on federal courts'
interpretation of the Federal Wiretap Act finding a waiver of
sovereign immunity. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that cases
interpreting the FWA should inform this Court's interpretation of
the FSCA because the statutes share similar language. The Court was
unpersuaded by this argument.

Plaintiff argued that adding entity necessarily includes
governmental entities because the revision would be superfluous
given the already broad definition of person. The Court found that
Plaintiff's argument fails in two ways. First, the Staff Analysis
says that amendments to Section 934.10 are based on federal law,
but retains most of the present law. Indeed, it emphasizes that the
amendments were intended to enact the minimum changes required to
conform with the federal law. Second, Plaintiff's reliance on
sovereign immunity waiver in the FWA by federal courts is
unpersuasive because it overlooks that federal courts that have
found sovereign immunity waiver in the FWA for reasons in addition
to the 1986 amendment adding or entity.

The Court noted that if the Florida legislature intended to waive
sovereign immunity under Section 934.10 of the FSCA, then it would
have written any person or governmental entity rather than any
person or entity. The Court declined to accept Plaintiff's
invitation to rewrite the statute.

Under these circumstances, Plaintiff has not presented persuasive
evidence that the Florida Supreme Court would disagree with the
Kaplan court's holding that Section 934.10 does not waive sovereign
immunity. Thus, this Court is bound by Kaplan. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's violation of the FSCA claim is denied with prejudice.

Regarding Defendant's entitlement to sovereign immunity for
Plaintiff's invasion of privacy and breach of confidence claims,
Defendant moved for dismissal of Plaintiff's breach of confidence
and common law invasion of privacy claims, arguing that they seek
purely economic losses and are therefore barred by sovereign
immunity. The Court agreed that the claims are barred.

Plaintiff insisted that her breach of confidence and invasion of
privacy claims are permitted pursuant to Florida's Tort Claims Act.
The FTCA provides for waiver of sovereign immunity to recover
monetary damages in tort from the state, its agencies, or
subdivisions for injury or loss of property, personal injury, or
death.

In a conclusory fashion, Plaintiff argued that she and the class
members have suffered personal injury in the form of lost time and
opportunity costs, ongoing risk to private information, and
harassment. Further, Plaintiff contended that the diminution of
value of her personal information constitutes property loss.

The Court found that the thrust of Plaintiff's purported injuries
is not in line with Section 768.28(1)'s plain language, which
provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Specifically, the
Legislature requires an injury or loss of property, personal
injury, or death. No death has occurred as a result of the data
breach, and Plaintiff has failed to provide any support for her
claim that it constitutes property loss. The Court found that
Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden to establish that
sovereign immunity has been waived. Therefore, Plaintiff's argument
regarding waiver as to the invasion of privacy and breach of
confidence claims is not compelling.

Because the Court found that Defendant is entitled to sovereign
immunity as to all of Plaintiff's claims, it did not address
Defendant's arguments on standing or failure to state a claim.
Providing Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint would be futile
because the issue does not lie with the Complaint; rather, the
problem lies with the lack of support for finding that the
Complaint's claims may be brought against the Defendant.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and https://urlcurt.com/u?l=auxoih
from PacerMonitor.com

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Jackson Appeals Court Order to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JACKSON is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Michael Jackson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00081-MFU, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Braxton County, West
Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, is brought against the Defendant for
alleged violation of West Virginia's Daniel's Law, West Virginia
Code section 5A-8-24, by disclosing, redisclosing, or otherwise
making available the home addresses or unpublished home or personal
telephone number of thousands of active, formerly active, or
retired judicial officers, prosecutors, federal or state public
defenders, federal or state assistant public defenders, or
law-enforcement officers from West Virginia without their written
permission.

The appellate case is entitled Michael Jackson v. LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25-2125, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
         KATZ, KANTOR, STONESTREET & BUCKNER PLLC
         206 South Walker Street
         Princeton, WV 24740
         Telephone: (304) 431-4050

                - and -

         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1330 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150

Defendant-Appellee LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented
by:

         James L. Brydie, Esq.
         Bruce Michael Jacobs, Esq.
         SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
         P.O. Box 273
         Charleston, WV 25321
         Telephone: (304) 340-3863
                    (304) 340-3800

                  - and -

         James A. Walls, I, Esq.
         SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
         P.O. Box 615
         Morgantown, WV 26507
         Telephone: (304) 291-7947

LIBERTY INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment in Insurance Coverage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.,
Plaintiff, v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 21-00374-JLH, Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant on September 24, 2025, ruling
that the Plaintiff's costs from 2017 shareholder lawsuits are
excluded from coverage under the 2016-2017 insurance policy and
properly belong under the 2014-2015 policy period.

This is an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff AmTrust Financial
Services, Inc. is a property and casualty insurance holding company
incorporated in Delaware. During the period at issue, AmTrust was a
publicly traded company. AmTrust seeks to recover costs it incurred
in connection with two shareholder lawsuits filed in 2017.
Defendant Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. participated in a
tower of coverage effective September 30, 2016, to September 30,
2017. Liberty contends that an earlier tower is the proper source
of coverage because the 2017 lawsuits arise out of circumstances
noticed by AmTrust during the earlier period.

AmTrust has a tower that covers the period of September 30, 2014 to
September 30, 2015 (the 2014-2015 Tower). Non-party Illinois
National Insurance Company (AIG) issued the primary policy in the
2014-2015 Tower. The 2014 Primary Policy provides that if during
the Policy Period an Organization or an Insured Person becomes
aware of and notifies the Insurer in writing of circumstances that
may give rise to a Claim being made against an Insured then any
Claim that is subsequently made against an Insured that arises from
such circumstances shall be deemed to have been first made at the
time of the notification of circumstances.

AmTrust has another tower that covers the period of September 30,
2016, to September 30, 2017 (the 2016-2017 Tower). Defendant
Liberty issued a second-level excess policy, which provided the
third layer of coverage. The Liberty Policy covers Loss with
respect to Claims first made during the Policy Period and reported
to the insurer as required by this policy. But it excludes coverage
for Claims arising out of any circumstances of which notice has
been given under any directors and officers liability insurance
policy in force prior to the inception date of this policy.

In 2013, Casey Nelson, the President of an investment firm called
Alistair Capital Management, saw anomalies in AmTrust's financial
statements and accounting. Between 2013 and early 2015, the
financial press published a number of articles and reports that
questioned AmTrust's accounting. In a report to its audit committee
in 2015, AmTrust referred to 31 such reports as the Short Reports.

On December 18, 2014, Nelson published a 19-page letter addressed
to AmTrust's Audit Committee (the Alistair Letter). The Letter
alleged that AmTrust's financial statements contained numerous
discrepancies suggesting that the financial statements were likely
materially misstated. It discussed material weaknesses in internal
controls over financial reporting, accounting for deferred
acquisition costs, valuation of life settlement contracts,
reinsurance assets related to Maiden Holdings, consolidation of
Luxembourg reinsurance captives, and accounting for Loss & LAE
Reserves assumed in acquisitions.

On January 8, 2015, AmTrust reported to its insurers a Notice of
Circumstance regarding the Alistair Letter (the 2015 Notice). Under
Description of Occurrence, the 2015 Notice states, ALISTAIR CAPITAL
/ ALLEGES ACCOUNTING IRREGULARITIES VIA LETTER TO AMTRUST FINANCIAL
AUDIT COMMITTEE.

The Restatement and 2017 Lawsuits

On February 27, 2017, AmTrust announced that the completion of its
financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016
and of the related audit will require additional time. On March 14,
2017, AmTrust announced that its previously issued consolidated
financial statements for 2014 and 2015 as well as for the first
three quarters of 2016 should be restated and should no longer be
relied upon because of certain accounting errors contained in such
financial statements.

On April 3, 2017, AmTrust filed its restated financial statements
(Restatement). In all, the Restatement identified nine issues
requiring adjustments to correct errors: (1) Warranty Fee Revenue,
(2) Accrual of Bonuses, (3) Deferred Acquisition Costs, (4) Foreign
exchange gain/(loss), (5) Capitalized software, (6) Imputed
interest, (7) Intercompany eliminations, (8) Other Items, and (9)
Balance Sheet Items.

On February 28, 2017, the day after AmTrust announced that its 2016
10-K would be delayed, an AmTrust stockholder filed a class action
complaint alleging that AmTrust and its officers made materially
false and/or misleading statements. That lawsuit and others were
consolidated into In re AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the Securities Lawsuit).

The Securities Lawsuit alleges that AmTrust has admitted that its
financial statements since 2012 were materially misstated in
numerous respects and require restatement, and that these
misstatements are the basis for Plaintiffs' claims under the
Securities Act. It alleges that AmTrust's financial statements were
materially false and/or misleading with respect to, among other
things, AmTrust's warranty revenue, accrued compensation expense,
deferred acquisition costs, and intercompany transactions. In
alleging that AmTrust executives knew that its accounting methods
were improper, it specifically cites the Alistair Letter, the Short
Reports, and the SEC and NYDFS investigations.

AmTrust and its directors and officers were also sued in several
derivative lawsuits in 2017 that were consolidated into In re
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Derivative Litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (the Derivative
Lawsuit). Like the Securities Lawsuit, the Derivative Lawsuit
alleged that AmTrust's financial statements were materially false
and/or misleading due to the same specific accounting
improprieties. The Derivative Lawsuit directly relies on the
Alistair Letter's allegations and cites it repeatedly throughout
the complaint.

AmTrust provided notice of the Securities Lawsuit to its insurers
on March 3, 2017, and of the Derivative Lawsuit on April 21, 2017.
On May 10, 2017, AIG acknowledged that the Securities Lawsuit and
Derivative Lawsuit are covered Claims under the AIG Primary Policy.
Liberty acknowledged receipt of the notices and reserved the right
to assert defenses to coverage. On April 10, 2019, Liberty informed
AmTrust that it had significant concerns that the Noticed Matters
all relate back to a policy period for which Liberty was not on
risk, and specifically pointed to the Alistair Letter. Liberty
confirmed its denial on September 27, 2019.

Under Delaware law, whether a claim relates back to an earlier
claim or notice of circumstance is decided by the language of the
policy. The Policy language provides that Claims are not covered if
they arise out of any circumstances of which notice has been given
under any prior policy. The term arising out of is broadly
construed to require some meaningful linkage between the two
conditions imposed in the contract. In evaluating whether there is
a meaningful linkage between an earlier notice and a later claim,
the primary factor is whether they involve the same conduct.

The Court found the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Alexion
instructive. In that case, the court concluded that a securities
lawsuit was meaningfully linked to wrongful acts disclosed in an
earlier notice of circumstance because both involved the same
alleged wrongdoing.

The Court concludes that there is a meaningful link between the
2015 Notice of Circumstance and the 2017 Securities and Derivative
Lawsuits. Most importantly, they involve the same alleged conduct -
specific accounting improprieties and material misrepresentations
in financial statements regarding those specific improprieties. The
Alistair Letter alleged that numerous specific accounting
deficiencies caused AmTrust's financial statements to be materially
inaccurate and suggestive of material weaknesses in internal
controls over financial reporting. The 2017 Securities and
Derivative Lawsuits are based on those same accounting deficiencies
and allege that AmTrust's financial statements were false and
misleading for many of the same reasons discussed in the Alistair
Letter. The 2017 Securities and Derivative Lawsuits repeatedly cite
to and use the Alistair Letter and its allegations as supporting
evidence.

The Alistair Letter did not merely allege weaknesses in AmTrust's
internal controls over financial reporting generally but instead
identified specific material weaknesses regarding specific controls
over specific accounts. The 2017 Securities and Derivative Lawsuits
alleged the same specific material weaknesses in AmTrust's internal
controls over financial reporting for the same specific reasons.
Both the Letter and the Lawsuits rely on the same evidence. Both
rely on AmTrust's financial statements and its officers' public
statements regarding AmTrust's accounting.

The remaining applicable factors also suggest a meaningful link.
The relevant time periods overlap. The theories of liability are
similar - both allege that AmTrust committed specific violations of
accounting rules causing its financial statements to be materially
misleading and/or false.

The Court concludes that AmTrust's costs incurred with respect to
the Securities and Derivative Lawsuits are excluded from coverage
under the 2016-2017 Tower. Those costs are properly slotted under
the 2014-2015 policy period. The Court concludes that the
Securities and Derivative Lawsuits are meaningfully linked to, and
therefore arise out of, the 2015 Notice of Circumstance. The Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty Insurance Underwriters
Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiff AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.:
David J. Baldwin, Peter C. McGivney, BERGER MCDERMOTT LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Tamara D. Bruno, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP, Houston, Texas; Peter M. Gillon, PILLSBURY WINTHROP
SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Washington, D.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc.
Robert J. Katzenstein, Julie M. O'Dell, SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKIN
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Ronald P. Schiller, Daniel J. Layden,
Marianne E. Bradley, HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3u7nO2 from PacerMonitor.com

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS, ANTHONY
WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM
(D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
consented-to motion for leave to seal.

The Plaintiffs, move, on an assented-to basis, for leave to file
under seal their forthcoming reply in support of their motion for
class certification, and any supporting declaration, and exhibits
thereto, because such documents are, summarize, discuss, and
contain information that the Defendants have designated "Highly
Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" and/or "Confidential" under
the Protective Order entered by the Court (Saris, J.) on July 15,
2024.

The Plaintiffs accordingly move to file the Proposed Sealed
Materials under seal because such materials are, summarize,
discuss, and contain information that the Defendants have
designated "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" and/or
"Confidential" under the governing Protective Order that was
entered by this Court.

If the Court grants the foregoing Motion, Plaintiffs will submit
unredacted versions of the Proposed Sealed Materials under seal,
and/or comply with any other method of submission that the Court
prefers, and (if requested by the Court) within fourteen-days after
such sealed filing, to allow time for consultation with Defendants,
file redacted versions of the Proposed Sealed Materials on the
public docket.

Liberty offers a wide range of insurance products and services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6V3r8r at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          Shanon Carson, Esq.
          Julie Selesnick, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net
                  jselesnick@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

                - and -

          Richard M. Ochroch, Esq.
          Brett N. Benton, Esq.
          Andrew R. Ochroch, Esq.
          OCHROCH BENTON, P.C.
          318 S. 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 735-2707
          E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com
                  bbenton@ochroch-law.com
                  aochroch@ochroch-law.com

LIFE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid in Hoffman Suit Due Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoffman, et al., v. Life
Insurance Company of the Southwest Danielle Krimbow, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Life Insurance
Company of the Southwest, Case No. 5:23-cv-04068-PCP (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order modifying the
Parties' Joint Administrative Motion as follows:

                  Event                         Modified Deadline

  Motion for Class Certification:                 Oct. 27, 2025

  Opposition to Class Certification,              Dec. 19, 2025
  Motions to Exclude Plaintiff Experts:

  Reply to Class Certification, Motions           Jan. 23, 2026
  to Exclude Defense Experts:

The remaining deadlines as outlined in the Case Management Order,
and as to the Completion of ADR remain in effect.

Life specializes in offering life insurance and annuities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Eyu6V at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


LIFEAID BEVERAGE: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Lifeaid Beverage Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-11430 (N.D. Ill., Sept.
22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, Lifeaidbevco.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Compartes.com provides to their
non-disabled customers through its 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
ADA.

Yet, Lifeaidbevco.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. The access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website, says the suit.

Lifeaid Beverage provides to the public a website known as
Lifeaidbevco.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide
selection of beverages for energy, recovery, focus, and immunity,
hydration powders, sleep support drinks, as well as vitamin and
mineral supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street,
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (844) 731-3343
          Facsimile: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Scheitinger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER SCHEITINGER, individually and for others similarly
situated v. MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-05162
(E.D.N.Y., September 15, 2025) is a class and collective action
brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages
owed by Maimonides Medical Center under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to provide
accurate and/or compliant itemized wage statements and/or written
notices cause its employees, including Plaintiff Scheitinger, to
suffer concrete and cognizable injuries, including obscuring the
wages they are lawfully owed and preventing them from determining
the wages they are lawfully owed, preventing them from determining
improper deductions from their wages, and by delaying their ability
to remedy Maimonides' underpayment of their wages.

Further, Maimonides's shift differential pay scheme violates the
FLSA and NYLL because overtime is not paid at one and a half times
its employees' regular rates of pay, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in January 2023 as an
emergency medical technician.

Maimonides Medical Center provides emergency and non-emergency
medical services and transportation to its patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Ballpark App Class Suit Over Data Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi as ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges the MLB Ballpark App has suffered from
"systemic cybersecurity breaches" that have caused buyers' tickets
to disappear or be stolen -- and their personal information to
potentially be exposed.

The 37-page class action lawsuit against Major League Baseball
subsidiary MLB Advanced Media, L.P. claims the data breaches began
in August and September of this year, with consumers reporting that
tickets stored in the MLB Ballpark App, touted by Major League
Baseball as the most secure way for fans to buy game tickets
online, had been stolen. The case charges that MLB Advanced Media
has failed to acknowledge the existence of any form of breach of
MLB Ballpark App accounts, leaving consumers "in the lurch" and
unable to protect their tickets and any personal information that
may have been compromised.

The suit accuses MLB Advanced Media of "dragging its feet" in
dealing with the apparent MLB Ballpark App data breaches, in the
process allowing "cybercriminals to get a running start" on harming
consumers.

"While MLB could have given Plaintiff and Class members the ability
to start taking action to protect themselves, MLB has made and
continues to make a conscious decision not to," the lawsuit
alleges.

The case says some fans have received emails from MLB and/or
ballclubs in early September concerning "unusual activity" in their
accounts. Per the suit, the emails urged users to change their
passwords and warned them that "[a]ttackers often test common
passwords or stolen passwords" obtained through data breaches.
These communications from MLB and/or the league's teams, the filing
says, offer neither accountability nor explanation as to the
alleged MLB Ballpark App data breaches "other than to shift blame
for inadequate cybersecurity measures back to baseball fans
themselves."

"Currently, the MLB Ballpark App, as compared to industry
standards, is woefully insufficient in terms of data security
protocols to protect baseball fans from anticipated attacks," the
case charges, noting that the app lacks two-factor authentication,
mandatory delays for ticket transfers, and the option to print
tickets.

The class action contends that a second email from MLB's ball clubs
is "just as problematic" as the first, as it acknowledges that some
account holders have reported "unauthorized transactions" and asks
fans to monitor their accounts while offering little by way of
actionable solutions.

"The key concern with this email is two-fold: (1) it evidences
MLB's awareness of breaches of MLB Ballpark App user accounts
(while offering a lone solution which is entirely placed in the
hands of consumers) and (2) that MLB's MLB Ballpark App has zero
ability to detect the presence of unauthorized transfers of
baseball tickets (and asks baseball fans themselves to confirm
there has not been a theft of their tickets)."
The case calls the league's response to the apparent MLB Ballpark
App problems "unacceptable" given that Major League Baseball has
not publicly disclosed the prevalence of cybersecurity incidents
affecting purchased tickets or addressed that users are effectively
in the dark about whether any of their personal information has
been exposed to unauthorized parties.

"To date, MLB continues to fail to act," the class action lawsuit
scathes. "And, each day that MLB continues to do so, more baseball
fans are falling victim to MLB's failures to secure their tickets."


The MLB Ballpark app lawsuit looks to cover all individuals and
entities residing in the United States who had tickets during the
2025 MLB season on their MLB Ballpark App that were subject to
unauthorized transfer or theft due to the alleged data breach(es).
The proposed class includes all consumers who were sent a notice
from MLB about unauthorized or suspicious activity on their MLB
Ballpark App accounts due to the cybersecurity lapses. [GN]

MAPLE & ASH MIAMI: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. MAPLE &
ASH MIAMI, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No.
1:25-cv-24401-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.mapleandash.com (the "Website"). One of the
functions of the Website is to provide the public information on
the location of Defendant's physical restaurant. Defendant also
allows the public purchase Defendant's branded merchandise that is
also available for purchase in the physical restaurants, purchase
e-gift cards to use both online and in the physical restaurants,
make reservations to dine in the physical restaurants, and sign up
for an emailer to receive exclusive offers, benefits, promotions,
invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical
restaurants.

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 at all relevant times 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 owns, operates, and/or controls restaurants selling
food and beverage products, including the restaurant.[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

MARC GLASSMAN: Neal Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER NEAL and VIVIAN OEFFNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARC GLASSMAN, INC., doing
business as Marc's Discount Drug Store, EDISON PARK, LTD, LRC MAGIC
INVESTORS, LTD., CHAPEL HILL ASSOCIATES LLC, FAIRLAWN STATION LLC,
KRAUS ALEXANDER CONSTRUCTION CO., SOUTH PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLC, STOW
DARROW LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 2891 WATERLOO ROAD LLC, AND DOE
BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-60, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02008 (N.D.
Ohio, September 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for denial of access by a public accommodation in violation of the
Americans with Disability Act of 1990 and Ohio Revised Code, and
for violation of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' discrimination against persons
with physical disabilities, of which the Plaintiffs are members,
for failure to perform annual preventive maintenance on automatic
doors that would ensure safe access as well as the failure to
remove architectural barriers structural in nature that impede safe
access at the Defendants' properties. The Plaintiffs and Class
members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural
barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily
achievable for the place of public accommodation.

Marc Glassman, Inc., doing business as Marc's Discount Drug Store,
is a retail store operator in Ohio.

Edison Park, LTD is a retail store operator in Ohio.

LRC Magic Investors, LTD. is a retail store operator in Ohio.

Chapel Hill Associates LLC is a retail store operator in Ohio.

Fairlawn Station LLC is a retail store operator in Ohio.

Kraus Alexander Construction Co. is a retail store operator in
Ohio.

South Plaza Associates LLC is a retail store operator in Ohio.

Stow Darrow Limited Partnership is a retail store operator in
Ohio.

2891 Waterloo Road LLC is a retail store operator in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Colin G. Meeker, Esq.
       Blakemore, Meeker & Bowler Co., LPA
       495 Portage Lake Drive
       Akron, OH 44319
       Telephone: (330) 253-3337
       Facsimile: (330) 253-4131
       Email: cgm@bmblaw.com

               - and -

       George W. Cochran, Esq.
       LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN, Esq.
       1981 Crossfield Circle
       Kent, OH 44240
       Telephone: (330) 607-2187
       Email: lawchrist@gmail.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 14, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MERRELL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-06664-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Orrick entered an order regarding discovery and class
certification case schedule.

The parties request that the Court enter an Order: (a) approving
both the modifications and extensions to the discovery and class
certification deadlines as stated in the above table; and (b)
modifying the case schedule accordingly.  

The parties are working cooperatively in discovery and stipulate to
adjustments to the case schedule to account for expert discovery
related to class certification issues and to avoid conflicts during
the holidays.

The parties have stipulated to the proposed deadlines below,
subject to the Court's approval, which seek a modest, approximately
month-long extension of the class certification and discovery
cutoff deadlines to avoid major deadlines in December and permit
time for the parties' expert discovery plan:

          Deadline                                   Proposed date

  The Plaintiff's motion for class certification:    Jan. 14, 2026

  The Defendant's opposition to motion for class     Feb. 18, 2026
  Certification:

  The Plaintiff's reply to opposition to motion      Mar. 18, 2026
  for class certification:

  Hearing on motion for class certification:         April 8, 2026

  Discovery cutoff:                                  May 21, 2026

Marriott owns over 30 hotel and timeshare brands.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LUPwq1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq.
          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          Jesse S. Chen, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC  
          660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby  
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988  
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alex Terepka, Esq.
          WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (404) 782-9821
          E-mail: alex@wtlaw.com

MASON COMPANIES: Demaio Suit Seeks Damages Over Unwanted Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MASON COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-25-014357 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
September 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act (FTSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of transmitting a telephone number to the Caller ID
services of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that
were not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Defendant's
action is part of its marketing strategy to promote its product via
text message sales calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful
business practice, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages.

Mason Companies, Inc. is a company that sells footwear, apparel,
and general merchandise, doing business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
       Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
       SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
       Dunedin, FL 34698
       Telephone: (202) 709-5744
       Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
       Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
              shawn@sjlawcollective.com

MASONIC CARE: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Shabazz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AYANNA SHABAZZ, individually and for others similarly situated v.
TRUSTEES OF THE MASONIC HALL AND ASYLUM FUND d/b/a MASONIC CARE
COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 6:25-cv-01297-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.,
September 15, 2025) is a class and collective action brought by the
Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

Plaintiff Shabazz worked for Masonic Care as a certified nursing
assistant from approximately April 2024 to March 2025. She
regularly worked 8 to 16 hours a day, 4 to 6 days a week. But
Masonic Care did not pay her at least one and a half times her
regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours
worked after 40 in a week.

Instead, Masonic Care paid Shabazz non-discretionary bonuses that
it excluded from the "regular rate" for overtime purposes. Masonic
Care's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA and NYLL because overtime
is not paid at one and a half times its employees' regular rates of
pay, says the suit.

Masonic Care is a skilled nursing, adult care, and rehabilitation
center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Missing Features
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Kyle Johanson filed a
class action lawsuit against Mazda Motor of America Inc.

Why: Johanson claims Mazda misrepresented the features of its 2025
Mazda3 models.

Where: The Mazda class action was filed in Illinois federal court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Mazda misrepresented the
features of its 2025 Mazda3 models.

Plaintiff Kyle Johanson's Mazda3 class action lawsuit claims the
company misrepresented that its 2025 Mazda3 models came equipped
with eight speakers and high-definition (HD) radio when they
actually only have six speakers and standard radio.

Johanson argues the alleged misrepresentation was material and that
he and other consumers would not have purchased or leased the
vehicles, or would have paid significantly less for them, if they
had known about the missing features.

The plaintiff wants to represent a nationwide class and Illinois
subclass of current and former owners and lessees of the 2025
Mazda3 models.

Johanson claims Mazda is guilty of fraud and/or misrepresentation,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and
violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

Plaintiff: Mazda refuses to fix misrepresentation

Johanson claims in the class action lawsuit that Mazda knew the
vehicles did not have the advertised features but has refused to
issue a recall or offer compensation to consumers.

Johanson argues the misrepresentation was discovered shortly after
he purchased his vehicle, when he found evidence that two rear
speakers were missing and that the vehicle was not equipped with HD
radio.

He claims Mazda admitted to the misrepresentation in a March 2025
email from a district sales manager, who referred to the issue as a
"typo" on the window sticker.

Johanson demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages
for himself and all class members.

In other class action lawsuits, Mazda recently agreed to a
settlement to resolve claims that its Mazda Connect infotainment
system is defective and causes technical glitches.

Have you ever purchased or leased a 2025 Mazda3 model? Let us know
in the comments.

Johanson is represented by William D. Kelly IV of Kelly IV Law
LLC.

The Mazda class action lawsuit is Johanson v. Mazda Motor of
America Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07546, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]

MEGA CONTRACTING: Kitsos Sues Over Age Discrimination, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD MICHAEL KITSOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEGA CONTRACTING GROUP, LLC,
HERCULES HANJIS and HERCULES ARGYRIOU, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-05262 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the New York City Human
Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law including age
discrimination, retaliation, and aiding and abetting discrimination
and retaliation.

Mr. Kitsos was employed by Defendant Mega Contracting Group for 35
years, from July 1990 until June 3, 2025, when he was terminated in
retaliation for his complaint of age discrimination.

Mega Contracting Group, LLC is a full-service development, general
contracting, and construction management firm, with its principal
place of business in Astoria, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brian Heller, Esq.
         Analiese Smith, Esq.
         SCHWARTZ PERRY & HELLER LLP
         3 Park Avenue, Suite 2700
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 889-6565

MELLOY BROTHERS: Appeals Court Flips Arbitration Order in Martinez
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Karah Martinez and David Martinez, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Melloy Brothers, Inc., d/b/a Melloy Nissan,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. A-1-CA-41818, Circuit Judge Megan P.
Duffy of the New Mexico Court of Appeals reverses the district
court's order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration
and remands for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision that
compelled arbitration in this consumer protection class action
lawsuit. The appellate court found that the district court failed
to properly evaluate whether three unconscionable contract
provisions were fair and reasonable under the second step of the
Peavy analysis framework.

This consolidated appeal arose from a consumer protection class
action filed on November 3, 2020, where Plaintiffs alleged
violations of the Unfair Practices Act and unjust enrichment claims
against the car dealership. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant
imposed illegal charges when selling new vehicles and failed to
make timely payments on trade-in vehicles.

Defendant responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration based
on an arbitration clause in a Buyer's Order Agreement that
Plaintiffs signed when purchasing their vehicle. Plaintiffs opposed
arbitration, arguing the arbitration agreement was substantively
unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

The district court initially found three provisions of the
Agreement to be unfairly one-sided and unconscionable. First, the
damages limitation provision stated that the dealer was not liable
for incidental, consequential, or punitive damages arising from the
sale or use of the vehicle. The court determined this limitation
was unfair because it restricted Plaintiffs' ability to collect
damages while Defendant faced no similar restrictions.

Second, the court found the one-year statute of limitations
provision unconscionable. This provision required that any legal
claim arising from the transaction must be brought within one year
after a cause of action accrued. The district court concluded this
provision was one-sided because the benefit flowed only to
Defendant.

Third, the court determined that class arbitration fees rendered
the arbitration clause unconscionable. Under the American
Arbitration Association rules, Plaintiffs would be required to pay
an administrative fee of $3,350 to bring a class arbitration, plus
a supplemental administrative fee of $800 to $8,475 prior to the
first hearing. The court found these fees would prevent Plaintiffs
from effectively vindicating their statutory rights under the
Unfair Practices Act.

Following the initial denial of the motion to compel, the case
underwent a complex procedural history involving multiple appeals
and remands. The district court judge recused himself after
Defendant filed an expedited motion for an evidentiary hearing. A
new judge was assigned, and the case was remanded by the Court of
Appeals for an evidentiary hearing on the second step of the Peavy
analysis.

On remand, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing but
expressly limited its review to only the arbitration clause in
paragraph 14 of the Agreement. The court indicated that the other
contract provisions were irrelevant and restricted the parties'
evidentiary presentations concerning the three grounds previously
determined to be unconscionable. The district court expressly
declined to hear legal argument on any other matters.

The district court then entered an order finding that the
arbitration clause was bilateral on its face and therefore fair and
reasonable. However, the court stated it was not permitted by the
limited remand to determine whether other provisions of the
Agreement were unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. The court
concluded that if other provisions were determined to be unfair,
the proper remedy would be severance.

The Court of Appeals found that the district court's approach on
remand resulted from a misunderstanding of the second step of the
Peavy analysis and the holding in Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet. The
appellate court explained that under Rojas, when analyzing
unconscionability, courts must consider all provisions that would
logically be employed as part of arbitration, not merely the
arbitration language itself.

The Court of Appeals clarified that the three provisions previously
determined to be unconscionable - the time-to-sue provision, the
damages limitation, and the costs associated with bringing a class
action under AAA rules - are all terms that would be employed as
part of arbitration and therefore must be considered part of the
arbitration agreement.

Circuit Judge Duffy wrote that the district court's finding that
Plaintiffs brought their claims within one year was irrelevant to
whether the time-to-sue provision was substantively unconscionable.
The inquiry should focus on whether the contract term itself was
grossly unfair at the time it was made, not whether Plaintiffs in
this particular case complied with the limitation.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court's conclusion
that issues related to class arbitration costs were not relevant
because the lawsuit raised only individual claims. The court held
that this aspect of the arbitration agreement must be evaluated by
looking at the contract term itself and its consequences, and it
was relevant that Plaintiffs filed their complaint as a consumer
protection class action.

Regarding the damages limitation provision, the Court of Appeals
reiterated that the district court should evaluate whether the
provision was grossly one-sided at the time the contract was made,
regardless of whether Plaintiffs were bringing warranty claims in
this particular case.

The appellate court rejected Defendant's argument that it should
affirm under the right for any reason doctrine. Defendant contended
that the arbitration clause was bilateral on its face under the
first step of Peavy, but the Court of Appeals found that Defendant
had not persuaded them that the district court erred in its initial
determinations that the provisions at issue were one-sided.

The court noted that Defendant acknowledged the damages limitation
was facially one-sided, had not adequately addressed the district
court's ruling on the time-to-sue provision's one-sided nature, and
had not addressed the ruling that class arbitration fees were
prohibitively high and prevented effective vindication of statutory
rights.

The Court of Appeals concluded that because the district court
never made any ruling on the substantive issues raised in
Plaintiffs' appeal, and because the Peavy framework demands that
district courts hear and weigh evidence in reaching conclusions
regarding the second step analysis, remand was required. The court
acknowledged that remanding the case again imposed additional costs
on the parties but emphasized that appellate courts are not
positioned to make factual determinations on matters left
unaddressed by the district court.intro

On remand, the district court must allow the parties to introduce
evidence regarding the fairness and reasonableness of each of the
three provisions found to be unconscionable. The court must enter
findings of fact and legal conclusions reflecting its evaluation
and resolution of these issues. The parties will also have the
opportunity to revisit questions of severability if any provisions
are deemed unenforceable.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
order granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing consistent with the
opinion. Because of the reversal and remand, the court found it
unnecessary to reach Defendant's argument regarding the orders
staying arbitration.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EnF8Os from PacerMonitor.com.


META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Docs Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms,
Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No.
3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order extending Meta's time to respond to the Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to consider whether another Party's materials
should be sealed.

On Sept. 9, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to
consider whether another party's materials should be filed under
seal regarding the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.
Meta is an American multinational technology company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PuZd3F at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law

                - and -

          Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com

                - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
          PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

                - and -

          Andre M. Mura, Esq.
          GIBBS MURA LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607  
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700  
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren Goldman, Esq.
          Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
          Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
          E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
                  dharris@gibsondunn.com
                  emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
                  abarrera@gibsondunn.com

                - and -

          Andrew B. Clubok, Esq.
          Gary S. Feinerman, Esq.
          Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
          Kristin Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh St., NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com
                  gary.feinerman@lw.com
                  melanie.blunschi@lw.com
                  kristin.whitehead@lw.com

METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Frankfort Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD FRANKFORT, et al., v.
METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02283-L (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered an order overruling
the Plaintiffs' objections regarding its Federal Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) claim and granting in part and denying in
part as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that the Plaintiffs'
FDCPA claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is otherwise denied as moot in light of the court's
decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, which are dismissed without
prejudice.

This determination by the court also moots the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and the conclusory request in their
Complaint for "[a] declaration and injunctive relief altering or
suspending [Defendant's] Violation Fine Scheme," which are denied
as moot to the extent based on the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim and
denied without prejudice to the extent based on the Plaintiffs'
state law claims.

On Aug. 29, 2024, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge was entered, recommending that
the court grant the Defendant's' motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) but dismiss without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for alleged violations of the
FDCPA, the Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("TDCPA"), and
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA").

Metropolis is a parking operator in North America.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YexE8E at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


MEYER CORP: Sends Unsolicited Sales Calls, Villaverde Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VILLAVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEYER CORPORATION, U.S.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-014352 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir.,
Broward Cty., September 20, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of transmitting a telephone number to the Caller ID
services of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that
were not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Defendant's
action is part of its marketing strategy to promote its product via
text message sales calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful
business practice, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages.

Meyer Corporation, U.S. is a manufacturer of cookware products,
doing business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
       Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
       SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
       Dunedin, FL 34698
       Telephone: (202) 709-5744
       Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
       Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
              shawn@sjlawcollective.com

MIDLAND NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Suit Due Oct. 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veronica L. Taylor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 5:23-cv-04125-PCP
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order
modifying the Parties' Joint Administrative Motion as follows:

                  Event                         Modified Deadline

  Motion for Class Certification:                 Oct. 27, 2025

  Opposition to Class Certification,              Dec. 19, 2025
  Motions to Exclude Plaintiff Experts:

  Reply to Class Certification, Motions           Jan. 23, 2026
  to Exclude Defense Experts:

The remaining deadlines as outlined in the Case Management Order
remain in effect.  

Midland provides quality service, financial strength, and life
insurance and annuity products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w0dg0M at no extra
charge.[CC] 


MINT MOBILE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss May Suit Set for Oct. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MAY and NATALIE
FLIEGELMAN, v. MINT MOBILE, LLC et al., Case No.
8:25-cv-00731-SRM-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena Murillo
entered an order on joint stipulation to stay case:

  1. This action is stayed pending mediation, which shall take
     place on or before Nov. 30, 2025;

  2. The Parties must file a status report to the Court within 15
     days after the mediation;

  3. The hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, set for
     Oct. 22, 2025, is vacated; and

  4. The deadline to file a class certification motion within 120
     days from the date initially set for the scheduling
     conference as required by Section XI of the Court's Civil
     Standing Order is vacated. A class certification deadline
     will be set following mediation should this matter not
     resolve.

Mint provides wireless telecommunication services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJAhau at no extra
charge.[CC] 


MOINIAN GROUP: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of reports of a
potential Moinian Group data breach.

As part of their investigation, they need to hear from clients who
may have been impacted.

The Moinian Group Security Incident: What Happened?

The Moinian Group, a real estate investment company based in New
York, has reportedly fallen victim to a ransomware attack.
According to reports, ransomware group Abyss posted details about
the Moinian Group data breach on its dark web leak site on
September 11, 2025, claiming to have stolen 4.7 TB of data.

What You Can Do After the Potential Moinian Group Data Breach

If you believe your information may have been exposed, attorneys
want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action
lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent
dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.

A successful case could also force The Moinian Group to ensure it
takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted
with.

Take Action

An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.

Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]


MOLSON COORS: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07822 (S.D.N.Y., September 20, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York
General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://zoaenergy.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that
contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC is a company that sells
online goods and services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
       Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
       Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
       GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
       150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
       New York, NY 10003
       Telephone: (212) 228-9795
       Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
       Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Dismissal of "Anthony" TCPA Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Michael Anthony, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Appellant, v. National
Republican Congressional Committee, a District of Columbia
non-profit organization, Case No. 24-3052 (3d Cir.), Circuit Judge
Phipps of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's dismissal
order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Michael Anthony, a resident of Pennsylvania, filed a three-count
complaint in the District Court against the National Republican
Congressional Committee, a non-profit organization with a principal
place of business in Washington, D.C., on behalf of himself and a
putative class. His claims were predicated on 62 text messages that
he received from the NRCC during the 2020 election season. The
first two counts in the complaint were for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which carries a minimum recovery
of $500 per violation. Anthony alleged that the NRCC violated the
TCPA in two respects: by sending him text messages without his
consent and by sending him text messages after he requested not to
receive any more. The third count was for the tort of intrusion
upon seclusion under Pennsylvania law, again based on the text
messages from the NRCC.

The NRCC moved to dismiss all three counts under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In seeking dismissal of the TCPA counts,
the NRCC argued that the complaint did not contain plausible
allegations of a critical element for the TCPA claims - use of an
automatic telephone dialing system. In moving to dismiss the
intrusion-upon-seclusion count, the NRCC contended, first, that its
sending of the text messages did not rise to the level of highly
offensive harassment or hounding needed for the claim, and second,
that without liability for a TCPA claim, the NRCC could not be
liable for intrusion upon seclusion.

The District Court dismissed the TCPA claims with prejudice for a
failure to allege use of an automatic telephone dialing system. The
District Court dismissed the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim for a
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that without the
TCPA claims, Anthony did not plausibly allege a sufficient amount
in controversy to support either individual diversity jurisdiction
or diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

On de novo review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the TCPA claims. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain plausible allegations for each element of a
claim or, alternatively, allegations that allow a reasonable
inference of the plausibility of each element. A necessary element
of a TCPA claim for misuse of an automatic telephone dialing system
is the actual use of - not simply the capability to use - a random
or sequential number generator. Under this Court's Panzarella
decision, to constitute such use, an automatic telephone dialing
system must generate lists of random or sequential telephone
numbers, and it does not suffice that the automatic telephone
dialing system instead selected a dialing campaign's potential
targets from specific, curated borrower lists.

The Court of Appeals  found that Anthony's complaint does not make
the necessary allegation that the NRCC used an automatic telephone
dialing system. The complaint stated that the NRCC had equipment
that was capable of random or sequential number generation, but
under Panzarella that is not enough. Leave to amend would be futile
because, as explained by Anthony's counsel at oral argument in the
District Court, Anthony cannot allege that the NRCC relied on
equipment to generate his phone number or the other numbers dialed.
Thus, the District Court did not err in dismissing the TCPA claims
with prejudice.

However, the Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of the
intrusion-upon-seclusion claim. The District Court dismissed this
remaining state-law claim for a lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, determining that once the TCPA claims were dismissed
from the case, Anthony's remaining allegations as to the damages
associated with his intrusion-upon-seclusion claim were inadequate
to clear the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold required
for CAFA diversity jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found that
the amount in controversy is evaluated as of the date the complaint
is filed - not after some claims have been dismissed with prejudice
in response to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. With the District Court
having federal-question jurisdiction over the TCPA claims, the
proper inquiry for purposes of CAFA jurisdiction was whether the
amount in controversy from Anthony's TCPA claims together with his
intrusion-upon-seclusion claims exceeded $5 million. They did.
Anthony plausibly alleged that the NRCC sent text messages to
thousands of persons, and at a minimum of $500 per TCPA violation
(and $1,500 per willful violation), it is not a legal certainty
that the amount in controversy, inclusive of both the TCPA claims
and the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, could not exceed $5
million. Accordingly, the District Court's rationale for dismissing
the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim was incorrect.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part the order
granting the NRCC's motion to dismiss, and remanded the case to the
District Court to consider the NRCC's Rule 12(b)(6) motion with
respect to Anthony's intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, as long as
there is no jurisdictional defect with that claim.

A Copy of the Court of Appeals opinion can be found at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca3-24-03052/pdf/USCOURTS-ca3-24-03052-0.pdf
from PacerMonitor.com

NATIONAL SHOOTING: Misuses Firearm Purchasers' Info, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL COCANOUR and DALE RIMKUS, on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. (NSSF), Case
No. 3:25-cv-01571 (D. Conn., Sept. 22, 2025) arises from an NSSF's
decision to disregard the privacy, and misuse the sensitive
information, of millions of law-abiding firearms purchasers.

NSSF describes itself as the "trade association for the firearms
industry," it insists that it cherishes and wants to protect the
privacy of firearms owners.

For example, NSSF celebrated the February 23, 2024, introduction
into the U.S. House of Representatives of a bill called the
"Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act." If enacted, NSSF said, the
bill would protect the "privacy of firearm and ammunition
purchasers" by preventing banks and credit card companies from
"compiling [buyers'] purchase history," which "has already proven
to be exploited by the federal government for political purposes."

According to the complaint, privacy is important to firearms
purchasers. Many firearms purchasers seek to protect themselves
from a dangerous ex-partner. Many others are in law enforcement.
Still others value privacy simply as part of "the right to be let
alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued
by civilized men."

Mr. Cocanour resides and has his home in Oklahoma. He has purchased
some firearms for personal protection and others for hunting. He is
a skilled and experienced user of firearms and in the past has
successfully competed in practical shooting matches.

NSSF was founded in 1961. Initially headquartered in Riverside,
Connecticut, it moved its headquarters to Wilton, Connecticut in
1988. In 1993, it purchased a 20,000-square-foot building in
Newtown, Connecticut for its headquarters.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Riley Breakell, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-1200
          Telephone: (860) 218-2727
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: rbreakell@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Gould, Esq.
          Nicandro Iannacci, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
          Seattle, WA 98101-3268
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: bgould@kellerrohrback.com
                  niannacci@kellerrohrback.com

NEVADA GOLD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE WIEBEN and AUSTIN
STOCKSTILL, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, v. NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-00575-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting NGM's request and
extending the deadline within which to file the opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion until Oct. 14, 2025.

The Parties are largely in agreement that NGM's requested extension
until October 14, 2025, to file the Opposition is proper.

However, in exchange for the extension, the Plaintiffs' counsel
requested equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
The Parties were unable to resolve a dispute regarding the scope of
the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

As a result, it has become necessary for NGM to file this Motion
seeking an extension of time until Oct. 14, 2025, to file its
Opposition.

Nevada Gold is an American gold mining company.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IWrfdJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
          Las Vegas, NV 89145
          Telephone: (702) 320-8400
          E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com

                - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 887-8788
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

                - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony L. Hall, Esq.
          Jonathan A. McGuire, Esq.
          SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC
          690 Sierra Rose Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 785-0088
          E-mail: ahall@shjnevada.com
                  jmcguire@shjnevada.com

                - and -

          Stephen Q. Wood, Esq.
          Alexander S. Allred, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 520
          Salt Lake City, UT 84121
          Telephone: (801) 515-7300
          E-mail: stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com
                  alexallred@quinnemanuel.com

NEW YORK CITY: Must Pay $350K Incentive Award to Wilds-Bethea
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Elsa Gulino, et al., Plaintiffs v. The
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, Defendant, Case No. 96-CV-8414 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kimba
M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York adopts the Special Master's Report and Recommendation and
awards Plaintiff Peter Wilds-Bethea an incentive award of
$350,000.

The Court referred this case to Special Master John S. Siffert on
May 20, 2014, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(B) and
the Court's inherent equitable powers and authority. On August 6,
2025, Special Master Siffert filed a Report and Recommendation
regarding incentive awards for Peter Wilds-Bethea, the Estate of
Elsa Gulino, and Dianne Nia Greene. The Special Master recommended
that the Court adopt the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for each Named Plaintiff and direct entry of the Proposed
Judgments.

On September 5, 2025, the Court adopted the Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Estate of Elsa Gulino and
Dianne Nia Greene, and reserved judgment on the incentive award for
Peter Wilds-Bethea because the parties had not yet completed
briefing on the matter. On September 8, 2025, the Court entered
judgments for the Estate of Elsa Gulino and Dianne Nia Greene.

The parties could not reach agreement despite participating in
mediation sessions led by the Special Master regarding the
incentive award for Peter Wilds-Bethea. Plaintiffs consistently
demanded a $2.9 million incentive award while Defendant objected to
any amount higher than $272,996, the average backpay award to class
members as of April 19, 2022. On June 11, 2024, Mr. Wilds-Bethea
wrote a letter to the Court providing his rationale for a
significant incentive award.

The Court reviewed the matter de novo as required under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f). The decision to grant an incentive
award and the decision regarding the amount of the award rest
entirely within the discretion of the court. The Court found that
an incentive award of $350,000 for Peter Wilds-Bethea is fair and
appropriate, and does not exceed the amount necessary to serve its
purpose.

The purpose of an incentive award is two-fold: (1) to reward a
class representative for the additional work he performs on the
class's behalf, and (2) to encourage others to participate in
future class action lawsuits as class representatives. When
determining a fair and appropriate incentive award, courts in this
district consider (1) the time and effort the named plaintiff or
class representative expended in assisting the prosecution of the
litigation, and (2) special circumstances such as personal or
professional risks incurred in becoming and continuing as a named
plaintiff or class representative.

Peter Wilds-Bethea has been involved with this class action for
close to 30 years, serving as a class representative for more than
23 years, and as the sole class representative for the remedial
phase of this action. He has been involved with the case since its
inception, meeting with counsel to file the complaint in 1996. Over
the course of almost three decades, Mr. Wilds-Bethea expended
significant time and effort in assisting Plaintiffs' counsel with
the prosecution of this case.

Mr. Wilds-Bethea met with class counsel to discuss the litigation
and the class's certification, and to assist with discovery. He was
deposed twice in March 2001 and April 2013 and attended parts of
the eight-week trial between December 2002 and April 2003. After
the trial, he continued to communicate with Plaintiffs' counsel and
other class members. In support of his demand for a $2.9 million
incentive award, Mr. Wilds-Bethea submitted time records for
approximately 113 calls and meetings with Plaintiffs' counsel
totaling more than 235.5 hours as of April 2021.

Mr. Wilds-Bethea also faced notable personal and professional risks
by becoming a named plaintiff and class representative. At the time
the complaint was filed in 1996, Mr. Wilds-Bethea was working as a
substitute teacher for the BOE. He worried about how his
involvement in the class action would be viewed by the
administrators and colleagues at school. He was also concerned that
his role as a named plaintiff would impact his ability to secure
future employment, and lead to retaliation as he continued to work
for the BOE.

The Court previously found that the agreed-upon incentive awards of
$272,996 each for the Estate of Elsa Gulino and Dianne Nia Greene
were reasonable. Mr. Wilds-Bethea has been involved with the class
action for a longer time period than the other Named Plaintiffs,
and contributed more time and effort in advancing the litigation,
notably serving as the sole class representative during the
remedial phase of this litigation since 2013.

The Court agreed with the Special Master and with Plaintiffs that
this warrants an incentive award higher than $272,996. However,
after reviewing the relevant precedent on incentive awards in this
Circuit, the Court held that Plaintiffs' requested award of $2.9
million would be excessive, and not commensurate with Mr.
Wilds-Bethea's contributions to the litigation.

The Court held that an incentive award of $350,000 to Peter
Wilds-Bethea is fair, appropriate, and reasonable. It adequately
rewards him for the work he performed on the class's behalf and is
no more than necessary to incentivize class representatives to
perform such work in future cases. The Court noted that this
incentive award will be the largest ever awarded to an individual
in this district, when compensatory damages and reimbursement of
expenses are excluded, and will serve the policy purpose of
encouraging others to bring Title VII class actions and serve as
class representatives.

Accordingly, the Court adopted the Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law with respect to Peter Wilds-Bethea, and awarded
him an incentive award of $350,000. The Court will enter his
Proposed Judgment reflecting that incentive award. For the reasons
set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court held there is
no just reason for delay and certified the judgment as final and
appealable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fgpIyr from PacerMonitor.com.


NEW YORK: Faces Karwas Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
----------------------------------------------------------
TOMASZ KARWAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER ENTERPRISES,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07784 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach between January 20 and January 26, 2025. The Defendant also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties.

New York Blood Center Enterprises is a non-profit corporation, with
its principal place of business in Rye, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         MASON LLP
         5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
         Washington, DC 20015
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         Email: gmason@masonllp.com

NEXTCARE HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing in Begay Due March 16, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Begay v. NextCare Holdings
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01685 (D. Ariz., Filed July 9, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Sharad H. Desai entered an order extending the deadline
for filing a motion for class certification up to an including
March 16, 2026.

The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.

NextCare provides urgent care and occupational medical
services.[CC]

NIKE INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement of Class Claims Due Oct. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cahill, et al., v. Nike,
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01477 (D. Or., Filed Aug. 9, 2018), the Hon.
Judge Amy M. Baggio entered an order adopting the parties' Proposed
Joint Case Management Schedule setting forth dates to file
simultaneous, parallel, briefing on:

   (1) The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion to alter
       or amend the class certification order335 pursuant to Rule
       23(c)(1)(C), in which Plaintiffs are to address whether it
       is procedurally appropriate to file such a motion at this
       juncture in the case, and

   (2) Defendant's motion to enforce a settlement of the putative
       class claims.

       -- Motions are due Oct. 7, 2025

       -- Oppositions are due Oct. 28, 2025

       -- Optional replies are due Nov. 12, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Equal Pay Act.

Nike is a supplier of athletic shoes and apparel.[CC]
 


NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Charging System
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan North America,
Inc. over defects in the charging system of its 2019 to 2022 Nissan
Leaf vehicles.

According to the lawsuit brought on behalf of multiple owners and
lessees of the 2019 to 2022 Nissan Leaf vehicles, the cars were
marketed as being compatible with Level 3 fast chargers, the
fastest method for charging electric vehicles. However, these
vehicles are equipped with high-voltage batteries that are at
significant risk of overheating during Level 3 fast charging. This
flaw could lead to a fire hazard and severely limits the cars'
usability and range. This defect was allegedly known to Nissan
before the vehicles were sold.

"Consumers were led to believe they could use the Level 3 charging
system, only to find that a defect in the vehicle's battery makes
it too dangerous to use," said Chris Rodriguez, a partner at
Singleton Schreiber, which is representing the plaintiffs.
"Nissan's failure to disclose this defect—and to be honest about
the defect when it eventually was disclosed—is a clear case of
misleading advertising, and now those who bought or leased these
vehicles are left without a functional car that meets the promised
capabilities."

In response to the defect, Nissan issued a notice to owners in
October 2024, advising them to avoid using Level 3 charging
stations while it worked on a "software fix," but has not provided
a permanent solution or "software fix" as promised. The plaintiffs
are seeking restitution, civil penalties, damages for lost vehicle
value, and an order requiring Nissan to replace the defective
charging systems with a safe and functional solution.

The lawsuit further accuses Nissan of violating consumer protection
laws, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent business
practices, and breach of warranty under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Singleton Schreiber is a client-centered law firm, focusing on mass
torts and multi-district litigation, fire litigation, personal
injury/wrongful death, civil rights, environmental law, insurance
bad faith, tribal law, and sex abuse/trafficking.

Home to the nation's largest fire litigation practice, the firm has
represented more than 30,000 wildfire and explosion victims and
played leading roles in cases such as the 2025 Eaton Fire, Moss
Landing Battery Fire, Esparto Fireworks Explosion, and the 2023
Maui Fires.

Singleton Schreiber is also pursuing groundbreaking cases against
Tesla for its misrepresented autopilot system and serving in
leadership in the national hair relaxer litigation, as well as
advocating for survivors of abuse involving major hotel chains.

With deep experience in complex claims, the firm is committed to
holding corporations accountable and helping individuals, families,
and communities recover. [GN]

NORTH AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid in Blisten Suit Due Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barry Blisten,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Case No.
5:23-cv-04123-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts
entered an order modifying the Parties' Joint Administrative Motion
as follows:

                  Event                         Modified Deadline

  Motion for Class Certification:                 Oct. 27, 2025

  Opposition to Class Certification,              Dec. 19, 2025
  Motions to Exclude Plaintiff Experts:

  Reply to Class Certification, Motions           Jan. 23, 2026
  to Exclude Defense Experts:

The remaining deadlines as outlined in the Case Management Order
remain in effect.  

North provides life insurance and annuities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=USZzv4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


NUTRISYSTEM LLC: Villaverde Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VILLAVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRISYSTEM, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-25-014353 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
September 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act (FTSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of transmitting a telephone number to the Caller ID
services of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that
were not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Defendant's
action is part of its marketing strategy to promote its product via
text message sales calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful
business practice, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages,
says the suit.

Nutrisystem, LLC is a commercial provider of weight loss products
and services headquartered in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
       Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
       SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
       Dunedin, FL 34698
       Telephone: (202) 709-5744
       Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
       Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
              shawn@sjlawcollective.com

ONEBLOOD INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that OneBlood, Inc. will
pay up to $1 million to resolve a class action lawsuit filed in
Florida over a data breach the blood donation center operator
experienced in July 2024.

The OneBlood class action settlement received preliminary approval
from the court on August 21, 2025 and covers anyone whose personal
information was compromised in the OneBlood data breach and to whom
the company provided written notice about the incident.

The court-approved website for the OneBlood settlement can be found
at OneBloodDataSettlement.com.

According to the website, the OneBlood settlement offers eligible
class members either a cash payout of up to $2,500 for reasonable
documented losses stemming from the data breach or, in the
alternative, a cash payment of $60.

OneBlood class members are required to submit reasonable supporting
documentation in order to receive a documented loss payment from
the settlement. Reimbursable losses from the OneBlood data breach
include bank fees, overdraft charges or declined payment fees
stemming from fraud; credit monitoring or identity theft protection
costs; credit freeze costs; costs for the replacement of
government-issued identification or documents, and more.

The website specifies that the maximum amount to be paid by
OneBlood for the settlement is $1 million. In the event that all
cash payments, settlement administration costs, service awards and
attorneys' fees approved by the court amount to more than $1
million, cash payouts to class members will be reduced on a pro
rata, or equal percentage, basis, the website states.

To submit a OneBlood data breach settlement claim form online, head
to this page and enter the class member ID found in the notice you
should have received about the deal.

Alternatively, OneBlood class members can download a PDF of the
settlement claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the
settlement administrator.

All OneBlood settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by
mail by December 4, 2025.

The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the
OneBlood class action settlement at a hearing on December 9, 2025.
It is typically after a class action settlement has been ultimately
approved by the court that benefits begin to be distributed to
eligible class members.

OneBlood runs blood donation centers in Florida, Georgia and the
Carolinas. The company experienced a data breach in July 2024 that
compromised the names, Social Security numbers and other
information of 167,400 people. OneBlood confirmed in an August 2024
notice on its website that it had fallen victim to a "ransomware
event," which the settlement website states occurred between July
14 and July 29 of last year. [GN]

OWLET INC: Class Settlement in Butala Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. BUTALA, et al.,
v. OWLET, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-09016-FLA-SSC (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and
preliminarily approving settlement stipulation for section 14(a)
Claims.

  1. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), and for the purposes of
     the Settlement only, the Action is preliminarily certified as

     a class action on behalf of all Persons, other than
     Defendants, that held Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation
     ("Sandbridge") common stock as of June 1, 2021 and were
     eligible to vote at Sandbridge's special meeting on July 14,
     2021 (the "Settlement Class").  

     Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) Defendants; (b)
     current and former officers and directors of the Company; (c)

     members of the immediate family of each of the Individual
     Defendants; (d) all subsidiaries and affiliates of the
     Company and the directors and officers of such subsidiaries
     or affiliates; (e) all persons, firms, trusts, corporations,
     officers, directors, and any other individual or entity in
     which any of the Defendants have a controlling interest; (f)
     the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs,
     successors-in-interest or assigns of all such excluded
     parties; and (g) any persons or entities who properly exclude

     themselves by filing a valid and timely request for
     exclusion.

  2. The court preliminarily approves the Settlement, subject to
     further consideration at a hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e),
     which is scheduled to be held before the court on Feb. 6,
     2026 at 1:30 p.m.

  3. Within thirty (30) days from the later of (a) entry of an
     Order of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, and (b)
     transmission to the Defendants' Counsel of full payee and
     payment information for the Settlement Fund Account,
     including an executed W-9 form, wire instructions, and the
     name and contact information of an individual that can verify

     the wire instructions, Defendants shall cause to be wired, or

     paid by check or draft, at the sole election of Defendants,
     to the Escrow Agent $1,710,000 (One Million Seven Hundred Ten

     Thousand Dollars) to be deposited into the Settlement Fund.


Owlet provides digital parenting solutions in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and internationally.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oqOgEr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, Floor 20
          New York, NY 10016

The Defendants are represented by:

          Colleen C. Smith, Esq.
          Christopher Turner, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          12670 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          E-mail: colleen.smith@lw.com
                  christopher.turner@lw.com

                - and -

          Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4006
          E-mail: anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com

PARAMOUNT GROUP: M&A Investigates Sale to Rithm Capital
-------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars
for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at
the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating

-- Paramount Group, Inc. (NYSE: PGRE) related to its sale to Rithm
Capital Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
Paramount shareholders will receive $6.60 in cash per share.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/paramount-group-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY) related to its sale to
California Resources Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Berry shareholders will have their shares converted
into 0.0718 shares of California Resources common stock.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berry-corporation/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- 89bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: ETNB) related to its sale to Roche
Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, 89bio
shareholders will receive $14.50 per share in cash at closing, plus
a non-tradeable contingent value right to receive certain
contingent payments of up to an aggregate of $6.00 per share in
cash upon achievement of specified milestones.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/89bio-inc/. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

-- Compass, Inc. (NYSE: COMP) related to its merger with Anywhere
Real Estate Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction,
current Compass shareholders will own approximately 78% of the
combined company.

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/compass-inc/. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:
  
     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

PARKER PLASTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Generose Due Nov. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Generose v. Parker
Plastics Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01188 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Sept. 18,
2024), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order granting
joint motion to modify scheduling order.

The parties ask the Court to modify the Scheduling Order by
vacating the conditional certification deadline and setting a
single deadline for collective and class certification of November
12, 2025, which is already the deadline for class certification and
the decertification of the collective class.

The conditional certification deadline is vacated and the deadline
for collective and class certification is set for Nov. 12, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Parker is a custom blow molder of plastic bottles and
containers.[CC]



PAYCOR INC: Collects Website Visitor's Data, Velasco Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIANCA DIANE VELASCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PAYCOR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-08947 (C.D. Cal.,
Sept. 19, 2025) alleges that Paycor uses data broker software on
its website -- https://www.paycor.com/company -- to secretly
collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and
browsing habits.

Accordingly, the data broker software then compiles this data, and
correlates it with extensive external records the data broker
already has about most Californians, for the purpose of learning
the identity of the Website visitor.

The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software
without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and
Trace Law, asserts the suit.

Paycor offers businesses of all sizes a software suite and a
platform that includes automated payroll and tax services, human
resources and compliance management, time and attendance tracking,
and recruiting and "onboarding" tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Tauler, Esq.
          J. Evan Shapiro, Esq.
          TAULER SMITH LLP
          626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 927-9270
          E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
                  eshapiro@taulersmith.com

PAYLESS CAR: Settles Unlawful Fees Class Action Suit for $19-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $19 million
settlement resolves a class action lawsuit that alleged Payless Car
Rental and Avis Budget Group charged consumers for add-on products
that they had already declined.

The Payless rental class action settlement received preliminary
court approval on August 21, 2025 and covers all United States and
Canada residents who, between January 1, 2016 and November 25,
2023, rented from Payless Car Rental in the U.S. and, in connection
with that rental, subsequently paid Payless gas service option
(GSO) and/or roadside protection (RSP) fees.

The court-approved website for the Payless car rental settlement
can be found at PaylessRentalSettlement.com.

No action is required on the part of Payless settlement class
members to receive up to $20 for each rental with a GSO charge and
up to $12 for each rental with an RSP charge. Settlement payments
will be distributed either digitally or by check at the settlement
administrator's discretion unless class members select a specific
payment form on the website for the deal.

To select a specific payment method, class members can visit this
page and log in with the unique class member ID found in their copy
of the settlement notice. Class members may opt to receive their
settlement payout by Venmo, Zelle or e-check by November 10 of this
year; otherwise, payment will be sent digitally or by check as
determined by the settlement administrator, the website says.

Should any payments remain uncashed or unredeemed within 90 days of
receipt, those funds will be redistributed among the Payless
settlement class, with the same $20 and $12 per rental limits,
respectively.

Additionally, Payless Car Rental has agreed to change its sales
processes regarding add-on and ancillary products and will now
require affirmative consent from customers before charging them for
such products.

A hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2025 to determine whether
the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Payments
will begin to be distributed to class members only after final
approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved.

The Payless Car Rental class action lawsuit claimed that the
company charged consumers for add-on services -- namely, a gas
service option and roadside protection -- that they did not
expressly agree to purchase or receive. [GN]

PEKIN, IL: Supreme Court Backs Withholding Tax on Disability Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Christopher Bitner et al., Appellants v.
The City of Pekin, Appellee, Docket No. 131039, Justice Cunningham
of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois affirms the appellate
court's judgment reversing the circuit court.

The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed that section 1(b) of the
Illinois Public Employee Disability Act does not prohibit public
employers from withholding employment taxes from disability
payments made to injured employees. The court rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that such withholding violates the statute's
requirement to pay injured employees on the same basis as before
their injuries.

The plaintiffs, Christopher Bitner and John Brooks, were police
officers for the City of Pekin who were injured in the line of duty
in separate incidents. Following their injuries, both officers
received payments from the defendant pursuant to section 1(b) of
the Disability Act. The provision states that whenever an eligible
employee suffers any injury in the line of duty which causes him to
be unable to perform his duties, he shall continue to be paid by
the employing public entity on the same basis as he was paid before
the injury, with no deduction from his sick leave credits,
compensatory time for overtime accumulations or vacation, or
service credits in a public employee pension fund during the time
he is unable to perform his duties due to the result of the
injury."

During the time the plaintiffs were injured and unable to perform
their duties, the defendant continued to pay their salaries in the
same manner as before the injuries occurred. This meant that the
defendant continued to withhold employment taxes, including federal
and state income taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes.

On November 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint
against the defendant in the circuit court of Tazewell County. The
complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the defendant violated
section 1(b) of the Disability Act when it withheld employment
taxes from the plaintiffs' disability payments and deducted from
their accrued sick, vacation, or compensatory time.

The defendant filed an answer admitting that it withheld employment
taxes from the plaintiffs' Disability Act payments but denied that
it required the plaintiffs to use any of their accrued sick,
vacation, or compensatory time. The defendant also raised
affirmative defenses related specifically to Bitner regarding
collective bargaining agreement grievance procedures and statute of
limitations issues.

In April 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
maintaining they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
their claims. The plaintiffs argued that section 1(b) of the
Disability Act prohibits the withholding of employment taxes and
pointed primarily to federal law in support. They noted that under
section 104(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, amounts received as
compensation for personal injuries or sickness under workers'
compensation acts do not constitute gross income.

The circuit court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on July
20, 2023. The court concluded that section 1(b) of the Disability
Act prohibits a public employer from withholding employment taxes.
The circuit court found that under federal law, payments made under
section 1(b) are not income subject to withholding and that section
1(b)'s requirement that an injured employee be paid on the same
basis as before the injury meant that he must receive his gross
pay.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case to
the circuit court. The appellate court noted that section 1(b)
specifically prohibits public employers from deducting sick,
vacation, and compensatory time but that the statute says nothing
about taxes and nothing about prohibiting the withholding of
employment taxes. The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs'
reliance on various federal laws and regulations, stating that it
would be improper to refer to those authorities because doing so
would require the court to go outside the text of section 1(b) to
interpret it.

The Supreme Court of Illinois granted the plaintiffs' petition for
leave to appeal and allowed the Illinois Municipal League to file
an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's position.
Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued only that the
appellate court erred in its interpretation of section 1(b).

The Supreme Court determined that section 1(b) presents an issue of
statutory construction. The court noted that when determining
legislative intent, the starting point always is the language of
the statute, which is the most reliable indicator of the
legislature's objectives in enacting the particular law." The court
began its analysis with the language of the statute itself rather
than with the term full pay, which appears nowhere in section
1(b).

The court found that the phrase on the same basis clearly means
that an injured employee is to be paid from the regular payroll in
the same manner as if the employee was on duty and in active
service. Therefore, if a public employer withheld employment taxes
from an employee's pay before an injury, it may continue to do so
after the injury to maintain payment on the same basis as before
the injury.

The court applied the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius,
noting that section 1(b) expressly prohibits public employers from
deducting sick leave credits, compensatory time for overtime
accumulations or vacation, or service credits in a public employee
pension fund, yet says nothing about prohibiting the withholding of
employment taxes. Accordingly, the court concluded that nothing in
the plain language of the statute prohibits public employers from
withholding employment taxes from disability payments made under
section 1(b).

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that allowing
withholding would yield absurd or unjust consequences. The court
noted that even if section 1(b) payments are not subject to federal
income tax, requiring public employers to determine when employment
taxes should and should not be withheld can create an
administrative burden, particularly when employees are on repeated,
short periods of leave. The court found that section 1(b) eases
that burden by allowing the public employer to continue payments in
the same way they were made before the injury occurred.

The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the appellate court's
judgment reversing the circuit court's judgment. The court remanded
the matter to the circuit court with directions to enter summary
judgment for the defendant on the plaintiffs' claim that the
defendant unlawfully withheld employment taxes and for further
proceedings on Bitner's claim that the defendant improperly
deducted sick, vacation, or compensatory time.

A copy of the Supreme Court Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PVKUIx from PacerMonitor.com.


PEOPLECONNECT INC: Jackson Appeals Court Order to 4th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JACKSON is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Michael Jackson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PeopleConnect, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00102-MFU, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Braxton County, West
Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, is brought against the Defendants for
alleged violation of West Virginia's Daniel's Law by disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise making available the home addresses or
unpublished home or personal telephone number of thousands of
active, formerly active, or retired judicial officers, prosecutors,
federal or state public defenders, federal or state assistant
public defenders, or law-enforcement officers from West Virginia
without their written permission.

The appellate case is entitled Michael Jackson v. PeopleConnect,
Inc., Case No. 25-2124, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
         KATZ, KANTOR, STONESTREET & BUCKNER PLLC
         206 South Walker Street
         Princeton, WV 24740
         Telephone: (304) 431-4050

                - and -

         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1330 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150

Defendants-Appellees PEOPLECONNECT, INC., et al. are represented
by:

         Jennifer Carroll Archie, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
         555 11th Street NW
         Washington, DC 20004
         Telephone: (202) 637-2200

                 - and -

         Patricia M. Bello, Esq.
         Zachary B. Metz, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
         707 Virginia Street, East
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 553-0166
                    (304) 553-0135

                 - and -

         Robert C. Collins, III, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
         330 North Wabash Avenue
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (312) 876-7700

                 - and -

         Samir I. Deger-Sen, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
         1271 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (212) 906-4619

PERFECT BAR: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Perfect Bar, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11434 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 22,
2025) alleges that Perfect failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, Perfectsnacks.com, to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, Perfectsnacks.com contains significant
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually-impaired customers to use the website.

The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class
under the ADA.

Perfectsnacks.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by the
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

PF CALI: Strandholt Seeks to Continue Class Cert Briefing Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK
LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will apply for an order continuing the motion
for class certification briefing deadlines and hearing date
accordingly, and seeking leave to depose the Defendants'
declarants.

Good cause supports the Court continuing the motion for class
certification briefing-related deadlines, and hearing date
accordingly, to allow the Plaintiffs adequate opportunity to depose
all 44 of the declarants in the Defendants' Compendium of Employee
Declarations In Support of Defendants' Opposition To the
Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek leave from the Court to depose
all 44 declarants pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2). This requested
continuance also does not impact the currently set trial and
pre-trial deadlines.

The Plaintiffs appreciate the Court's consideration of both
applications.

PF is a payroll service provider.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LJ3LQW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          Chloe J. Sykes, Esq.
          Cassandra A. Castro, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  jklein@lelawfirm.com
                  csykes@lelawfirm.com

                - and -

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
                  jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com

PFIZER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Contraceptives' Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that the drugmaker Pfizer faces a US lawsuit
brought on behalf of women who developed brain tumours, which they
say are linked to their use of the company's contraceptive
injection Depo-Provera.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the US pharmaceutical company
failed to warn women and doctors about an increased risk of
developing an intracranial meningioma if Depo-Provera, a quarterly
injection, is used for more than a year.

A court hearing will take place in Pensacola, Florida, on Monday,
October 6.

Since May, the number of lawsuits filed by women in the US against
Pfizer has tripled to more than 1,300, which have been consolidated
in the multi-district litigation, according to the law firm Levin
Papantonio, which is bringing the action.

The potential claim value could be several billion dollars, with
the number of lawsuits expected to rise to between 5,000 and 10,000
from women in the US.

A study published in the British Medical Journal in March 2024
found that prolonged use of certain progestogen medications was
linked to a greater risk of intracranial meningioma, which are
tumours that form in tissues around the brain. Medroxyprogesterone
acetate, sold as Depo-Provera, was linked to a 5.6-fold higher
risk.

Meningioma is the most common type of benign brain tumour. They
grow slowly and are not usually cancerous but can cause vision or
hearing loss, headaches and seizures, and often need surgical
removal. The surgery carries risks such as potential damage to
brain structures near the tumours.

Other studies also found an elevated risk associated with the
Pfizer drug.

The hearing will address oral arguments from Levin Papantonio on
behalf of affected women, and Pfizer concerning the issue of
pre-emption. It will focus on five pilot cases to test whether the
company can rely on a pre-emption defence -- common in drug
litigation -- to avoid liability.

Pfizer argues that it tried to have a tumour warning attached to
the drug's label but this was rejected by the US regulator, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The company said in its court filings: "This is a clear pre-emption
case because FDA expressly barred Pfizer from adding a warning
about meningioma risk, which plaintiffs say state law required."

The plaintiffs argue that Pfizer's pre-emption defence fails
because its request to the FDA was too broad, grouping Depo-Provera
with other lower-dose hormonal contraceptives, and this led to the
regulator's decision not to approve a tumour warning on the drug's
label in the US.

It is thought about 247 million women worldwide take hormonal
contraceptives. In the US, nearly a quarter of sexually active
women have used Depo-Provera in their lifetime.

Marketed in the UK since the 1980s, Depo-Provera is used by 15% of
women in the country, also for endometriosis. The warning label was
updated last year.

Pfizer has said it is "aware of this potential risk associated with
long-term use of progestogens" and has also updated label warnings
in Canada and Europe.

Virginia Buchanan, a partner at Levin Papantonio and
court-appointed co-chair of the plaintiffs' executive committee,
said: "Pfizer is attempting to avoid accountability by invoking a
pre-emption defence, yet there are serious questions about whether
it ever provided the FDA with the full picture.

"Pre-emption was never meant to serve as a shield for drug
companies that fail to warn patients adequately. Pfizer has
consistently failed to take reasonable steps to alert patients and
their physicians to this very real danger."

The US law firm Berger Montague is investigating whether Pfizer's
board breached its fiduciary duties in its marketing and sale of
Depo-Provera, for a potential shareholder legal action. [GN]

PIXELOGIC MEDIA: Faces D.N. Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
D. N., an individual, Plaintiff v. Pixelogic Media Partners, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV26956
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 15, 2025) is a class
action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
California employees against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code.

The complaint asserts that Defendants violated the state laws by
failing to pay for all hours worked in part by encouraging
employees to work through meal breaks while off the clock; failing
to pay overtime pay; failing to pay minimum wages; failing to pay
premium pay for un-provided meal periods during which similarly
situated employees were not relieved of all duty or obligation;
failing to pay premium pay for un-provided rest periods during
which similarly situated employees were not relieved of all duty or
obligation; failing to keep accurate records; failing to authorize
and permit lawful rest periods; failing to provide lawful meal
periods, including failing to provide a second meal period for time
worked over 10 hours; violating pay-stub requirements; conducting
unfair business practices related to wage-and-hour requirements;
and violating other Cal. Lab. Code requirements.

The Plaintiff was also allegedly retaliated against for notifying
Defendant of wage and hour violations under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff was hired by Pixelogic and began work on about
October 23, 2021 as an English Scheduler, also known as a
Production Coordinator.

Pixelogic Media Partners, LLC provides distribution services and
technology solutions to the entertainment industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          I. Benjamin Blady, Esq.
          BLADY WORKFORCE LAW GROUP, APC
          5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 535
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 933-1352  
          Facsimile: (323) 933-1353
          E-mail: bblady@bwlawgroup.com

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Settles Debt Collection Class Suit for $500,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that Progressive Direct Insurance Co.
agreed to a $500,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims it violated Florida law by sending late-night emails to
collect debts.

The settlement benefits Florida residents who received a debt
collection email from Progressive between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. local
time between July 2, 2022, and May 16, 2025.

According to the class action lawsuit, Progressive sent emails
between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (FCCPA). The plaintiff in the case says
she received emails from Progressive during these hours.

Progressive is an insurance company that offers car, motorcycle,
boat, RV, home, renters, life and other types of insurance.

Progressive has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$500,000 class action settlement to resolve the FCCPA allegations.

Under the terms of the Progressive settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment. Payments will be distributed on a pro rata
basis, with each class member receiving a proportional share of the
net settlement fund based on the number of valid claims filed. No
payment estimates are available at this time.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 7, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the Progressive settlement is
scheduled for Dec. 8, 2025.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Nov. 24, 2025.

Who's Eligible

Florida residents who, between July 2, 2022, and May 16, 2025,
received a Florida debt collection email from Progressive between
the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. local time to the individual's
residential address.

Potential Award
Pro rata cash payment

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
11/24/2025

Case Name
Frechou v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., Case No. 24-000584-CA,
in the Circuit Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit in and for Bay
County, Florida

Final Hearing
12/08/2025

Settlement Website
ElectronicCommsSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Frechou v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company
     c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
     P.O. Box 225391
     New York, NY 10150-5391
     (833) 621-8303

Class Counsel

     Christopher Gold
     GOLD LAW P.A.

     Mariya Weekes
     MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

Defense Counsel

     Zachary S. Foster
     QUARLES & BRADY LLP [GN]

PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Final Class Settlement in "Knight" OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Erik Knight and Jung Kim, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, Progressive Direct
Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, and Progressive Classic
Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203-JM (E.D.
Ark.), Judge James M. Moody Jr. of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted final approval of a
class action settlement and granted the motion for attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and service awards.

The Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
and personal jurisdiction over the parties and the Settlement Class
Members. The Court confirmed as final its certification of the
Settlement Classes for settlement purposes based on its findings in
the Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any objections
from Class Members to such certification. The Court confirmed the
appointments of Erik Knight and Jung Kim as Settlement Class
Representatives for the Settlement Classes. The Court also
confirmed the appointments of Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Normand PLLC, Edelsberg Law, P.A., and
Shamis & Gentile as Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finally approved and confirmed the Settlement embodied in the
Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the
best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court
specifically considered all factors relevant to class settlement
approval, including the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2) and In
re Wireless, 396 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2005).

Having considered the terms of the Settlement and the record before
it, the Court found that the Class Representatives and Class
Counsel adequately represented the interests of Settlement Class
Members; the settlement consideration provided under the Settlement
constituted fair value given in exchange for the release of the
Released Claims against the Released Parties; the Settlement was
the result of arm's-length negotiations by experienced,
well-qualified counsel that included a day-long mediation conducted
by a neutral mediator; and the Settlement was reasonable and
appropriate under the circumstances of the action, including the
risks, complexity, expense and duration of the action, as well as
the reaction of the Settlement Classes. The Court further found
that these facts, in addition to the Court's observations
throughout the litigation, demonstrated that there was no collusion
present in the reaching of the Settlement Agreement, implicit or
otherwise.

The Court found that the notice program as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary
Approval Order satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and due process and constituted the best notice
practicable under the circumstances. The Court also found that the
Settlement Class Members' reaction to the Settlement was positive.
Not one Settlement Class Member objected to the Settlement, and
only two Class Members opted out at the settlement stage. Two
others opted out earlier in response to the notice of class
certification.

The four individuals identified in the Supplemental Declaration of
Cameron Azari on Implementation and Adequacy of Settlement Notice
Plan as having timely and validly requested exclusion from the
action and the Settlement Classes were excluded. These individuals
were not included in or bound by the Settlement or the Order and
were not entitled to any recovery from the settlement proceeds
obtained through the Settlement.

The Court approved the Settlement in all respects and ordered that
the Settlement Agreement be consummated and implemented in
accordance with its terms and conditions.

The Court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to resolve
any disputes or challenges that may arise as to compliance with the
Settlement Agreement, or any challenge to the performance,
validity, interpretation, administration, enforcement, or
enforceability of the Notice, the Order, or the Settlement
Agreement.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,963,531.00 was
granted because the amount was fair and reasonable and consistent
with fee awards in the Eighth Circuit and beyond.

The attorneys' fee requested was also supported by the Court's
consideration of the factors set forth in Johnson v. Ga. Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), including the results
obtained; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; the
skill, experience, and expertise of the attorneys; the time and
labor expended; the customary fee; awards in similar cases; and the
contingent nature of the fee.

The Court approved costs of $112,000.00 incurred by Class Counsel
in the prosecution and settlement of the action. The costs sought
were fair and reasonable under Rule 23 and applicable caselaw, and
were less than Class Counsel's actual out-of-pocket expenses of
$118,420.68.

The Court found the service awards requested were reasonable and
warranted, and approved service awards to each Plaintiff in the
amounts of $10,000.00 to Plaintiff Knight and $5,000.00 to
Plaintiff Kim.

The action was dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear
its own costs.

Upon the Effective Date and by operation of the Order and Final
Judgment, the Settlement Class Members who did not timely exclude
themselves from the action or the Settlement Classes were deemed to
have, and by operation of the Final Judgment had, fully, finally,
and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released
Claims against the Released Parties. Upon the Effective Date, and
to the fullest extent permitted by law, each Settlement Class
Member was permanently barred and enjoined from filing, commencing,
prosecuting, continuing, pursuing, intervening in, or participating
in any lawsuit, action, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction
against any Released Party based on the Released Claims.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=19C17G from PacerMonitor.com

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Matthews Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM MATTHEWS, as an
individual and as Administrator of the Estate of Hedwig Nosek,
Deceased, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-00497-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff, on Dec. 8, 2025, will seek an Order certifying a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs request the Court delay hearing on this motion for
the discovery disputes to be resolved by the Magistrate Judge and
for Plaintiffs to obtain pre-certification discovery.

If the Court denies this request, the Plaintiffs move the Court for
an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that:

  1. Certifying this case as a class action with the Class defined

     as:

     "All individuals who have or had Prudential long-term care
     insurance policies ("LTC policies"), resided in California
     while receiving benefits under their LTC policies and
     experienced a reduction in their benefits (including, but not

     limited to, lifetime maximum benefits or "LMB") due to
     Prudential's erroneous application of Inflation Offers during

     the five years preceding the filing of this action.

  2. Appointing Plaintiff Kim Matthews, as an individual and as
     Administrator of the Estate of Hedwig Nosek (Deceased) as
     Class Representative.

  3. Appointing Kevin Mahoney, Katherine J. Odenbreit and George
     B. Singer of Mahoney Law Group, APC as Class Counsel.

Prudential operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZJ2U7t at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          George B. Singer, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  gsinger@mahoney-law.net

QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Xanol Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ZANOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUANEX BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, GEORGE
L. WILSON, and SCOTT M. ZUEHLKE, Case No. 4:25-cv-04453 (S.D. Tex.,
Sept. 19, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Quanex securities between
December 12, 2024, and September 5, 2025, inclusive, pursuing
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On August 1, 2024, Quanex announced it closed on its acquisition of
Tyman plc, for an aggregate consideration of approximately $1.1
billion dollars. Tyman is a United Kingdom-based manufacturer of
building components, including handles, hardware and sealing
components for residential and commercial applications.

On September 4, 2025, after the market closed, Quanex announced
financial results for the third quarter of the 2025 fiscal year.
The Company disclosed, among other things, that there were
"operational issues related to the legacy Tyman window and door
hardware business in Mexico that are ongoing" which "impacted
results more than expected during the third quarter of 2025."

Specifically, the Company reported a diluted EPS of ($6.04),
compared to $0.77 in the prior year period and an adjusted EBIDTA
of $70.30.1 The Company further disclosed that it was "adjusting
for lower expected volumes and pushing out the timing of when [it]
expect[s] to realize procurement savings" from the integration of
the Tyman business.

Then, on September 5, 2025, at approximately 11:00 AM Eastern Time,
the Company held an earnings call to discuss the Company's third
quarter 2025 financial results. During the earnings call, Chief
Executive Officer, George Wilson explained that "operational
challenges" in the Tyman facility in Mexico "negatively impacted
EBITDA in the Hardware Solutions segment by almost $5 million in
the third quarter alone."

Wilson stated because Quanex was "underinvested" in "the tooling
condition and the equipment condition" it "had to make some changes
and fix some things before it was catastrophic." On this news,
Quanex's stock price fell $2.73, or 13.1%, to close at $18.18 per
share on September 5, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The stock price continued to decline on the subsequent trading day,
falling $1.98 or 10.9%, to close at $16.20 per share on September
8, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.

Quanex is an international supplier of engineered home components
and access solutions to the construction industry, including
windows, doors, cabinetry, and vinyl products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

R.C. BIGELOW: Appeals Judgment Order in Banks Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R.C. BIGELOW, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court
judgment in the lawsuit entitled Kimberly Banks, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
R.C. Bigelow, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-06208-SVW-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged false and deceptive
advertising of tea products.

On May 29, 2025, Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered judgment in favor
of the Plaintiffs and the Class and against the Defendants based on
the jury's verdict on April 8, 2025, finding that Defendant R.C.
Bigelow, Inc. ("Bigelow") violated the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), breached an express warranty, and committed
fraud, and awarding the Plaintiffs and the Class $2,360,744 in
compensatory damages.

The appellate case is entitled Banks, et al. v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 25-5911, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 24,
2025;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on October 2,
2025;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 3, 2025;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 11, 2025; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 12, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KIMBERLY BANKS, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

         Aubry Wand, Esq.
         WAND LAW FIRM, PC
         100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
         Long Beach, CA 90802

                - and -

         Jason H. Kim, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP
         300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
         Los Angeles, CA 90071

                - and -

         Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP
         2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
         Emeryville, CA 94608

Defendants-Appellants R.C. BIGELOW, INC., et al. are represented
by:

         Patrick Mulkern, Esq.
         Timothy K Branson, Esq.
         Matthew G. Kleiner, Esq.
         GORDON REES SKULLY MANSUKHANI
         101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000
         San Diego, CA 92101

RCI HOSPITALITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RICK) securities between
December 15, 2021 and September 16, 2025. RCI owns and operates
strip clubs around the United States.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) Committed Bribery to Cover Up Tax
Fraud

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
defendants engaged in tax fraud; (2) defendants committed bribery
to cover up the fact that they committed tax fraud; and (3) as a
result, defendants understated the legal risk facing the Company.
On September 16, 2025, Letitia James, the New York State Attorney
General, posted an announcement entitled "Attorney General James
Indicts Strip Club Company Executives for Multimillion Dollar Tax
Fraud Scheme and Bribery of State Tax Auditor." On this news, 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.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. Shareholders who wish to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to
the court by November 20, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, visit
https://robbinsllp.com/rci-hospitality-holdings-inc/

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN]

REAL TRUCKING: Rivera Balks at Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Rivera, Adriana Walter, Desiree Zamora, Michael Redden,
Mirio Espinoza and Cristian Giovanni Larios Mendoza, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Siarhei Ausiankin, Vladislav Balabuev, Real Trucking Inc., Real
Group LLC, Real, Inc., US Trucking Service, Inc., Handshake Fleet,
LLC, Contact Group International, LLC, National Transport Group,
Inc. Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11145 (N.D. Ill., September 15,
2025) is a collective and class action against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections
Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
and pre-and post-judgment interest under the FLSA, treble damages
and 5% interest per month under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the return of unauthorized deductions from their pay and 5% per
month interest under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections
Act.

The Plaintiffs worked in various roles, including as office staff,
W-2 truck drivers, and misclassified "1099 drivers."

Real Trucking Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Broadview, Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420-6784
          E-mail: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid to Exclude Damages Expert Testimony Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIETOSO, INC., v. REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC. et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge John Ross entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's damages expert,
Patrick Kilbourne.

The record confirms that Defendants do indeed factor all of their
operating costs into YMP increases and not just those expressly
enumerated in the CSA. Defendants’ corporate representative
confirmed this practice, explaining that the YMP doesn’t track
contractual categories but instead looks at total operating costs.


The Plaintiff Pietoso centrally asserts that the Defendants' YMP
price increase practice violates the CSA Rate Adjustment clause.

Initially, the proposed class included all Missouri commercial and
industrial customers who had a CSA with any Defendant entity and
paid more than the original rate for the period from January 1,
2017, to the date of certification.

Pietoso subsequently narrowed the class to exclude customers with
negotiated rate restrictions and those who executed a new contract
after April 3, 2021, when Defendants revised their form CSA to
permit unilateral increases for any reason.

Republic provides waste removal services for commercial,
industrial, and residential customers.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 15, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDtx3h
at no extra charge.[CC]
 


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Customer Class in Pietoso Wins Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIETOSO, INC., d/b/a CAFE
NAPOLI, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John Ross entered an
order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The class shall consist of:

    "All Missouri commercial and industrial customers who had a
    Service Agreement with the Defendants or their subsidiaries
    and affiliates at any time from Jan. 1, 2017 to Sept. 15,
    2025, and who paid any amounts in excess of the original price

    in the Service Agreement, excluding customers who executed new

    contracts with the Defendants after April 3, 2021, and
    customers whose Rate Adjustment provision was subject to a
    rate restriction during the class period."

The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's counsel is
appointed counsel for the class.

Republic provides waste removal services for commercial,
industrial, and residential customers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ybDVwT at no extra
charge.[CC] 


RITCHIE TRUCKING: $1.9M Class Deal in Imber Suit Has Prelim. Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Brandon Imber, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bruce Lackey, Pam
Lackey, Lackey Family Trust, Cole Scharton, The Administrative
Committee of the People Business Employee Stock Ownership Plan,
Miguel Paredes, Rich Roush, Del Thacker, Richard DeYoung, and
Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00004-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants
the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification for
settlement purposes and grants preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.

The court approved a settlement valued at approximately $1.9
million to resolve claims that defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in connection with a
December 31, 2018 Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) transaction.
The settlement includes $485,000 in cash payments and a $1.4
million reduction in ESOP-related debt, which will release 115,000
shares of employer stock to class members.

Plaintiff Brandon Imber, a former employee of Ritchie Trucking
Service, LLC, filed the lawsuit on December 30, 2021. The complaint
alleged that defendants caused the ESOP to purchase 2,000,000
shares of Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc. stock for
$19,543,000 in 2018, despite knowing the company was about to lose
a major contract with General Electric that represented $30-35
million of its approximately $40 million in annual revenue.

According to the complaint, the largest source of revenue for
Ritchie Trucking and its affiliates from 2012 to 2018 was the
delivery and installation of appliances for General Electric,
representing $30-35 million of Ritchie Trucking's approximately $40
million in revenue. The plaintiff contended that GE announced their
intention to end existing contracts for delivery and installation
of appliances, including with Ritchie Trucking, which ultimately
decreased Ritchie Trucking's market share and revenue.

The complaint asserted eight claims against defendants for their
respective roles in alleged ERISA violations, including engaging in
prohibited transactions, breaching fiduciary duties, failing to
disclose required information, and violating ERISA Section 410.
Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the individually named
Defendants were executives of Ritchie Holdings and ESOP fiduciaries
who were aware of the proposed changes by GE but failed to provide
or provided incomplete information to the ESOP's advisors.

The court certified the following settlement class: All
participants in the ESOP from December 31, 2018, or any time
thereafter until December 31, 2024 (unless the participant
terminated without vesting) and those participants' beneficiaries
other than the Excluded Persons. The estimated class size includes
at least 200 members.

Under the settlement agreement, defendants will pay $485,000 into a
cash settlement fund plus reduce the principal balance of
ESOP-related debt by $1.4 million. As a result of the loan
modification, 115,000 shares of Ritchie Trucking Employer Stock
held in ESOP Suspense Account will be released and allocated to the
ESOP accounts of class members pursuant to a Court-approved plan of
allocation.

The court found that the settlement represents between 21-30% of
the amount that could have been recovered for the class if
Plaintiff prevailed, based on expert analysis indicating the 2018
transaction likely overvalued Ritchie Trucking between $6.2 and $9
million. Class counsel estimated that the average gross recovery
per Payee Class Member will be $9,425.00.

The court applied heightened scrutiny to the pre-certification
settlement, noting that "where parties reach a settlement agreement
prior to class certification, courts must peruse the proposed
compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and
the fairness of the settlement." The court found the settlement
appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive
negotiations after the parties participated in both mediation and
voluntary dispute resolution proceedings over more than two years.

Judge Barch-Kuchta determined that all Rule 23(a) requirements were
satisfied, finding numerosity met with at least 200 class members,
commonality satisfied through questions capable of classwide
resolution, typicality established because defendants' alleged
conduct affected the pool of assets that make up the ESOP, and
adequacy of representation confirmed through the plaintiff's and
counsel's qualifications.

The court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and
23(b)(1)(B), explaining that separate lawsuits have the potential
for conflicting decisions that would make uniform administration of
the Plan impossible and individual ESOP participants could obtain
inconsistent dispositions, resulting in incompatible standards of
conduct for Defendants.

The court approved the notice plan, which requires sending notice
to each class member by email or first-class mail. The settlement
administrator, Analytics Consulting LLC, will maintain a dedicated
website and toll-free phone number for at least six months after
distribution.

The court scheduled a final approval hearing for December 19, 2025,
and established a 45-day deadline for class members to submit
objections. Class members cannot opt out because this is certified
as a non-opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(1).

The court noted one potential concern regarding a clear sailing
provision where defendants agree not to oppose the attorneys' fees
request, stating this requires the court to investigate the
provision of a settlement agreement with heightened scrutiny.
However, the court found this concern mitigated by the extensive
discovery and informed negotiations that preceded the settlement.

The court granted both the motion for class certification for
settlement purposes and preliminary approval of the settlement. The
court appointed R. Joseph Barton as class counsel and Brandon Imber
as class representative, finding both adequate to represent the
class interests.

Therefore, the court ordered that the Cash Settlement Fund meets
the requirements of a qualified settlement fund for federal income
tax purposes and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court until such time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement.

The settlement provides meaningful relief to ESOP participants who
allegedly suffered losses from the 2018 transaction while avoiding
the risks and costs of continued litigation in this complex ERISA
case. The court concluded that the settlement falls within the
range of possible approval" and provides fair compensation
considering the litigation risks and complexity of ESOP disputes.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8IPoNv from PacerMonitor.com.


ROOT INC: Robinson Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, MMWL
-----------------------------------------------------------
CYTRIKA ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ROOT, INC and CARET HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-01078-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 19, 2025) is a "collective
action" instituted by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants'
practices and policies of not paying their non-exempt employees,
including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, for all
hours worked, including overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they
worked in excess of 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action as a "class action" pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law.

The Defendants are an insurance company that employs customer
service representatives across the country. The Defendants'
customer service representatives work at call centers and/or
remotely from their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

RYVYL INC: $300,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased the publicly traded common stock of Ryvyl Inc.
(NASDAQ: RVYL) and/or Greenbox POS (NASDAQ: GBOX) between May 13,
2021, and January 20, 2023, you may be eligible to participate in a
proposed class action settlement.

Simpluris Inc., court-appointed settlement administrator, issued a
statement regarding the Ryvyl Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK CULLEN and SCOT S. COOK, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
                                v
RYVYL INC. F/K/A GREENBOX POS, BEN ERREZ, FREDI NISAN, AND BENJAMIN
CHUNG,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-0185-GPC-SBC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF: (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEESAND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:     All persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded
common stock of Ryvyl Inc. (NASDAQ: RVYL) and/or Greenbox POS
(NASDAQ: GBOX) between May 13, 2021, and January 20, 2023, both
dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):
[fn-1]

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $300,000 in cash and
700,000 shares of Ryvyl common stock (the "Settlement"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on December 19, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. PT, before
the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California, James M. Carter and Judith
N. Keep United States Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, Courtroom 12A,
San Diego, CA 92101, to determine, among other things, whether: (i)
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) the terms and conditions of the issuance of the
Settlement Shares, which shares may be issued pursuant to the
exemption from registration requirements under Section 3(a)(10) of
the Securities Act of 1933, § 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(10), as amended,
are fair; (iii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and in the Notice should be granted; (iv) the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(v) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses (including Notice and Administration
Costs not to exceed $99,000) should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.RyvylSecuritiesSettlement.com.  You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
Ryvyl Securities Settlement, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
25419, Santa Ana, CA 92799, 1-833-360-6785.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received no later than
December 27, 2025.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received by, or postmarked, no later than
November 28, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.  If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in
the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be delivered to the Claims
Administrator, Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received by, or postmarked no later than, November 28, 2025, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Ryvyl Securities Settlement c/o Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 25419
Santa Ana, CA 92799
Toll-free Telephone: 833-360-6785
Email: info@RyvylSecuritiesSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Ex Kano S. Sams II
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Email: settlements@glancylaw.com

By Order of the Court


SALESFORCE INC: Yadav Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YOGENDRA YADAV, JUAN ELIAS, SAROJ PANIGRAHY, RANDI WELCH BURG, and
LYNNE GROGG, and NICHOLAS ZURAWSKYJ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALESFORCE, INC.,
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS NEW WORLD
LIFE INSURANCE CO., TRANSUNION LLC., WORKDAY, INC., PANDORA
JEWELRY, LLC, and PANDORA JEWELRY, A/S, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-07847 (N.D. Cal., September 15, 2025) arises from the
occurrence of a data breach that involves the unauthorized access
and exfiltration of sensitive personal identifiable information
(PII) of millions of Class Members, including Plaintiffs'.

On July 30, 2025, Salesforce notified TransUnion of an unauthorized
cyber-attack involving Salesforce's databases containing TransUnion
customer information. According to TransUnion, its forensic
investigation revealed the unauthorized cyber incursion occurred on
July 28.

Farmers, TransUnion, Workday and Pandora are all Salesforce
customers that used its services and software, and in doing so,
entrusted Salesforce with the PII of their customers and employees.
In turn, Farmers, TransUnion, Workday, and Pandora's customers
entrusted them with their PII.

As a result of the Data Breaches, the Plaintiffs have suffered
numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, lost time and
expenses mitigating the risk of data misuse, diminishment in value
of their PII, and failing to receive the benefit of the bargain
reached with Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring this action to hold
Defendants accountable for their data security failures, enjoin
their continued failure to implement basic and fundamental data
security practices, and recover damages and all other relief
available at law on behalf of themselves and members of the classes
they seek to represent.

Salesforce, Inc. is a privately held cloud-based software company
with its headquarters and principal place of business in San
Francisco County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          580 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: clebsock@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nicholas U. Murphy, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1201 17th Street, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizirusso@hausfeld.com
                  nmurphy@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          Gisela Rosa, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com  
                  zrosa@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          Sean A. Petterson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com  
                  spetterson@lchb.com

SAMSONITE COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Fake Discount Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Kyle McCarty filed a class
action lawsuit against Samsonite Company Stores LLC.

Why: McCarty claims Samsonite advertised fake discounts at its
outlet stores.

Where: The Samsonite class action lawsuit was filed in California
federal court.

Samsonite Company Stores misled consumers by advertising fake
discounts at its outlet stores, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.

Plaintiff Kyle McCarty filed the class action complaint against
Samsonite in California federal court, alleging violations of state
and federal consumer laws.

According to the lawsuit, Samsonite has been advertising false
price discounts at its outlet stores nationwide.

"Price is a primary signal of value in the consumer decision-making
process," McCarty says. "False pricing manipulates this signal,
distorting consumers' perceptions of value and inducing purchases
they would not otherwise make."

Class action lawsuit: Samsonite used fake original prices

The plaintiff explains Samsonite's scheme was simple: publish fake
discounts off of inflated and fictitious "original" prices to drive
up demand.

He claims that, at all relevant times, Samsonite has advertised
false price discounts at its outlet stores nationwide.

"Plaintiff brings this action to halt this deceptive practice and
seeks redress for consumers who were misled," the class action
lawsuit says.

The plaintiff is looking to represent anyone in California who
purchased merchandise from a Samsonite outlet store at purported
discounts from fictitious reference prices.

He sued for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Federal
Trade Commission Act.

He is seeking class certification, damages, restitution and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Samsonite is not the only company facing a class action lawsuit
over alleged fake discounts. Hollister was also sued for allegedly
advertising fictitious regular prices and phantom discounts on its
website.

The plaintiff is represented by Todd D. Carpenter and Scott G.
Braden of Lynch Carpenter LLP.

The Samsonite class action lawsuit is McCarty v. Samsonite Company
Stores LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02159-BJC-SBC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. [GN]

SAZERAC CO: Court Certifies Classes in Fireball Parrot Bay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Sharon Pizzaro, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sazerac
Company, Inc., Defendant, No. 23-CV-2751 (KMK), and Cindy Koonce,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Defendant, No. 23-CV-4323
(KMK), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motions
for class certification in these consolidated putative class action
lawsuits.

These are certified class actions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. The Court granted class certification under Rule
23(b)(3), finding that common questions of law or fact predominate
over individual questions and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for adjudicating the controversy.

Plaintiff Sharon Pizarro individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated brought a putative class action against Sazerac
Company, Inc., alleging that the labeling on and packaging of
certain of Defendant's beverages is deceptive and misleading.
Plaintiff Cindy Koonce individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated filed a similar putative class action against
Defendant. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant's labeling of their
malt-based Fireball and Parrot Bay alcoholic beverages violates
Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law.

Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes a variety of
alcoholic beverages. One such beverage is Fireball Cinnamon Whisky.
Fireball Whisky's base ingredient is the distilled spirit, whisky.
Fireball Whisky contains 33% alcohol by volume. In addition to its
Fireball Whisky, Defendant produces a Fireball Cinnamon malt
beverage, which unlike Fireball Whisky contains 16.5% ABV. Pizarro
alleges that, notwithstanding the fundamental differences between
the products, they are sold with labels and in packaging that is
nearly identical, which is misleading to the public.

In addition to its Fireball products, Defendant produces a line of
rums under the mark Parrot Bay. The original Parrot Bay Rum variety
is advertised as a rum with Natural Coconut Flavor, and is 21% ABV.
In addition to Parrot Bay Rum, Defendant also produces malt-based
Parrot Bay products. Parrot Bay Malt is 16.5% ABV. Koonce alleges
that when viewed together with the Parrot Bay Rum distilled spirit
brand name, the Parrot Bay Malt label misleads consumers into
believing it is or contains distilled spirits, or in fact rum.

Procedural History

The Court denied Defendant's Motions to Dismiss on September 25,
2024. On February 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed Motions to Certify the
Classes, along with accompanying papers. Defendant submitted its
Opposition to the Motions on May 14, 2025. Plaintiffs filed Reply
Papers on June 13, 2025.

Numerosity

The Court found that numerosity is satisfied, noting that sales
data from discovery reveals that Defendant sold hundreds of
thousands of units of the product in New York during the relevant
period. This number suggests far more than 40 individuals comprise
the class. In this Circuit, numerosity is presumed when the
putative class has at least 40 members.

Commonality

The Court found commonality satisfied because for purposes of Rule
23(a)(2) even a single common question will do. Plaintiffs'
theories of liability are under sections 349 and 350 of the New
York GBL. To state a claim under either section, a plaintiff must
allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented
conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff
suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or
practice. The Court found that the first element of the GBL claims
- the conduct being consumer-oriented - is a common question.

Typicality

The Court found typicality satisfied because Plaintiffs and Class
Members' claims arise out of the same course of conduct by
Defendant: the allegedly misleading labeling of malt beverages.
Typicality is satisfied when each class member's claim arises from
the same course of events, and each class member makes similar
legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability.

Adequacy

The Court found adequacy satisfied, noting that nothing in the
record suggests that Plaintiffs' interests are adverse to those of
the members of the putative Classes. Plaintiffs' counsel also
appears to be highly experienced and adequately equipped to
prosecute this class litigation.

Predominance Analysis

Defendant argued that individual questions predominate the
materially misleading element because there are different labels on
different bottle sizes. Labels on 100 ml and 355 ml bottles, as
well as on the outer packaging of 6-packs and 10-packs, describes
Fireball Malt as tasting like a smooth whisky - a clear sign that
the product is not a whisky. Purchasers of 6-packs or 10-packs of
Fireball Malt would have seen the ABV printed prominently on the
customer-facing panel of the package.

The Court rejected this argument, stating that proving materiality
is not the question for class certification. Rather, the question
is whether materiality can be determined on a class-wide basis. The
Court found that class-wide evidence will be used to establish
whether the product in question's label was misleading, and if so,
whether it was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting
reasonably under the circumstances.

Even if parts of the label like the malt beverage font are larger,
other aspects of the label that could have misled consumers like
the name Fireball, Dragon logo, Red Hot tagline, and Cinnamon
statement are also larger. If a jury finds that the combination of
these aspects would mislead a reasonable consumer to think they are
buying whisky or rum instead of malt, the issue is resolved for the
entire class without an individual inquiry.

Price Premium Analysis

Plaintiffs rely on a choice-based conjoint survey by Dr. William
Robert Ingersoll to prove the existence of a price premium. In such
a survey, respondents are presented with a series of questions and
asked to select the most preferred product among several available
options with different attributes. After analysis of the survey
results, Ingersoll found that 25.2% of the Fireball Malt and 28.8%
of the Parrot Bay Rum's retail prices are attributable to the
deceptive packaging.

Defendant argued that there is no price premium because it line
prices the products, which means assigning a single, uniform price
to all products sold in identical quantities. The Court found this
argument to be premature, stating that when the concern about the
proposed class is not that it exhibits some fatal dissimilarity
but, rather, a fatal similarity - an alleged failure of proof as to
an element of the plaintiffs' cause of action - courts should
engage that question as a matter of summary judgment, not class
certification.

Defendant also challenged the reliability of the Ingersoll survey
on three grounds: (1) use of an improper survey universe, (2)
failure to consider the effect of convenience, and (3) failure to
consider supply side factors. The Court rejected all three
challenges.

Regarding the survey universe, the Court found that the survey
population appropriately encompasses potential buyers and is not
unduly overinclusive. Regarding convenience factors, the Court
noted that Defendant fails to cite any cases for the proposition
that a conjoint analysis must consider all external factors like
convenience to measure the existence of a price premium. Regarding
supply-side factors, the Court found that Ingersoll's consideration
of historical pricing data and the volume of Fireball Malt actually
sold provides an empirical data tether to market condition

Superiority

The Court found superiority satisfied, noting that members of the
Classes - which include thousands of people - are not interested in
bringing individual actions because many do not have the resources
to do so and the small amount of recoverable damages that would be
available in individual actions. When proceeding individually would
be prohibitive for class members with small claims the class action
device is frequently superior to individual actions.

Ascertainability

The Court found the ascertainability requirement met because the
proposed class definitions use objective criteria that establish a
membership with definite boundaries. The criteria provide a
specific period in which a certain set of individuals purchased a
product, which allows the Court to determine who is in the class
without having to answer numerous individualized questions.

Certified Classes

The Court certified the following classes:

1. All persons who purchased the Fireball Malt Products in the
State of New York at any time during the period April 2, 2020, to
the date of judgment.

2. All persons who purchased the Parrot Bay Malt Products in the
State of New York at any time during the period May 24, 2020, to
the date of judgment.

Court Appointments

The Court appointed Plaintiff Sharon Pizarro as class
representative for the Pizarro Action and Plaintiff Cindy Koonce as
class representative for the Koonce Action. The Court appointed
Reese LLP, Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and
Laukaitis Law LLC as class counsel for both actions.

Motions in Limine

Plaintiffs filed their Motions in Limine without submitting
pre-motion letters, contravening Section II.A. of the Court's
Individual Rules of Practice. Therefore, the Court denied, without
prejudice, Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine for failure to adhere to
those rules.

Counsel Information

Counsel for Plaintiffs:
- Michael R. Reese, Esq., Charles D. Moore, Esq. - Reese LLP (New
York, NY; Minneapolis, MN)
- Spencer Sheehan, Esq. - Sheehan & Associates, P.C. (Great Neck,
NY)
- Daniel Tomascik, Esq. (San Juan, PR)
- Neal Jamison Deckant, Esq. - Bursor & Fisher, P.A. (Walnut Creek,
CA)

Counsel for Defendant:
- Creighton R. Magid, Esq., Elizabeth R. Baksh, Esq. - Dorsey &
Whitney LLP (New York, NY; Washington, DC)

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fxMC8Qfrom PacerMonitor.com [CC]

SCHNEIDER SADDLERY: Faces Deamaio Over Text Message Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCHNEIDER SADDLERY, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-014356 (Fla.
Cir., Broward Cty., Sept. 19, 2025) is an action for injunctive and
declaratory relief and damages for violations of the Caller ID
Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID
Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of
receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text
message.

Specifically, the Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that
promoted Schneider Saddlery and violated the Caller ID Rules when
it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone
calls.

The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

Schneder sells various goods to persons throughout the country
through its online store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          97 4 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

SEVEN WEST: Faces Class Action Suit Over Staff Underpayment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Buckingham-Jones, writing for Financial Review, reports that
billionaire Kerry Stokes' Seven West Media has been accused of
systematically underpaying staff by not keeping track of all the
hours they worked and not passing on agreed yearly pay rises, with
one law firm preparing a class action lawsuit.

Employment litigation firm Adero Law has spoken to more than 20
current and former Seven West employees this week about their pay
and working conditions, and has lodged requests for some employees'
personnel files.

Caitlin McIvor, a senior associate at the firm, said it was
investigating claims against Seven Network of underpayments,
misclassification, unpaid breaks, and overtime hours not paid.

A spokeswoman for Seven West rejected the accusations. "Seven West
Media is confident it is paying its news and current affairs
employees appropriately and in line with the enterprise agreement
and legislative obligations," she said.

Adero, which last year led an underpayment class action against
Merivale which resulted in the hospitality group agreeing to an $18
million settlement, is investigating two claims against Seven
West.

First, that there are experienced journalists and producers who are
on a "Level 5" base salary that is only one tier above a cadet or
entry-level journalist.

Those on Level 5 could be on a base rate between $55,100 and
$65,500, plus extra loading if the person works enough hours,
according to an enterprise bargaining agreement struck in 2022.
This base rate was allegedly topped up by an undefined "personal
margin" set by the company that, at least some staff claim, was cut
to absorb annual increases to the base salary in Seven West's
enterprise agreement. This means people may not have received an
actual pay rise.

Second, Adero believes Seven West may face a hefty backpay bill
resulting from a recent decision that blew out Coles and
Woolworths' own staff expenses.

A landmark Federal Court decision against Coles and Woolworths last
month found employers must keep detailed timesheets for salaried
staff including overtime. Coles' backpay estimates blew out from
$31 million to $250 million, while Woolworths' more than doubled
from $486 million to $1.2 billion.

Experts have warned the decision is one of the biggest in workplace
law and has major ramifications. "It will have a huge impact on
liability Australia-wide," Australian Business Lawyers workplace
managing director Luis Izzo told The Australian Financial Review
earlier this month.

The case could expose a hefty backpay bill, as there were more than
1200 Seven West news and current affairs employees on the 2022
EBA.

It also comes just months after the company identified a "small
number of journalists" who had been classified incorrectly and were
owed upwards of $25,000. This was discovered through "regular
payroll checking processes", Seven West said in April. Another
review in June found 30 former staff impacted by the error, who
were also paid their lost wages.

It is a challenging time for television networks. Between 2022 and
2024, broadcasters lost $650 million as advertisers tightened their
belts or shifted their spend to tech giants, streaming services or
other media channels. Seven West's chief executive Jeff Howard has
pledged to cut costs by up to $30 million this year.

Nor is the network alone in the media for allegations of
underpayment. The ABC repaid staff $12 million in wages and
entitlements in 2021 and Nine Entertainment (which owns the
Financial Review) dealt with underpayments over a six-year period
the following year.

The potential case against Seven West, which is at an early stage
and may never be filed, comes as the media union ramps up their
rhetoric ahead of EBA negotiations. The Media Entertainment and
Arts Alliance has put a meeting in for Seven employees to begin
discussions over a new, three-year EBA to replace the one signed in
2022.

In a statement, MEAA media section director Cassie Derrick said the
union was aware of the potential underpayment and was looking into
it.

"MEAA members have reported concerns that Seven could be dodging
their obligations to give their a staff fair pay rise under their
Enterprise Agreement," she said. [GN]

SINA CORP: Misleads Shareholders to Approve Merger, Lu Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SINA CORPORATION, CHARLES GUOWEI CHAO,
BONNIE YI ZHANG, HONG DU, QINGXU DENG, BIN ZHENG, TER FUNG TSAO,
YAN WANG, SONG-YI ZHANG, YICHEN ZHANG, JAMES JIANZHANG LIANG,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, and MORGAN STANLEY ASIA LIMITED,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07820 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the filing of
materially false and misleading Proxy statements that failed to
provide all material information related to a merger plan, which
would acquire all outstanding Sina ordinary shares in an all-cash
transaction valued at $43.30 per ordinary share. Specifically, the
Proxy statements contained materially false and misleading
statements and omissions as they failed to provide shareholders
with the true value of Sina's investment in TuSimple Holdings,
Inc., an autonomous trucking company based in San Diego,
California. No information was provided to the market concerning
fundraising that was ongoing at the time of the merger nor the
anticipated valuation for TuSimple, which was known during the
relevant time period, but omitted from the core transaction
documents. As a result of the Defendants' decision to conceal this
material information, shareholders unknowingly sold Sina ordinary
shares at substantially deflated values during the Class Period as
a part of the scheme.

Sina Corporation is a company with its principal executive offices
located in Beijing, China.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a financial services firm headquartered
in New York, New York.

Morgan Stanley Asia Limited is a financial advisor headquartered in
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Marco A. Duenas, Esq.
       SAXENA WHITE P.A.
       10 Bank Street, Suite 882
       White Plains, NY 10606
       Telephone: (914) 437-8551
       Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
       Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

       Rachel S. Fleishman, Esq.
       REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
       420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2731
       New York, NY 10170
       Telephone: (212) 344-5200
       Facsimile: (212) 344-5299
       Email: rfleishman@reidcollins.com

SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 17
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-09748-GHW-OTW (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered an order granting the parties'
request to modify the briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs'
proposed motion for class certification.

The deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
remains Oct. 17, 2025. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition
is extended to Jan. 16, 2026. The deadline for the Plaintiffs'
reply is extended to Feb. 13, 2026.

SolarEdge is a US company that developed a DC optimized inverter
system.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UR1qsI at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Bid to Restrict Access to Exhibit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SOLIDQUOTE LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Defendant's
unopposed motion for leave to restrict access (Level 1) to Exhibits
to and portions of its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xkRItN at no extra
charge.[CC] 


SOUTHERN GRAPHICS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Greenwood Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA GREENWOOD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN GRAPHICS, INC. d/b/a SGS & CO., Case No.
3:25-cv-00610-GNS (W.D. Ky., Sept. 22, 2025) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with
sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health
Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant that
occurred on or around November 14, 2024.

On December 2, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a cyber incident
involving unauthorized access to certain of its IT systems that it
believes occurred on November 18, 2024.

In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine
the nature and scope of the Data Breach.3 In the course of
investigating the issue, Defendant took steps to review the
impacted information and identify the individuals whose personal
information may have been affected.

The Defendant concluded its investigation in late July 2025 and
determined that an unauthorized party obtained certain Private
Information from its systems, the suit says.

The Defendant is a brand consulting agency that provides services
in brand strategy, marketing, AI automation solutions, and audience
analytics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Grayson Wells, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com
                  gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                  gwells@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Mariya Weekes, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com

SOUTHERN VALLEY: Seeks Order Setting Hearing on Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNULFO GARCIA-RAMOS,
PABLO CASTILLO-OLGUIN, and all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.;
KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.; KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK
HOLDINGS, LLC; and WKW, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00054-WLS (M.D. Ga.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order setting a
hearing/oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
and the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification.

Specifically, the complexity of the issues would be aided by an
open argument and discussion of the merits, and the Defendants
further believe that a hearing will allow the Defendants to
articulate to the Court the novel nature of some of the Plaintiffs'
claims, the unique and individual nature of the defenses, the
nature of individualized discovery which does not support itself to
class-wide review, and to update the Court on the latest changes to
AEWR methodology from the US Department of Labor which Defendants
contend provides further support to their arguments against
prevailing wage application to Plaintiffs.

The Defendants also welcome an opportunity to address any questions
the Court may have about the parties' respective positions.

The Defendants consulted with the Plaintiffs with respect to this
motion. The Plaintiffs do not believe oral argument is necessary on
the fully-briefed motions but are available to participate if it
would assist the Court.

Southern Valley is a women-owned and family-operated company
specializing in the production and distribution of fresh produce.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zEmCsk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Martin B. Heller, Esq.
          David Lerner, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3500
          Atlanta, GA 30909
          Telephone: (404) 231-1400
          Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
          E-mail: mheller@fisherphillips.com
                  dlerner@fisherphillips.com

STEPHEN JAMES: Class Cert Responses Due Oct. 17
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN BEST, et al. V.
STEPHEN C. JAMES, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00299-RGJ-RSE (W.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Edwards entered an order as follows:

  (1) The Parties' joint motion to amend certain deadlines for the

      Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.

  (2) The Scheduling Order deadlines from Section (1)(e) are
      amended as follows:

      a. Motions for class certification shall be filed no later
         than Sept. 26, 2025, with responses due no later than
         Oct. 17, 2025, and replies due no later than Oct. 30,
         2025.

  (3) All other provisions from the Scheduling Order entered on
      March 14, 2025 remain in full force and effect.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PJuSi7 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


STEVEN SANDERS: George Suit Seeks to Certify Tenant Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATORIA GEORGE and JOHNNIE
RUSHING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. STEVEN E. SANDERS, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge
Parish Ward 3 District 2 Justice of the Peace, Case No.
3:25-cv-00168-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification, and
certifying a Class defined as:

    "All tenants who currently or will in the future be a
    defendant in an eviction proceeding before the Justice of the
    Peace for Ward 3, District 2 in East Baton Rouge Parish,
    Louisiana."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0NE0Px at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Micah West, Esq.
          Ellen Degnan, Esq.
          Anjana Joshi, Esq.
          Miriam Gutman, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Ave.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8334
          E-mail: micah.west@splcenter.org
                  ellen.degnan@splcenter.org
                  anjana.joshi@splcenter.org
                  miriam.gutman@splcenter.org

                - and -

          William Patrick Quigley, Esq.
          LOYOLA NEW ORLEANS COLLEGE OF LAW
          7214 St. Charles Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 710-3074
          E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com

                - and -

          Hannah Adams, Esq.
          NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT  
          90 New Montgomery St. Suite 1015
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (504) 321-3302
          E-mail: hadams@nhlp.org

SUNFLOWER BANK: Court Grants Final OK of "Besser" Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Samantha Besser, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunflower Bank, N.A.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01577-RM-STV, Senior Judge
Raymond P. Moore of the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado granted final approval of a class action
settlement on September 24, 2025. The Court dismissed the action
with prejudice on the merits and approved attorney fees, costs, and
an incentive award for the Class Representative.

The Court previously entered a Preliminary Approval Order on May
14, 2025, which preliminarily approved the Settlement, determined
that the action should proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
appointed Plaintiff as Class Representative, and appointed Sophia
Gold and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Kaliel Gold PLLC and David Berger and
Mark Troutman of Gibbs Mura LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class. Notice was provided to all persons identified in the
Settlement Class Member list in accordance with the Preliminary
Approval Order by individual email and mailings to all persons in
the Settlement Class who could be reasonably identified.

On September 24, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., at the Alfred A. Arraj
Courthouse, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294, the
Court held a Final Approval Hearing to determine whether the
Settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the
application of Class Counsel's attorney fees, costs, and incentive
award for the Class Representative.

The Court found that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action and over all parties to the action, including all
Settlement Class Members. The Notice provided to the Settlement
Class in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order was the
best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due
and sufficient notice of the proceedings and matters set forth
therein to all persons entitled to notice. The Notice fully
satisfied the requirements of due process, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and all other applicable law and rules. The notice to
government entities, as given, complied with 28 U.S.C. Section
1715.

The Court determined that the Settlement is in all respects fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, was the product
of informed, arms-length negotiations among competent, able
counsel, and was made based upon a record that is sufficiently
developed and complete to have enabled the Parties to adequately
evaluate and consider their positions. In finding the Settlement
fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court considered that there
were no opt-outs or objections to the Settlement, indicating an
overwhelming positive reaction from the Settlement Class, and the
opinion of competent counsel concerning such matters. The
distribution plan proposed by the Parties is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Class Representative and Class Counsel have fairly
and adequately represented and will continue to adequately
represent and protect the interests of Settlement Class Members in
connection with the Settlement.

The Court affirms the finding that the Settlement Class meets the
relevant requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b)(3) for settlement purposes only in that: (1) the number of
Settlement Class Members is so numerous that joinder is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to
the Settlement Class Members; (3) the claims of the Class
Representative are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class
Members; (4) the Class Representative is an adequate representative
for the Settlement Class, and has retained experienced counsel to
represent her; (5) the questions of law and fact common to the
Settlement Class Members predominate over any questions affecting
any individual Settlement Class Member; and (6) a class action is
superior to the other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.

The Court entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, on
the merits, and without taxation of costs in favor of or against
any Party. The Releasing Parties fully and irrevocably release and
forever discharge as of the Effective Date, and in exchange for the
relief described in the Settlement, the Released Parties of and
from the Released Claims. The Released Claims are dismissed with
prejudice and released regardless of whether these claims are known
or unknown, existing or potential, suspected or unsuspected, actual
or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, legal, statutory, or
equitable, based on contract, tort, or any other theory. Each
Settlement Class Member is barred and permanently enjoined from
bringing or maintaining on behalf of themselves, or through any
person purporting to act on their behalf or purporting to assert a
claim under or through them, any of the Released Claims in any
forum, action, or proceeding of any kind.

If, consistent with the plan of distribution set forth in the
Agreement, any remaining funds exist after the first distribution,
and after a possible second distribution, any remaining funds will
go to Colorado Legal Services.

The Court decreed that neither the Agreement, nor this Order, nor
the fact of the Settlement, is an admission or concession by
Defendant or the Released Parties of any fault, wrongdoing or
liability whatsoever, or as an admission of the appropriateness of
class certification for trial or dispositive motion practice.

Class Counsel is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $150,000.00
and costs in the amount of $2,563.75, such amounts to be paid from
the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
The Class Representative is awarded an Incentive Award in the
amount of $7,500.00 to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The Settlement Administrator is awarded $49,650.83 for its costs
and expenses in sending notice and administering the Settlement and
is entitled to reimbursement of those expenses.

The Court retains and reserves jurisdiction over implementation of
this Settlement and any distributions from the Settlement Fund, the
action until the Effective Date and until each and every act agreed
to be performed by the Parties shall have been performed pursuant
to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and all Parties for
the purpose of enforcing and administering the Settlement.

In the event that the Effective Date of the Agreement does not
occur, the Settlement shall be rendered null and void and this
Order shall be vacated.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mdDT3Z from PacerMonitor.com

SUNO INC: Faces Suit for Bypassing YouTube's Anti-Piracy Tech
-------------------------------------------------------------
Music Business World reports that independent country musician Tony
Justice has filed an amended lawsuit against AI music company Suno,
now accusing it of bypassing YouTube's anti-piracy technology to
build its training dataset.

The expanded complaint was filed in Massachusetts federal court on
Monday, September 22, by plaintiffs including Tony Justice, 5th
Wheel Records and My Heartland Publishing.

The 68-page document, which nearly tripled in size from the
original 24-page filing, accuses Suno of engaging in
"stream-ripping" to download copyrighted songs from YouTube. This
practice involves bypassing protections and other digital rights
management systems designed to prevent unauthorized copying.

The latest allegation follows similar stream-ripping accusations
from major record labels filed just three days earlier (September
19), marking a significant escalation in the legal challenges
facing the AI music generation startup.

Lawyers for Justice and other plaintiffs wrote: "Upon information
and belief, Suno obtained many -- if not all -- of the songs in its
training data by unlawfully downloading them from the website
YouTube… through a method of music piracy called 'stream
ripping'."

They added: "Suno acquired many of the songs it ingested into its
AI training model(s) by downloading them directly from streaming
platforms such as YouTube and Spotify."

"To obtain these works, Suno engaged in 'stream ripping,' a form of
piracy that circumvents encryption, authentication, and other
digital rights management (DRM) technologies, thereby bypassing
technological protection measures designed to prevent unauthorized
copying."

"Suno acquired many of the songs it ingested into its AI training
model(s) by downloading them directly from streaming platforms such
as YouTube and Spotify."

Tony Justice's amended complaint

"Suno's dataset is soiled with piracy and misappropriation," they
added, and accused Suno of engaging in "systematic theft" of the
music of the plaintiffs and class members.

Justice, who claims credit for creating a "trucker music" genre,
originally sued Suno and rival Udio in June. His class action
represents independent artists, songwriters, and producers whose
works appeared on streaming services since January 1, 2021.

The artist's allegations center on Suno's admission that it trained
its AI model on "essentially all music files of reasonable quality
that are accessible on the open Internet, abiding by paywalls,
password protections, and the like, combined with similarly
available text descriptions."

According to the amended complaint, this included circumventing
YouTube's "rolling cipher" encryption system, which regularly
changes access codes to prevent external downloading of videos and
audio files.

Suno, valued at about $500 million following a $125 million
fundraising, operates a platform that generates music based on user
prompts. The company charges subscribers up to $30 per month for
its premium service that includes "commercial use rights for songs
made while subscribed."

Justice's amended complaint also documents instances where Suno's
AI allegedly reproduced copyrighted elements, including "producer
tags" that identify parts of the songs of some of the class
members. Examples cited include reproductions of tags from
CashMoneyAP, Jason Derulo and DJ Mustard, among others.

The lawsuit also alleged that a track generated by Suno had
portions that are similar to Michael Bublé's hit Sway, with an
identical version of the opening words, "when marimba rhythms."

"To obtain these works, Suno engaged in 'stream ripping,' a form of
piracy that circumvents encryption, authentication, and other
digital rights management (DRM) technologies."

Tony Justice's amended complaint

Justice's lawyers wrote: "Suno's AI model generated eleven (11)
additional outputs resembling Sway. These examples demonstrate that
Suno's AI had memorized those original works and reproduced them in
new form."

In addition to the stream-ripping accusations made by Universal
Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, the
record labels' amended complaint against Suno also accuses the
company of engaging in mass piracy to collect the vast amount of
music they needed to train their AI model.

The record labels also continue to argue that "fair use" does not
apply to AI models that scrape thousands or millions of pieces of
copyrighted content to train an AI model that competes directly
with the original works.

The amended lawsuits against Suno pose further challenges to the AI
company amid the arrival of new rivals in the AI music generation
space. Last month, London and New York-headquartered AI audio
startup ElevenLabs launched Suno rival Eleven Music, marking its
expansion beyond voice synthesis into full AI music generation.

However, as MBW pointed out, unlike Suno and Udio, Eleven Music has
already inked licensing agreements with prominent rightsholders,
including Merlin and a potentially precedent-setting deal with
publisher Kobalt. On September 23, ElevenLabs co-founder and CEO
Mati Staniszewski confirmed that his company secured strategic
investment from chip maker NVIDIA, the world's most valuable
company by market cap. [GN]

SWITCHGEAR POWER: Hansen Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA, WWPCL
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HANSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SWITCHGEAR POWER SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-01453-WCG (E.D. Wisc.,  Sept. 22, 2025) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated are current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Switchgear.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift
differentials, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other
rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for
overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.


The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including
but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional,
willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and
state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the suit.

The Defendant manufactures electrical power distribution equipment.
11. During the three years immediately preceding the filing of the
Complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

SYSCO SAN DIEGO: Colbourne Removed from State Court to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY COLBOURNE, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, Case No. 25CU043442C, was removed from San Diego Superior Court
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No
3:25-cv-02491-RBM-MSB to the proceedings.

The Complaint alleges the following seven California Labor Code
violations: (1) failure to pay minimum/regular/prevailing/vacation
wages; (2) failure to pay state overtime; (3) failure to pay wages
timely; (4) failure to comply with meal and rest break laws; (5)
failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to provide
and maintain records; and (7) failure to reimburse expenses.

The Plaintiff purports to bring these causes of action on behalf of
himself and "all nonexempt employees [Sysco San Diego] employed in
the State of California from August 18, 2021, to the present."

Sysco supplies food products.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
          Matthew P. Eaton, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Transamerica Pyramid
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
          Telephone: (415) 659-2600
          Facsimile: (415) 659-2601
          E-mail: sjkim@bakerlaw.com
                  ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
                  meaton@bakerlaw.com

TAKARA SAKE: Tunick Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, v. TAKARA
SAKE USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order granting in part and denying
in part motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff's motion for a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) is
denied. The Court certifies a Rule 23(b)(2) class as to the
Plaintiff's claims under the UCL, FAL and CLRA. Pursuant to Rule
23(c)(1)(B), the class is defined as

    "All persons who, during the Class Period, purchased one or
    more of the Products in California for purposes other than
    resale at a retail location or online."

    The class period is defined as Feb. 8, 2019, through the
    present.

The Court appoints Colby Tunick as the class representative.
Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Court appoints Treehouse Law, LLP and
Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel. The parties are directed
to meet and confer regarding a proposed class notice. The Court
sets a further case management conference for Oct. 16, 2025, at
10:00 a.m. An updated joint case management conference statement is
due by Oct. 9, 2025.

Tunick alleges that (1) Sho Chiku Bai Nigori Unfiltered Sake, (2)
Sho Chiku Bai Classic Junmai; and (3) Sho Chiku Bai Tokubetsu
Junmai are all deceptively labeled and marketed as made in Japan,
when they are actually produced in California.

On Oct. 17, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for class
certification.

On Dec. 20, 2024, Takara filed its opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion. The Court held a hearing on April 17, 2025.

Takara is responsible for the manufacturing, labeling, advertising,
distribution, and sale of the "Sho Chiku Bai" branded sakes.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6PokHw at no extra
charge.[CC]
 



TARGET CORP: Court Stays Buckmaster Suit Pending Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE BUCKMASTER,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
TARGET CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No.
3:25-cv-05375-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Peterson
entered an order granting stipulated motion and order to stay.

On Sept. 4, 2025, counsel for the parties conferred to discuss
potential early resolution of this case. The parties agreed to
mediation, and it is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2026, with mediator
Clifford Freed of Washington Arbitration and Mediation Services.

As a result, the parties wish to stay the case and vacate all
currently pending deadlines, including all disclosures and
discovery. The purpose of the stay is to facilitate mediation of
the dispute and to avoid expenditure of unnecessary costs and
resources, and to preserve judicial resources.

If a stay is granted, the parties will provide the Court with a
status report 60 days following the mediation, at which point the
parties would ask the Court to set a new case schedule and class
certification briefing schedule, as needed. The parties request
that the Court approve this Stipulated Motion and enter an order
staying this case.

Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fogJZ6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Pizl, Esq.
          Matthew R. Heyert, Esq.
          ENTENTE LAW PLLC
          315 Thirty-Ninth Ave SW Ste. 13
          Puyallup, WA 98373-3690
          Telephone: (253) 446-7668
          E-mail: jim@ententelaw.com  
                  mheyert@ententelaw.com  

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily A. Bushaw, Esq.
          Heather Shook, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
          E-mail: EBushaw@perkinscoie.com   
                  HShook@perkinscoie.com

TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Court Partially Grants Dismissal in "Harman"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Rita Harman, Individually and on Behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taurus International
Manufacturing, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
3:21-cv-697-ECM (M.D. Ala.), Chief United States District Judge
Emily C. Marks of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss a class action complaint.

The case concerns allegations that the Taurus PT 738 TCP Pistol
malfunctioned due to a defect in its slide component. The Plaintiff
brought this class action against Taurus International
Manufacturing, Inc., the manufacturer of the PT 738 pistol, and
Taurus Holdings, Inc., the one hundred percent stockholder of
Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc., on her behalf and all
those similarly situated. In her second amended complaint, the
Plaintiff asserted six claims: violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count I), violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count II), breach of express
warranty (Count III), breach of implied warranty of merchantability
(Count IV), violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count V),
and injunctive and declaratory relief (Count VI).

On April 15, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in
its entirety. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case
with prejudice. The Plaintiff appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit
vacated the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's
breach-of-express-warranty and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act claims and remanded for further proceedings. After
remand, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court
concluded the Defendant's motion was due to be granted in part and
denied in part.

The Court had original subject matter jurisdiction of this matter
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2). The Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction
over the Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(a). Personal jurisdiction and venue were uncontested, and the
Court concluded that venue properly lies in the Middle District of
Alabama.

According to the facts alleged in the complaint, the Plaintiff's
husband, Christopher Harman, purchased a PT 738 pistol from an
Opelika, Alabama retail store in December 2011 and gifted it to his
wife. On November 27, 2020, Christopher Harman was seriously
injured at a firing range when the PT 738, upon being fired, blew
apart, causing metal pieces to strike him in the face and eye.

According to the Plaintiff, the PT 738 pistol is defective and
unreasonably dangerous because flaws in its design and manufacture
can cause fracturing of the PT 738's components. The slide
allegedly breaks in half at the ejection port, and the pieces
become dangerous projectiles, which can strike the shooter or
bystanders. The Plaintiff's complaint further alleged that despite
actual knowledge of the defect, the Defendant never remedied it,
issued an effective and complete warning to the public, or recalled
the PT 738 pistol. In fact, the Plaintiff alleged, prior to
introducing the PT 738 product line in 2009, the Defendant
instructed their internal marketing and design teams not to warn
the public about the alleged defect.

The Plaintiff alleged that in 2014 the slide on Brian Aunkst's PT
738 pistol broke in an identical way to hers, causing it to explode
in his hand. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to
fully investigate what caused the slide to break apart. The
Plaintiff alleged the Defendant knew about and inspected Aunkst's
defective PT 738 but again instructed their marketing teams to
avoid mentioning the defect in advertising materials.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant provided four express
warranties for the PT 738 pistol. First, the PT 738 had a limited
warranty to be free from defects in material and workmanship.
Second, PT 738 purchasers received an unlimited lifetime repair
warranty. Third, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant publicized
their commitment to the very highest standards of quality,
dependability, and most of all, customer satisfaction, which
constituted an express warranty that their guns were free from
design and manufacturing defects. Finally, in the PT 738's
instruction manual, the Defendant reiterated their lifetime repair
policy and limited warranty and represented that PT 738 pistols
were manufactured to perform properly with the original parts as
designed.

Regarding the breach of express warranty claim, the Eleventh
Circuit concluded that the Plaintiff stated a plausible
breach-of-express-warranty claim under Alabama law such that her
case may move forward to discovery. Despite the Eleventh Circuit's
ruling, the Defendant argued the Court may still dismiss the
breach-of-express-warranty claim because the Plaintiff failed to
fulfill her obligations under the warranty. The Court stated it
would not ignore a clear directive from the Eleventh Circuit to
allow this claim to proceed to discovery. Accordingly, consistent
with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion, the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the breach-of-express-warranty claim was denied.

Concerning the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, the parties
appeared to agree that the Plaintiff's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
claim rises or falls with her breach-of-express-warranty claim.
Indeed, the Defendant asserted that because her Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act claim depends on her breach-of-warranty claims, the
Plaintiff also fails to state a claim under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act. The Defendant relied exclusively on the premise that
if the express-warranty claim fails, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
claim must fail as well. With no argument from the Defendant on the
viability of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim with the
breach-of-express-warranty claim surviving their motion to dismiss,
the Defendant failed to carry their burden, and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act claim survived.

Regarding the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
claim, unlike the Plaintiff's breach-of-express-warranty and
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, her Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act claim did not survive the Defendant's motion to
dismiss. In their motion, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff
does not have constitutional standing to bring a Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim because she did not purchase
the PT 738 pistol.

The Court first addressed the Defendant's standing argument. The
Defendant challenged the first element of standing, the Plaintiff's
injury. They relied on Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC, in which
the Eleventh Circuit noted the plaintiffs had not suffered any
actual damages because they could not show actual out-of-pocket
damages as required by Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act because they never paid anything to the defendant. Using
Calderon's language, the Defendant argued the Plaintiff cannot
establish standing. However, the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in
Calderon did not disturb that district court's finding that the
plaintiffs very well could have suffered injury-in-fact under
Article III while failing to have suffered actual damages under
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Consistent with
Calderon, the Plaintiff had standing under Article III to pursue
damages, and the Court proceeded to the merits of her Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims are subject
to a four-year statute of limitations. When a Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act claim is based on a product purchase,
the statute begins to run from the date of sale. In its prior
order, the Court dismissed the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act claim as barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. The Eleventh Circuit vacated that portion of the
Court's order, determining that the statute of limitations could
have been tolled by the Defendant's alleged fraudulent concealment,
and asked this Court to determine whether the Defendant owed the
Plaintiff a duty to disclose the PT 738's known defect.

The Court found that Florida does not generally recognize
fraudulent concealment as a tolling doctrine. The Florida Supreme
Court recognized the fraudulent concealment doctrine in Proctor v.
Schomberg. The Florida Legislature subsequently enacted Florida
Statute Section 95.051, which sets forth nine circumstances that
can toll a statute of limitations. That list is exhaustive. Because
Section 95.051 does not provide for tolling of the statute of
limitations based on fraudulent concealment, that tolling doctrine
cannot save the Plaintiff's Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act claim.

The Court noted that while a handful of decisions rendered by
Florida courts continued to recognize fraudulent concealment as a
tolling doctrine after the passage of Section 95.051, those cases
failed to grapple with that statute, and their reasoning is
therefore unpersuasive. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has
called into question the existence of fraudulent concealment as a
tolling doctrine. The Court embraced the reasoning that where the
Supreme Court of Florida has not addressed a particular issue,
federal courts are then bound by the decision of the Florida
district courts of appeal that address the disputed issue, unless
there is an indication that the supreme court would not adhere to
the district court's decision.

Because fraudulent concealment is not available under Florida law
to toll the statute of limitations as to the Plaintiff's Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, the Court granted
the Defendant's motion as to that claim.

Regarding injunctive and declaratory relief, in Count VI of her
complaint, the Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief
for her substantive claims. Injunctive relief and declaratory
judgments are prospective, equitable remedies, not standalone
causes of action. The Court addressed the Plaintiff's standing to
seek these prospective, equitable remedies.

The Court found the Plaintiff did not have standing to seek either
injunctive or declaratory relief. The Court noted this conclusion
does not contradict the Court's separate finding that the Plaintiff
can continue to pursue damages because a plaintiff must demonstrate
standing separately for each form of relief sought. Thus, even if a
plaintiff can establish standing to pursue separate claims for
monetary relief based on allegations of past harm, before a court
may grant that plaintiff prospective equitable relief, the
plaintiff must separately establish a threat of real and immediate,
as opposed to conjectural or hypothetical, future injury.

Concerning injunctive relief specifically, the Plaintiff sought
injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to issue a recall of all
PT 738 pistols. The Plaintiff claimed she had standing because she
specifically alleged that the defect in workmanship and material
allows the slides on the PT 738 pistols to break apart unexpectedly
while firing, creating a definite threat of future injury. However,
the complaint also alleged the Plaintiff's PT 738 already suffered
this defect, broke in half, and injured Christopher Harman. The
complaint even acknowledged that Taurus International
Manufacturing, Inc. has not manufactured the PT 738 for almost a
decade. The complaint did not allege the Plaintiff ever repaired
her PT 738 pistol and plans to shoot it again, purchased another PT
738, or will otherwise suffer a future harm from a deceptive trade
practice.

The Court found these pleading deficiencies belie the Plaintiff's
attempts to argue there is a threat of real and immediate future
injury. After the Plaintiff's experience with the PT 738 pistol,
she is aware of the alleged defect such that she is unlikely to
purchase another PT 738, and she does not allege an intention to
fire her own PT 738 again. The Plaintiff failed to allege facts
sufficient to support her standing to seek injunctive relief
because there is no real and immediate threat of future harm to
her. The Plaintiff alleged past harm that damages may remedy, but
she failed to connect her past harm to a future harm that
injunctive relief could prevent. Thus, the Defendant's motion to
dismiss her claim for injunctive relief was granted.

For the same reasons that the Plaintiff lacked standing to seek
injunctive relief, she could not obtain declaratory relief. The
Plaintiff sought a declaration from the Court that all PT 738
pistols with the defect have a common design defect in workmanship
and material that allows the slides on the PT 738s to break apart
unexpectedly while being fired and the Defendant knew of the defect
in the PT 738 and failed to disclose material facts about the
defect.

Declaratory relief is by its nature prospective. To have standing
to seek prospective relief, such as a declaratory judgment, a
plaintiff must allege facts from which it appears there is a
substantial likelihood that she will suffer injury in the future.
The Plaintiff failed to allege a real, immediate, and definite
injury to her. The Court reiterated that the Plaintiff did not
allege she ever repaired her PT 738 pistol and plans to shoot it
again, purchased another PT 738, or will otherwise suffer a future
harm from a deceptive trade practice involving the PT 738. Any
future injury to the Plaintiff arising from the PT 738, the same
warranty, or the same trade practice is therefore too contingent to
constitute a substantial likelihood of future injury. Thus, the
Plaintiff failed to establish standing to seek declaratory relief.
Because the Plaintiff did not have standing to seek declaratory or
injunctive relief, Count VI was denied without prejudice.

Regarding Taurus Holdings' liability, consistent with the Court's
opinion in the related case of Christopher Harman v. Taurus
International Manufacturing, Inc., the Court found the complaint
failed to allege sufficient facts to support piercing the
Defendant's corporate veil. The Plaintiff's arguments were largely
recycled from the arguments presented in the response to the motion
to dismiss in the related case, and her response to the pending
motion included portions that were taken verbatim from that
previous submission to the Court. Because the Plaintiff failed to
identify any caselaw to suggest the Court's conclusion in the
related case should change, the Court relied on its previous
analysis, declined to pierce the corporate veil, and found Taurus
Holdings is a separate entity from Taurus International
Manufacturing, Inc. and was due to be dismissed from this case.

Accordingly, the Court ordered as follows: The Defendant's motion
to dismiss was denied to the extent it sought to dismiss the
Plaintiff's breach-of-express-warranty and Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act claims.

Count III and Count V remained pending against Taurus International
Manufacturing, Inc.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted to the extent it
sought to dismiss the Plaintiff's Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and declaratory and injunctive relief claims
and to dismiss Taurus Holdings as a Defendant.

Count I was dismissed with prejudice and Count VI was dismissed
without prejudice. Defendant Taurus Holdings was dismissed from the
case.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KiKa9R from PacerMonitor.com

TC HEARTLAND: Garcia Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TC
HEARTLAND, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to file
under seal portions of his Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification and portions of the exhibits attached to the
Declaration of Bahar Sodaify.

These documents reference information that Defendant TC Heartland,
LLC has designated as confidential under the Protective Order. The
Plaintiff also seeks to seal a portion of Plaintiff's deposition
testimony referencing confidential medical information. The
Plaintiff states that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at
class certification.

The Plaintiff submits this request solely to comply with Civil L.R.
79-5 and the Protective Order and takes no position on whether
Defendant meets the standard for sealing its information. Pursuant
to Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3), Defendant, as the designating party, must
file a declaration within seven days establishing that the
documents warrants sealing.

The Plaintiff only seeks to keep sealed portions of his deposition
testimony that reference his wife’s confidential medical
information, as disclosure would violate her privacy rights.

TC provides packaged food products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VVCivX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com


THOMSON REUTERS: Jackson Appeals Court Ruling to 4th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JACKSON is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Michael Jackson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Thomson Reuters America
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00088-MFU, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Braxton County, West
Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, is brought against the Defendant for
alleged violation of West Virginia's Daniel's Law by disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise making available the home addresses or
unpublished home or personal telephone number of thousands of
active, formerly active, or retired judicial officers, prosecutors,
federal or state public defenders, federal or state assistant
public defenders, or law-enforcement officers from West Virginia
without their written permission.

The appellate case is entitled Michael Jackson v. Thomson Reuters
America Corporation, Case No. 25-2121, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
         KATZ, KANTOR, STONESTREET & BUCKNER PLLC
         206 South Walker Street
         Princeton, WV 24740
         Telephone: (304) 431-4050

                - and -

         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1330 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150

Defendant-Appellee THOMSON REUTERS AMERICA CORPORATION is
represented by:

         Michael Berry, Esq.
         Elizabeth Victoria Wingfield, Esq.
         BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
         1735 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 665-8500
                    (215) 864-8128

                 - and -

         Marcel S. Pratt, Esq.
         OFFICE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR
         City of Philadelphia Law Department
         1515 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 683-5000

                 - and -

         Luke Thomas Schmitt, Esq.
         WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK
         901 East Byrd Street
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Telephone: (804) 237-8825

THRYV INC: Jackson Appeals Daniel's Law Suit Ruling to 4th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JACKSON is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Michael Jackson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Thryv, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00096-MFU, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Braxton County, West
Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, is brought against the Defendant for
alleged violation of West Virginia's Daniel's Law by disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise making available the home addresses or
unpublished home or personal telephone number of thousands of
active, formerly active, or retired judicial officers, prosecutors,
federal or state public defenders, federal or state assistant
public defenders, or law-enforcement officers from West Virginia
without their written permission.

The appellate case is entitled Michael Jackson v. Thryv, Inc., Case
No. 25-2123, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
         KATZ, KANTOR, STONESTREET & BUCKNER PLLC
         206 South Walker Street
         Princeton, WV 24740
         Telephone: (304) 431-4050

                - and -

         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1330 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150

Defendant-Appellee THRYV, INC. is represented by:

         Christopher Lee Bauer, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
         2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 747-1900

                 - and -

         Gordon Harrison Copland, Esq.
         John Dominic Pizzo, Esq.
         STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
         400 White Oaks Boulevard
         Bridgeport, WV 26330
         Telephone: (304) 933-8162
                    (304) 933-8000

                 - and -

         Dwight M. Francis, Esq.
         Aimee C. Oleson, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         2200 Ross Avenue
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (469) 391-7400

TOSH INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Wheeler Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOSH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00141 (D. Utah, Sept. 19,
2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable
information that was impacted in a data breach.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was
entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and
transfer that information.

The Defendant is a financial services company that offers check and
cash advance services. On April 3, 2025, the Defendant observed a
network disruption event as a result of unauthorized access to its
network.

In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine
the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Through its investigation,
Defendant determined that some of its files may have been accessed
and/or removed by the unauthorized individual(s) on or about March
21, 2025.

The Defendant then conducted a thorough review of the potentially
impacted data and on August 11, 2025, determined that the impacted
files may have contained PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class
Members, says the suit.

The Defendant is a financial services company that provides loans
and cash advances to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Sykes, Esq.
          PEARSON BUTLER
          1802 S. Jordan Parkway, Suite 200
          South Jordan, UT 84095
          Telephone: (801) 495-4104
          E-mail: rachel@pearsonbutler.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Ft. Lauderdal, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com   

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Allowed to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to file documents under seal.

The protection of absent class member privacy is a compelling
reason to seal their names, salary information, marital status, and
addresses.

Moreover, the Plaintiff proffers the wage statements to demonstrate
that Defendant issues uniform wage statements across all
locations.

The personally identifiable information Plaintiff seeks to seal is
not relevant to the motion, while the relevant information—how
Defendant identifies itself and the format of the wage
statements—is not redacted.

On Aug. 25, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class
certification.

Transdev provides passenger transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mfzYi9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Selesnick Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH SELESNICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-11126 (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2025) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the highly
valuable, personal identifying information of Plaintiff and other
consumers, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of
birth, phone numbers, home addresses, and other personal
information.

On August 26, 2025, the Defendant announced a massive data breach
that compromised the personal information of millions of consumers.
The data breach was preventable and stemmed from TransUnion's
well-known and avoidable cybersecurity failures. TransUnion failed
to implement reasonable measures to protect its systems against
unauthorized intrusion; maintain industry-standard safeguards;
enforce strict vendor oversight and access controls; require
regular password resets; encrypt the data it stored; and adequately
train and audit employees to guard against phishing and other
attacks, says the suit.

TransUnion is a global information company and one of the three
major credit bureaus in the United States. It provides credit and
public record data to businesses and consumers, along with services
such as credit risk management, fraud prevention, identity
verification, and marketing analytics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010   
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808     
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com

TRICOLOR HOLDINGS: Campos Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRICOLOR HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 25-03107-mvl (N.D. Tex., September 19, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the California
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' action of terminating the
employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a
result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendants on or about
September 8, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as
required by the California WARN Act.

Tricolor Holdings, LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jason C. Webster, Esq.
       WEBSTER VICKNAIR MACLEOD
       6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 150
       Houston, TX 77036
       Telephone: (713) 581-3900
       Facsimile: (713) 581-3907
       Email: filing@wvmlaw.com

               - and -

       Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
       LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
       100 Church Street, 8th Fl.
       New York, NY 10007
       Telephone: (212) 581-5005
       Email: stuart@lankmill.com

               - and -

       Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
       Vance McCrary, Esq.
       THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
       182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
       Mobile, AL 36602
       Telephone: (251) 433-8100
       Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

TRIPLE CANOPY: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 27, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND VILLALOVOS, v.
TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00938-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered a case management order as
follows:

  Joinder and Other Amendments:                  Dec. 12, 2025

  Motion for Class Certification:                Nov. 27, 2026

  Fact Discovery Cutoff:                         Jan. 29, 2027

  Designation of Opening Experts with Reports:   Feb. 5, 2027

  Designation of Rebuttal Experts with Reports:  Mar. 5, 2027

  Expert Discovery Cutoff:                       Apr. 2, 2027

  Filing of Dispositive/Daubert Motion(s):       Apr. 13, 2027

  Trial Setting Conference:                      Aug. 17, 2027


Triple is an American company providing armed security, mission
support, and risk management services to governments and
corporations.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DyRP1G at no extra
charge.[CC] 


TWIN CITIES: Fails to Properly Secure Patients' Info, Severson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SEVERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TWIN CITIES PAIN CLINIC, Defendant, Case No.
27-CV-25-16915 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., 4th Judicial, September
15, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients'
personally identifiable information and protected health
information.

On July 9, 2025, the Defendant discovered suspicious activity in a
TCPC employee's email account. Following the discovery, the
Defendant conducted an internal investigation and determined that
an unauthorized cyber actor was able to access its files. Despite
learning of the Data Breach Incident in July 2025, the Defendant
waited until September 4, 2025, to notify Plaintiff and Class
Members.

As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class
Members remained unaware for two months that their private
information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue
to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other
forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain
present for their respective lifetimes, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was
accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class Members, asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
duty, and breach of confidence.

Twin Cities Pain Clinic is a pain management center that treats its
patients for bodily injuries and chronic pain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
                  bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                  crenz@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS: Class Cert Bid in Vargas Due March 6, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL GIOVANNY VARGAS AND
CAROLINA MONTOYA, v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON, Case No.
8:25-cv-01628-JLB-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L.
Badalamenti entered a case management and scheduling order

                   Deadline                             Date

  Motions to Add or Join Parties or Amend           Dec. 5, 2025
  Pleadings:

  Discovery and Motions to Compel Discovery:        June 5, 2026

  Motions for Class Certification (if applicable):  Mar. 6, 2026

  Dispositive and Daubert Motions:                  July 10, 2026

  Motions in Limine:                                Nov. 2, 2026

  Final Pretrial Conference:                        Nov. 20, 2026

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8q15M6 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


UNION HOME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Contee Says
------------------------------------------------------
BARRY CONTEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNION HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:25-cv-02009-JPC (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 22, 2025) arises out of the
recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated
against the Defendant, which held in its possession certain
personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and Class
Members.

The Defendant owes Plaintiff and Class Members an affirmative duty
to adequately protect and safeguard this private information
against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute,
regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendant
utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing
sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers,
asserts the suit.

On June 25, 2025, the Defendant learned of a "data security
incident." On August 26, 2025, Defendant learned an unauthorized
actor gained access to personal information including "name, loan
number, Social Security number, driver's license or
government-issued ID number, or date of birth."

The Defendant began notifying affected individuals such as
Plaintiff on or around Sept. 11, 2025. The Plaintiff's letter is
dated September 15, 2025.

Union Home is a mortgage lender that operates in 48 states, and the
District of Columbia.1 Its annual lending volume is $5
billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          2001 Union St, Ste 200
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law

UNION PACIFIC: Walschmidt Wins Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES WALDSCHMIDT, and
NANCY POLLARD, as Personal representative of CHARLIE GRIGG; v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case No. 4:21-cv-03124 (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon concludes the proposed classes
should be certified and the bifurcated trial plan adopted in part.


  1. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, Filing No. 175 in
     Case 4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 182 in Case 8:22cv210, is
     granted.

  2. The Defendants' motion to extend progression order deadlines,

     Filing No. 220 in 4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 227 in 8:22cv210,

     is denied.

The Court concludes the damages class meets the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs allege Union Pacific violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act when it implemented various policies affecting
hearing-impaired workers.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two classes under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

First, it asks the Court to certify the following class under Rule
23(b)(3) for the purpose of awarding damages:

     "Current and former Union Pacific Train Engine & Yard
     ("TE&Y") employees or job applicants who had hearing acuity
     sufficient to pass the FRA's hearing-acuity test—defined as

     not having an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
     than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or
     without use of a hearing aid—and who were subjected to one
or
     more adverse actions by Union Pacific because of their
     hearing-acuity test results between Jan. 1, 2012 and Dec. 31,

     2023.

Second, it asks the Court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2)
for the purpose of fashioning declaratory and injunctive relief:

     "Current Union Pacific Train Engine & Yard ("TE&Y") employees

     or job applicants who wear at least one hearing aid and who
     do not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater

     than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with the
     use of a hearing aid."

Union provides rail transportation services.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 15, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y7xRI4
at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
McLaughlin & Stern, LLP announced that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of current and former United Airlines flight
attendants working in New Jersey. The complaint alleges that United
Airlines has engaged in systematic wage violations by failing to
compensate flight attendants for all hours worked, including
overtime pay.

The complaint states that United compensates flight attendants only
for "actual" flight time, which is defined as the period between
the closing of the aircraft door at departure and the opening of
the door upon arrival. This practice excludes numerous essential
duties that flight attendants must perform, including pre-flight
check-ins, boarding and deplaning passengers, conducting safety
checks, waiting during layovers, and assisting passengers outside
of the narrow "flight time" window.

By failing to account for these hours, the complaint alleges that
United has deprived flight attendants of millions of dollars in
wages and overtime compensation in violation of New Jersey wage and
hour laws.

"This case is about ensuring that flight attendants, who are the
backbone of passenger safety and customer service, are paid fairly
for all of the work they perform," said Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.,
Partner at McLaughlin & Stern. "United Airlines has profited
immensely while refusing to pay its flight attendants for
substantial hours of work that are required and controlled by the
company. We look forward to securing justice for our client and the
class she represents."

The suit, brought on behalf of named plaintiff Ava Lawrey and more
than 1,000 United flight attendants based out of Newark Liberty
International Airport, seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief to
prevent future violations.

About McLaughlin & Stern LLP

Founded in 1898, McLaughlin & Stern is one of New York's oldest law
firms, offering a full range of legal services to individuals,
businesses, and institutions. With offices in New York, Florida,
and Connecticut, the firm is known for its multidisciplinary
expertise and client-focused approach. [GN]

UNITED FOOD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Moore, writing for meatingplace, reports that a proposed
class action filed in federal court alleged United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 7R, failed to protect the
personally identifiable information (PII) of tens of thousands of
current and former members -- potentially including meat packing
workers -- and their dependents, allowing hackers to access names
and Social Security numbers during a December 2024 cyberattack.

In the complaint, plaintiff GeriSue Hancock said the breach
affected about 55,747 people and was detected by the union on Dec.
11, after "certain data may have been accessed or acquired" the day
prior. According to the filing, UFCW Local 7R began notifying
affected individuals this week -- more than nine months later --
allegedly hindering victims' ability to mitigate identity-theft
risks.

Hancock, suing on behalf of a putative class, claimed the
Denver-based local, which represents roughly 23,000 workers across
supermarkets, packing houses and food processing plants, among
others in Colorado and Wyoming, stored unencrypted, unredacted PII
and failed to implement basic safeguards. The suit cited alleged
deficiencies including inadequate employee training, lack of
phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication, insufficient
logging and monitoring, and retention of sensitive data longer than
necessary.

The complaint asserted claims of negligence/negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. It seeks damages
and court-ordered remedies requiring the union to disclose the full
scope of the breach, adopt industry-standard security measures, and
provide lifetime identity-theft protection at the union's expense.

The filing points to FTC guidance and industry frameworks
(including NIST and CIS Controls) as benchmarks the union allegedly
failed to meet.

UFCW Local 7R's notification letter, quoted in the suit, states the
union "takes privacy and security very seriously," secured its
network after discovering suspicious activity, and worked with
incident response professionals. The complaint contends the notice
omitted key details about the root cause, exploited vulnerabilities
and specific remedial steps. [GN]

UNITED NETWORK: Court Narrows Claims in White Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Lisa White, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The United Network for
Organ Sharing, Defendant, Case No. 3:24CV629 (RCY) (E.D. Va.),
Judge Roderick C. Young of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

The Court ruled on a putative class action stemming from Defendant
United Network for Organ Sharing's discovery that it had
inadvertently stored private health information in a database
available to unauthorized users for 16 years. Plaintiff alleged
that her private information was among the data inadvertently
disclosed, which was then obtained and misused by malevolent third
parties.

The Court found that this was a putative class action, as Plaintiff
Lisa White filed individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated. However, the Court noted that the case had not yet
achieved certified class status, referring to it throughout as a
putative class action.

Plaintiff Lisa White was a resident of Tennessee who began her
relationship with UNOS when she registered as an organ donor in
2007. Defendant United Network for Organ Sharing was a private
corporation headquartered in Virginia that provided organ
transplant services and operated as the national administrator of
the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network through a
contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Court detailed that UNOS collected extremely sensitive private
information from patients, including Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, health insurance claim numbers, extensive lifetime
medical information and comprehensive medical testing results. In
its Privacy Policy, UNOS promised that the data collected were
securely stored on servers according to industry standards and best
practices for security, that any personally identifiable
information was protected by privacy and security practices, and
that UNOS did not disclose, give, sell, or transfer any personally
identifiable information about website visitors unless required for
law enforcement or by federal law.

The Court found that in 2007, UNOS launched a test environment: a
purportedly distinct database populated with test data, in which
external system developers could test and demonstrate new tools and
enhancements to the OPTN system. UNOS launched a second test
environment in 2011. The test environments were accessible to
anyone employed by transplant hospitals, organ procurement
organizations, and histocompatibility laboratory members, as well
as third-party contractors.

On November 10, 2023, UNOS conducted two software tests of its
databases and discovered that it had accidentally populated the
test environments with actual patients' data rather than test data
since their respective creation in 2007 and 2011. For sixteen
years, anyone with access to the test environments could view any
patients' Private Information. Because UNOS did not encrypt or
redact any Private Information, third-party users of the test
environments had unfettered access to patients' entire Social
Security Numbers, alongside their full names and dates of birth, in
plain violation of UNOS's Privacy Policy.

About ten months after its discovery of the Data Breach, UNOS sent
Notice of Data Breach Letters to believed victims, advising them
that their Private Information had been exposed to third parties.

Plaintiff White was a kidney donor in July 2009, with additional
Private Information added to her UNOS file before and after the
organ donation. The Court noted that Plaintiff was very careful not
to share her Private Information, especially as related to her
medical history and organ donation as well as her Social Security
number. She had never knowingly transmitted unencrypted personal
information over the internet or any other unsecured source and had
refused to provide her Social Security number to any medical
organizations for treatment even when asked.

Yet, in 2023, Plaintiff was notified by Experian that her entire
Social Security number had been discovered on the dark web.
Thereafter, Plaintiff began receiving notifications of fraudulent
uses of her Social Security number, including a credit card
fraudulently taken out in her name and notification of a fraudulent
credit card application submitted in her name. Each time Plaintiff
received such a notification, she was forced to spend hours of time
to stop and reverse the fraudulent activities.

In late August 2024, Plaintiff received a Notice Letter from UNOS,
notifying her that her Private Information, including her full
Social Security number, had been exposed in the Data Breach. This
notification caused Plaintiff significant distress, since she
expected that the highly sensitive data associated with her kidney
donation procedure would be maintained in an absolutely secure
manner.

The Amended Complaint advanced five claims against UNOS: (1)
negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of implied contract;
(4) unjust enrichment; and (5) a request for declaratory judgment.
UNOS chiefly contended that Plaintiff's claims against it must be
dismissed because she lacked Article III standing

The Court found that Plaintiff adequately alleged Article III
standing, applying Fourth Circuit precedents Beck v. McDonald,
Hutton v. National Board of Examiners in Optometry, and O'Leary v.
TrustedID. The Court determined that this case was most like
Hutton, where plaintiffs had standing because they alleged actual
harm from identity theft and credit card fraud.

The Court ruled that under the logic of Hutton, Plaintiff plainly
alleged three cognizable Article III injuries: an injury-in-fact
based on the misuse of her data (actual credit card fraud), a
sufficiently imminent threatened injury based on risk of future
misuse (since her data was for sale on the dark web), and
injury-in-fact based on mitigation efforts.

The Court also found that Plaintiff adequately alleged that her
injuries were fairly traceable to the conduct of UNOS, satisfying
the causation element of standing. The Court reasoned that
Plaintiff's allegations gave rise to a plausible inference that the
misuse of her information resulted from the Data Breach, noting
that UNOS had admitted to the Data Breach and that Plaintiff
generally refrained from sharing her Private Information.

The Court found that Plaintiff adequately alleged negligence by
UNOS. Under Virginia law, the elements of an action in negligence
were a legal duty on the part of the defendant, breach of that
duty, and a showing that such breach was the proximate cause of
injury, resulting in damage to the plaintiff.

The Court determined that UNOS assumed a duty of care regarding
Plaintiff's Private Information because UNOS actively solicited
Plaintiff's Private Information as a precondition to participation
in its organ donation services, similar to the reasoning in In re
Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation.

The Court found that Plaintiff plausibly alleged that UNOS did not
behave with care as to the maintenance of her Private Information.
According to the allegations, UNOS allegedly stored patients'
unencrypted, unredacted, highly sensitive Private Information in a
database made available to unauthorized parties for 16 years, which
clearly constituted a breach of UNOS's duty of care.

The Court also determined that Plaintiff plausibly alleged that
UNOS's conduct proximately caused the misuse of her Private
Information, noting that data breaches were common and it was
foreseeable that malevolent actors would exploit such breaches to
commit fraud

The Court found that Plaintiff adequately alleged her breach of
contract claim. Under Virginia law, a breach of contract claim
required: (1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a
plaintiff; (2) the defendant's violation or breach of that
obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the
breach of obligation.

The Court determined that Plaintiff plausibly alleged the existence
of a contractual relationship between herself and UNOS that
incorporated the commitments of the Privacy Policy. Plaintiff
alleged that she agreed with UNOS to provide her Private
Information as an aspect of her participation in the organ donation
process, and that their agreement incorporated the Privacy Policy.
This assent was accompanied by consideration, since Plaintiff
exchanged her Private Information and a registration fee for the
use of UNOS's organ donation services.

The Court similarly found that Plaintiff adequately stated her
implied contract claim, applying the same standard as express
contract claims under Virginia law.

The Court granted UNOS's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment
claim. The Court explained that a prima facie case of unjust
enrichment comprised three elements: (1) plaintiff conferred a
benefit on defendant; (2) defendant knew of the benefit and should
reasonably have expected to repay plaintiff; and (3) defendant
accepted or retained the benefit without paying for its value.

The Court found that the Amended Complaint lacked allegations that
would give rise to an inference that UNOS should have expected to
either pay Plaintiff for her Private Information or refund her fee
upon the occurrence of a Data Breach. The Court reasoned that there
was no reason to believe that either party expected an organization
such as UNOS to pay for her information in conjunction with organ
donation services, nor that either party should have expected that
UNOS would repay the fee upon a Data Breach.

The Court found that Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim was
adequately alleged and appropriate. The Declaratory Judgment Act
permitted district courts, in cases of actual controversy within
their jurisdiction, to declare the rights and other legal relations
of any interested party seeking such declaration.

The Court determined that there existed an actual controversy
between the parties regarding UNOS's obligations concerning
patients' Private Information as well as the present state of
UNOS's data security measures. The Court found no good reason to
decline to hear Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim, noting that
a declaratory judgment would clearly clarify the parties'
respective rights and would afford relief from Plaintiff's
uncertainty and insecurity as to the risk of future exposure of her
Private Information.

The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. Specifically, the Court denied UNOS's motion with respect
to the negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
and declaratory judgment claims. However, the Court granted UNOS's
motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim.

The Court concluded that Plaintiff had adequately alleged Article
III standing and had stated viable claims for negligence, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, and declaratory relief, but
failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment under Virginia law.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d1qApP from PacerMonitor.com.


UNITED STATES: ACLU of Maine Sues Over Immigration Detentions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Davis, writing for Maine Morning Star, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union of Maine filed a class action
lawsuit on Monday, September 22, challenging the denial of bond
hearings to people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.

This lawsuit comes after a federal judge ruled on Sept. 19 in favor
of a man unlawfully detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) in Maine. The ACLU of Maine had filed a habeas petition on
behalf of the man, who is the organization's client.  

Now, the ACLU of Maine is seeking relief for others in similar
situations.

"Indefinitely detaining people and separating them from their
families, communities, and jobs is not only cruel -- it's against
the law," Max Brooks, an immigration attorney with the ACLU of
Maine, said in a statement. "Millions of people who have been
waiting for their day in court are now at risk of being jailed
indefinitely over civil violations."

The recent ruling

While a preliminary victory, the federal court for the District of
Maine ruling in Petitioner v. Stamper et. al. on Sept. 19 indicates
that this man's, and perhaps others', claims could eventually
prevail in court.

The court granted the ACLU of Maine's request for emergency relief,
therefore blocking the federal government from transferring the man
out of Maine. But the judge also concluded that he is likely to
prevail on his claims that his due process rights were violated.

According to the ACLU, the man was transported over 200 miles and
detained in Fort Fairfield after local police arrested him near
Waterville and transferred him into CBP custody. He was denied
contact with his family or legal counsel for nine days, according
to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges CBP violated his due process rights by denying
him the opportunity for a bond hearing, as required under federal
law.

The new case

The class action lawsuit, Orellana v. Moriz, similarly alleges that
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of
Justice has misclassified people arrested by ICE and denied those
people of their right to a bond hearing.

Along with the ACLU of Maine, the ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of
New Hampshire, law firm Araujo and Fisher, law firm Foley Hoag and
the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic filed this class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

These groups argue the federal government's recent actions have
upended decades of settled law and established practice in
immigration proceedings. District courts in New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and New York have already concluded such violations
in similar cases.

The lawsuit cites federal statute that stipulates people arrested
inside the U.S. while their immigration cases proceed are entitled
to bond hearings before an immigration judge unless they are deemed
a threat to public safety or a flight risk.

In 2022, however, the immigration court in Tacoma, Washington,
began misclassifying people in that scenario as "mandatory
detainees" under another statute, which covers people stopped at
the border or ports of entry who can be held without bond
hearings.

In April, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington ruled that this practice was likely illegal and ordered
a bond hearing for a wrongfully detained litigant.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security started asking immigration
judges to deny bond hearings in July 2025. Earlier this month, the
Board of Immigration Appeals, a Justice Department body that
reviews immigration court decisions, issued a precedential decision
that made that new policy binding on all immigration decisions.  

"This statute has never been applied to people arrested in the
interior of the United States and placed in removal proceedings,
and this practice blatantly goes against its plain language,"
Brooks said in a statement. "However, CBP and ICE have begun
indefinitely jailing people who are undergoing civil immigration
proceedings that can take months or years. This is a clear
violation of the due process rights of immigrants as outlined by
federal law." [GN]

UNITED STATES: AMT Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as American Federation of
Teachers, et al., v. U.S. Department of Education, and Linda
McMahon, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00802-RBW (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

-- granting certification of the classes against defendants U.S.
    Department of Education and Linda McMahon for violations of
    the Administrative Procedures Act; and

-- appointing Lise Naugle, Sandy Cashman, Philip Whitley, and
    Kiva Iverson as Class Representatives and Berger Montague PC
    and the student borrower protection center as class counsel.

The plaintiffs seek to certify the following nationwide Classes
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)2:

IDR Denial Class (Proposed Representative: Plaintiff Iverson):

    "All borrowers who have had their IDR application denied
    because their IBR application was denied after July 4, 2025
    due to an asserted lack of a partial financial hardship."

IBR Cancellation Class (Proposed Representatives: Plaintiff
Whitley, Plaintiff Naugle, Plaintiff Iverson, and Plaintiff
Cashman):

    "All borrowers who have made the required payments for loan
    cancellation under the IBR program but have not yet received
    cancellation."

ICR Cancellation Class (Proposed Representatives: Plaintiff
Whitley, Plaintiff Naugle, Plaintiff Iverson, and Plaintiff
Cashman):

    "All borrowers who have made the required payments for loan
    cancellation under the ICR or PAYE plans but have not yet
    received cancellation."

The Department is allegedly depriving student loan borrowers of
their rights under the Congressionally mandated Income Based
Repayment ("IBR") and Income Contingent Repayment ("ICR') plans,
including the Pay as Your Earn ("PAYE") plan.

US Education is a cabinet-level department of the United States
government.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t93Sqt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie Selesnick, Esq.
          F. Paul Bland, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC  
          1001 G Street, NW  
          Suite 400 East  
          Washington, DC 20001  
          Telephone: (202) 221-5279
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: jselesnick@bergermontague.com  
                  pbland@bergermontague.com  
                  emdrake@bergermontague.com  
                  jalbanese@bergermontague.com

                - and -

          Persis Yu, Esq.
          R. T. Winston Berkman-Breen
          Khandice Lofton, Esq.
          STUDENT BORROWER PROTECTION
          CENTER
          1025 Connecticut Ave NW, #717  
          Telephone: (202) 618-1328
          E-mail: persis@protectborrowers.org
                  winston@protectborrowers.org  
                  khandice@protectborrowers.org

UNITED STATES: Appalachian Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for preliminary injunction and motion to
certify class and granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled Appalachian Voices, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01982-RJL, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs, recipients of Environmental and Climate Justic
Block Grants, bring this suit against the Defendants for relief
from the termination of their grants. They allege that the
Defendants terminated the grants in violation of the separation of
powers, Presentment Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction and a motion to certify class.

On July 14, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On Aug. 29, 2025, Judge Richard J. Leon entered an Order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion to
certify class and granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not stated a cause
of action for either of their constitutional claims. As such, the
Court denies injunctive relief and grants dismissal of these
claims.

The appellate case is captioned Appalachian Voices, et al. v. EPA,
et al., Case No. 25-5333, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Benjamin Grillot, Esq.
          SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
          122 C Street, NW, Suite 325
          Washington, DC 20001

                 - and -

          Hana Veselka Vizcarra, Esq.
          EARTHJUSTICE
          1001 G. Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 667-4500

                 - and -

          Toby R. Merrill, Esq.
          PUBLIC RIGHTS PROJECT
          490 43rd Street, Unit 115
          Oakland, CA 94609

                 - and -

          Yvonne Mere, Esq.
          CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF SAN FRANCISCO
          1390 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102

                 - and -

          Gary DiBianco, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT
          1318 F Street, NW, Pmb 181
          Washington, DC 20004

                 - and -

          Alison Holcomb, Esq.
          OFFICE OF KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
          401 5th Avenue, Suite 800
          Seattle, WA 98104

Defendants-Appellees ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are
represented by:

          DOJ Appellate Counsel
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

UNITED STATES: Court Halts Deportation of Guatemalan Child Migrants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as L.G.M.L., et al., Plaintiffs v. Kristi
Noem, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-2942 (TJK) (D.D.C.),
Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and preliminary injunction, halting the government's plan to remove
unaccompanied Guatemalan children from the United States.

Just before midnight on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend, several
Executive Branch agencies began to implement a plan to expel from
the United States certain unaccompanied alien children in the
custody of the Department of Health and Human Services and send
them back to their home country of Guatemala. Those agencies told
the children's caretakers, who were hearing about the plan for the
first time, to have them ready for pickup in as little as two
hours. The children were roused from their beds in the middle of
the night and driven to an airport, where some were loaded onto
planes.

Lawyers got wind of this hasty operation while it was unfolding and
filed this lawsuit seeking emergency relief that Sunday at 1:00
a.m. The judge on emergency duty entered a temporary restraining
order barring the agencies and their officials from removing or
otherwise transporting the children from the United States.

At a hearing later that day, counsel for Defendants explained why
it was "fairly outrageous" for Plaintiffs to have sued: all
Defendants wanted to do was reunify children with parents who had
requested their return. But that explanation crumbled like a house
of cards about a week later. There is no evidence before the Court
that the parents of these children sought their return. To the
contrary, the Guatemalan Attorney General reports that officials
could not even track down parents for most of the children whom
Defendants found eligible for their "reunification" plan. And none
of those that were located had asked for their children to come
back to Guatemala.

Federal law treats unaccompanied alien children -- individuals
under 18 years old who lack both lawful immigration status and a
parent or legal guardian able to care for them in the United States
-- as a distinct group. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 ("TVPRA") imposes several
obligations on federal departments and agencies regarding these
children.

When the Department of Homeland Security seeks to remove from the
United States any unaccompanied alien child originally from a
non-contiguous country -- that is, a nation other than Canada and
Mexico -- three safeguards kick in: 1. The child must be placed in
removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a; 2. The child must
be made eligible for voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. Section
1229c at no cost to the child; and 3. An unaccompanied alien child
whom DHS seeks to remove must receive access to counsel to the
greatest extent practicable.

According to HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement's ("ORR") acting
director, this operation stemmed from collaboration among several
agencies following outreach from the Guatemalan government. In May
or July this year, the Guatemalan government purportedly requested
that the United States government reunify unaccompanied alien
children with their parents or legal guardians in Guatemala.

ORR selected nine criteria that a child had to meet to be part of
the group returning to Guatemala:

1. The child is a Guatemalan national
2. The child lacks a parent or legal guardian in the United States
who is sponsoring him
3. The child has a parent or legal guardian in Guatemala
4. The child lacks a credible fear claim or pending asylum case
5. ORR is assured the child will not be trafficked upon their
return"
6. The child is medically cleared to travel
7. The child lacks indications of being a victim of trafficking
8. The "child's attorney of record has not affirmatively protested
the child's reunification with their parent (or legal guardian) in
Guatemala"
9. The child lacks indications of child abuse/neglect perpetrated
by a parent/legal guardian

After identifying 457 children as potentially appropriate for
reunification, the agency winnowed that number to 327. Then, over
Labor Day weekend, ORR launched phase one: placing 76 children on
repatriation planes to take off the morning of Sunday, August 31.

Shortly before the hearing on the preliminary-injunction and
class-certification motions, a recent report from the Guatemalan
Attorney General came to light that undermines Defendants' claims
about parental reunification. According to that report, the
National Attorney General's Office received a legal memorandum from
ORR in July containing a database of 609 adolescents between the
ages of 14 and 17.

The office then tried to identify and locate family resources for
these children. But of the 609 adolescents listed, the Attorney
General's office had phone numbers for only 204 of the families,
and it could only confirm the information of 115. Before conducting
home visits with those families, the office called them and
discovered that the families were surprised -- and some even
annoyed -- by the outreach because many did not expect their
children "to be returned to Guatemala."

In the end, only parents for about 50 to 57 of the 609 children
that ORR identified to Guatemala "were willing to welcome back
their children." Even within that small group, though, none of them
was requesting their child's return."

The Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied all requirements for
class certification under Rule 23(a).

Numerosity: Because Defendants identified 457 Guatemalan
[unaccompanied alien children] in ORR care and custody as
potentially appropriate for reunification before narrowing that
number to 327, the numerosity requirement was easily satisfied.

Commonality: Plaintiffs met the commonality requirement because
they identified common questions susceptible to generalized,
class-wide proof, including: Do the TVPRA provisions governing the
removal of unaccompanied alien children like Plaintiffs apply to
what Defendants describe as reunifications and repatriations?

Typicality: Both the named Plaintiffs and the putative class
members pressed claims deriving from the same conduct: Defendants
expelling them from the United States under a reunification plan
that allegedly violates the TVPRA's procedures.

Adequacy: The Court found that in the National Immigration Law
Center and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and
Protection, Plaintiffs had capable counsel that is competent to
represent the class.

The Court also found that a Rule 23(b)(2) class was appropriate
because Defendants had acted or refused to act on grounds that
apply generally to the class and injunctive and declaratory relief
were appropriate as to the entire class.

The Court found that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their
statutory claim that Defendants' plan violates the TVPRA. The Court
rejected Defendants' argument that their reunification plan does
not involve removals and thus does not trigger the TVPRA's
requirements.

The Court explained: The linchpin of this theory is Defendants'
view that they can 'reunify' these unaccompanied alien children
with their parents in Guatemala or 'repatriate' them there without
first 'removing' them from the United States, thus avoiding the
TVPRA's trigger. But that understanding conflicts with the ordinary
meanings of these words and their context within the statutes at
issue.

The Court found that removal focuses on the physical expulsion of
an alien from the United States and that nothing about the word
'reunification' suggests that ORR's duty to 'reunify' an
unaccompanied alien child with his parents (if possible) displaces
the process that Congress mandated when DHS 'removes' such a child
from the United States, even when that removal is a predicate for
reunification.

The Court concluded that Defendants tried -- and still want -- to
remove unaccompanied Guatemalan children from the United States.
But because 'calling a thing by a name does not make it so,'
Defendants cannot dodge their statutory obligations under the TVPRA
by asserting that these children are being reunified or repatriated
without being removed.

The Court found that Plaintiffs met the standard for irreparable
harm. The Court explained that given the purpose of the TVPRA's
procedures and on this record, losing those safeguards would
significantly harm Plaintiffs. The statute brims with evidence of
congressional concern about the 'trafficking and exploitation' of
unaccompanied alien children in this context.

The Court noted that the record backed up Congress's judgment about
the importance of these provisions, citing examples of children who
had received death threats or experienced neglect and abandonment.
The Court found that this harm is not remediable because nothing in
the record suggests that the Court could effectively order
Defendants to somehow return these unaccompanied alien children
back to ORR custody from Guatemala if the Court later found that
they were entitled to the TVPRA's safeguards.

The Court found that the remaining preliminary injunction factors
favored relief. The Court explained: "The 'perpetuation of unlawful
agency action' does not serve the 'public interest.' Rather, the
public has a 'substantial' interest 'in having governmental
agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and
operations.

The Court noted that Defendants endure minimal harm because they
cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends, at least
temporarily, a likely unlawful practice.

Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and provisionally certified the class described
above. In addition, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

The Court ordered that Defendants, their agents, representatives,
and all persons or entities in concert with them are enjoined from
transferring, repatriating, removing, or otherwise facilitating the
transport of any Plaintiff -- including both named Plaintiffs and
all members of the provisionally certified class -- from the United
States. Finally, the Court required Plaintiffs to post a $1.00
nominal bond by September 22, 2025.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OIAZ15 from PacerMonitor.com.


UTZ QUALITY: Rangel Sues Over TCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------
RAY RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UTZ QUALITY FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-08729 (C.D. Cal., September 15, 2025) is a putative class
action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages
in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times.

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 themselves and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

UTZ Quality Foods, LLC is an American snack food company based in
Hanover, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          1515 NE 26th Street  
          Wilton Manors, FL 33305
          Telephone: (754) 444-7539
          E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com

V.F. CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 12
----------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your V.F. Corporation (NYSE:VFC)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, visit the link below for more
information:

https://zlk.com/pslra-1/v-f-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=169756&wire=1&utm_campaign=17

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.

THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
V.F. Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between October
30, 2023 and May 20, 2025.

CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed
material adverse facts concerning the true state of VFC's
turnaround plans; notably, that additional significant reset
actions would be necessary to return the Vans brand to growth,
resulting in significant setbacks to Vans' revenue growth
trajectory.

The truth emerged on May 21, 2025, when VFC reported its fourth
quarter and full-year fiscal 2025 results, highlighting a
significant decline in Vans' growth trajectory, which faltered from
an 8% loss the quarter before to a 20% loss in the fourth quarter,
and noting such decline would continue through the next quarter.
The Company attributed its results and below-expectation guidance
largely as "a direct effect of deliberately reduced revenue to
eliminate unprofitable or unproductive businesses" and "an
additional set of deliberate actions" already in-place but
previously unannounced. VFC further noted that, disregarding these
deliberate actions, Vans would still have shown a "high single
digit[]" revenue decline, suggesting growth slowed in comparison to
the prior years' sequential improvements irrespective of
management's new "deliberate actions."

On this news, the price of VFC's common stock declined
dramatically. From a closing market price of $14.43 per share on
May 20, 2025, VFC's stock price fell to $12.15 per share on May 21,
2025, a decline of about 15.8% in the span of just a single day.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in V.F. Corporation stock
during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares
- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/v-f-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=169756&wire=1&utm_campaign=17
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

     Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
     Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
     Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
     33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
     https://zlk.com/ [GN]

VINEYARD VINES: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Emails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Angee Harrington filed a
class action lawsuit against Vineyard Vines LLC.

Why: Harrington alleges Vineyard Vines sends emails with misleading
subject lines.

Where: The Vineyard Vines class action lawsuit was filed in
Washington state court.

A new class action lawsuit accuses Vineyard Vines of sending emails
with misleading subject lines designed to entice customers to make
purchases.

Plaintiff Angee Harrington claims Vineyard Vines sends emails with
subject lines that falsely advertise limited-time sales, leading
customers to believe they must act quickly to secure a good deal.
The company then sends follow-up emails announcing that the sale
has been "extended," which Harrington says was always part of the
plan.

Harrington also alleges Vineyard Vines sends emails with subject
lines that misrepresent the terms of a promotion. For example, an
email with the subject line "30% Off *Everything* + FREE Shipping"
leads consumers to believe that all products are available at a 30%
discount with free shipping, but the promotion actually requires a
minimum order of $150 or more.

Harrington argues Vineyard Vines' emails violate the Washington
Consumer Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), which prohibits sending
commercial emails with false or misleading information in the
subject line. A violation of CEMA is a per se violation of the
state's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), she says.

Lawsuit: Vineyard Vines emails mislead consumers about sale terms

Harrington filed the Vineyard Vines class action lawsuit on behalf
of herself and other Washington residents who received false or
misleading emails from Vineyard Vines. She seeks an injunction to
stop the company from sending such emails as well as statutory
damages for each illegal email and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs.

Harrington argues Vineyard Vines' emails mislead consumers about
the terms of its promotions, creating a sense of urgency that
prompts them to make purchases they might not otherwise make.

The lawsuit cites Federal Trade Commission regulations, which
prohibit sellers from making a "limited" offer that is not actually
limited.

Harrington claims Vineyard Vines uses these tactics to send more
emails to consumers than it otherwise might, clogging their inboxes
with spam and diverting their attention from other communications.

In related news, Southwest Airlines faced a class action lawsuit
alleging it sent Washington consumers emails with deceptive subject
lines intended to entice them to open the messages and make
purchases.

Harrington is represented by Kaleigh N. Boyd of Tousley Brain
Stephens PLLC, Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. and James Lamarca of Wade
Kilpela Slade LLP and Evan E. North of North Law PLLC.

The Vineyard Vines class action lawsuit is Harrington v. Vineyard
Vines LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01115, in the Superior Court for the
State of Washington in and for King County. [GN]

VIOLET GREY: Hampton Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Violet Grey, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11435
(N.D. Ill., Sept. 22, 2025) alleges that Violet failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, Violetgrey.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, Violetgrey.com contains significant
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually-impaired customers to use the website.

The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class
under the ADA.

Violetgrey.com.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by
Violet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

VITAL PROTEINS: Unlawfully Transmits Marketing Calls, Mackey Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VITAL PROTEINS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-25-014355 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
September 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act (FTSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of transmitting a telephone number to the Caller ID
services of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that
were not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Defendant's
action is part of its marketing strategy to promote its product via
text message sales calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful
business practice, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages.

Vital Proteins, LLC is a manufacturer of nutrition products, doing
business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
       Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
       SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
       Dunedin, FL 34698
       Telephone: (202) 709-5744
       Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
       Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
              shawn@sjlawcollective.com

WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ditmore Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA DITMORE and SCOTT DITMORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02972-GPG-NRN (D. Colo., Sept. 22, 2025) arises from
cyberattacks against the Defendant that involved the Plaintiffs'
and the proposed Class Members personally identifying information
and protected health information.

Aa condition of doing business, the Defendant requires that Clients
entrust Defendant with the highly private personal information to
Clients' patients and clients, and in the ordinary court of
receiving service from Defendant's Clients, the Plaintiffs and
Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to
Defendant.

On Nov. 30, 2023, the Defendant experienced a data breach that
resulted in a unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of
current and former debtors' highly personal information in the
possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. The debtors'
information impacted includes their personally identifying
information as well as protected health information.

Accordingly, the ransomware group coinbase cartel, accessed
Defendant's IT Network and exfiltrated Private Information of
thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands, of current and former
debtors, like Plaintiffs, that Defendant sought to collect medical
debt and other collections from.

As of September 19, 2025, almost two years after the Data Breach
occurred, the Defendant has still not given notice Class Members
about the Data Breach, the suit says.

The Defendant is a debt collection agency that operates in Colorado
and specializes in medical debt and other collections. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grayson Wells, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Miles Schiller, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                  mschiller@stranchlaw.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Cert Filing Deadline Moved to Nov. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSARIO CASILLAS,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated; v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL MART
STORES, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06086-RGK-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting joint stipulation
to continue Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification
and dismiss Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

-- The Plaintiff's Oct. 1, 2025, deadline to move for
    certification is continued to Nov. 24, 2025.

-- The Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is dismissed without
    Prejudice.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g5yykN at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


WALGREEN EASTERN: Neale Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Store Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS NEALE and CHARLES KIESEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01563-VDO (D. Conn., September
19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to
pay wages in violation of the Connecticut Wage Act.

Plaintiffs Neale and Kiesel have been employed by the Defendant as
store managers in Connecticut since September 28, 2020 and 1991,
respectively.

Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc. is a pharmacy owner and operator in
Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
       Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
       HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
       750 Main Street, Suite 904
       Hartford, CT 06103
       Telephone: (860) 522-8888
       Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
       Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
              tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com

WASTE MANAGEMENT: $30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
proposed Settlement in the Waste Management Notes Securities
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
  
In re WASTE MANAGEMENT SECURITIES
LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-04838-LGS

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO BETWEEN FEBRUARY 13, 2020 AND JUNE 23, 2020,
INCLUSIVE, PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED IN DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS
CERTAIN REDEEMABLE SENIOR NOTES ISSUED BY WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. IN
MAY 2019

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York ("Court"), that the
above-captioned action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class
action, except for certain Persons who are excluded from the Class
by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
July 10, 2025 (the "Stipulation") and the detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice").
The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at
www.WasteManagementSettlement.com.

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Seafarers Officers & Employees
Pension Plan, Seafarers Money Purchase Pension Plan, and United
Industrial Workers Pension Plan ("Lead Plaintiffs"), and defendants
Waste Management, Inc. ("WM"), James C. Fish, Jr., John J. Morris,
and Devina A. Rankin ("Defendants") have reached a proposed
settlement of the Litigation on behalf of the Class for $30 million
in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Litigation.

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
December 16, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., at the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1106, New York, NY
10007, to determine whether: (1) the Settlement of the Litigation
as set forth in the Stipulation for $30 million in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Lead
Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund
(as defined in the Notice) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award
Lead Plaintiffs their costs and expenses in representing the Class
out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the
Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

The Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the
Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing by video or telephonic
conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the
hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written
notice to the Class. It is important that you check the Settlement
website, www.WasteManagementSettlement.com, before making any plans
to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to
participate in the hearing by telephone or videoconference, the
access information will be posted to the Settlement website.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
WM REDEEMABLE SENIOR NOTES: (i) 2.95% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2024 (CUSIP
94106LBF5); (ii) 3.20% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2026 (CUSIP 94106LBH1);
(iii) 3.45% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2029 (CUSIP 94106LBG3); or (iv) 4.00%
SENIOR NOTES DUE 2039 (CUSIP 94106LBJ7), BETWEEN FEBRUARY 13, 2020
AND JUNE 23, 2020, INCLUSIVE, IN ONE OR MORE DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS,
AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Claim Form") by mail (postmarked no later than November 21,
2025) or electronically via the Settlement website (no later than
November 21, 2025). Failure to submit your Claim Form by November
21, 2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you
from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not
request exclusion from the Class (as described below), you will be
bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the
Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or
not you submit a Claim Form.

The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Claim Form, the Stipulation (which, among other
things, contains definitions for the capitalized terms used in this
Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed
online at www.WasteManagementSettlement.com, or by writing to:

Waste Management Notes Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Verita Global
P.O. Box 301170
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Claim Form,
may be made to Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY NOVEMBER 25,
2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU
PROPERLY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU WILL NOT BE BOUND BY
ANY RELEASES, JUDGMENTS, OR ORDERS ENTERED BY THE COURT IN THE
LITIGATION AND YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE
SETTLEMENT. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS IS THE ONLY OPTION
THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO BE PART OF ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FUTURE
LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONCERNING THE CLAIMS BEING RESOLVED BY
THE SETTLEMENT.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 33-1/3% OF THE $30
MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000,
PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE REQUEST FOR AWARDS TO
LEAD PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY NOVEMBER 25, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: August 26, 2025

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bell Amended Class Cert. Bid Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Melisa Bell, Stephanie
Wilson, and Robert Reeves, v. County of Wayne, Case No.
5:20-cv-10288-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
may file a second amended motion for class certification at any
time following the Court's decision on the pending motions for
summary judgment.

On Dec. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a timely amended motion for
class certification.

On Sept. 11, 2025, the Court held a hearing and heard oral argument
on the Plaintiffs' motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ZrXf2 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


WELLSPAN HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 15, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT DANIEL TOMASSONE,
et al. v. WELLSPAN HEALTH, Case No. 5:24-cv-05460-JLS (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order extending the
following deadlines contained in the April 30, 2025, Order as
follows:

   1. The deadline for all certification-related discovery to be
      completed shall be extended from Oct. 10, 2025, to March 13,

      2026.

   2. The deadline for submission of the Plaintiffs' expert
      report(s) shall be extended from Dec. 12, 2025, to April 15,

      2026.

   3. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
      certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) shall be extended
      from Dec. 12, 2025, to April 15, 2026.

   4. The deadline for submission of the Defendant's expert
      report(s) shall be extended from Feb. 13, 2026, to June 17,
      2026.

   5. The deadline for Defendant to file its response to the
      Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be extended

      from Feb. 13, 2026, to June 17, 2026.

   6. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to submit reply expert
      report(s), if any, shall be extended from March 13, 2026 to
      July 14, 2026.

   7. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply in
      support of motion for class certification, if any, shall be
      extended from March 13, 2026 to July 14, 2026.

WellSpan Health is an American integrated health system located in
South-Central Pennsylvania and parts of northern Maryland.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GHH8Db at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew C. Ford, Esq.
          Eric J. Gaspar, Esq.
          FORD LAW OFFICE LLC
          645 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 520
          Allentown, PA 18101
          Telephone: (484) 273-0425
          E-mail: mcf@flolegal.com
                  ejg@flolegal.com

                - and -

          Bryan Weir, Esq.
          Thomas McCarthy, Esq.
          Brandon Haase, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
          1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22209
          Telephone: (703) 243-9423
          Facsimile: (703) 243-8696
          E-mail: bryan@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com
                  brandon@consovoymccarthy.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501
          Telephone: (215) 568-3100
          Facsimile: (215) 568-3439
          E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com

WESTGATE RESORTS: Moore Bid for Class Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM
(E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel with leave to renew.

The Plaintiffs shall file their renewed motion by Friday, Oct. 31,
2025, and the Defendants shall file their response by Monday, Dec.
15, 2025.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used "high-pressure sales
tactics" to snooker them into purchasing their timeshares.
Specifically, they claim that Defendants invite vacationers like
themselves to tour the resort, but the tours turn into multi-hour
sales pitches "designed to ensure that they do not leave without
purchasing a timeshare property."

As to the counts that survived dismissal, the Plaintiffs move for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and
they propose the following class for certification:

    "All residents of the United States and its territories who
    purchased from Westgate an All Season 'floating use plan'
    vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain
    Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2008 through the date of
    class certification."

Westgate is an American timeshare resort company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ZYZAT at no extra
charge.[CC]

WHITEPAGES INC: Jackson Appeals Daniel's Law Suit Order to 4th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JACKSON is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Michael Jackson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whitepages, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00080-MFU, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Braxton County, West
Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, is brought against the Defendant for
alleged violation of West Virginia's Daniel's Law by disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise making available the home addresses or
unpublished home or personal telephone number of thousands of
active, formerly active, or retired judicial officers, prosecutors,
federal or state public defenders, federal or state assistant
public defenders, or law-enforcement officers from West Virginia
without their written permission.

The appellate case is entitled Michael Jackson v. Whitepages, Inc.,
Case No. 25-2122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
         KATZ, KANTOR, STONESTREET & BUCKNER PLLC
         206 South Walker Street
         Princeton, WV 24740
         Telephone: (304) 431-4050

                - and -

         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1330 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150

Defendant-Appellee WHITEPAGES, INC. is represented by:

         Caleb B. David, Esq.
         OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
         1900 Kanawha Boulevard East
         Charleston, WV 25305
         Telephone: (304) 558-2021

                 - and -

         Michael Dwayne Dunham, Esq.
         SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC
         116 South Stewart Street
         Winchester, VA 22601
         Telephone: (540) 486-4195

                 - and -

         Natalie C. Schaefer, Esq.
         SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC
         P.O. Box 3953
         Charleston, WV 25339

WHITESTONE HOME: Class Settlement in Douglass Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WHITESTONE HOME
FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a SAATVA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00460-DSC (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge David Stewart Cercone entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion for certification of the settlement
class and final approval of the class action settlement.

-- The Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
    23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. The Settlement
    Class is defined as:

    "[A] national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who
    have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary
    Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have
    accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from
    attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access,
    or be deterred from attempting to access,
    https://www.saatva.com/ from the United States."

-- The Court finds that Plaintiff Blair Douglass will fairly and
    adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As a

    result, the Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as
    representative of the Settlement Class.

-- The Court finds Kevin Tucker, Kevin Abramowicz, Stephanie
    Moore, Chandler Steiger, Kayla Conahan, and Jessica Liu of
    East End Trial Group LLC are experienced and competent class
    action counsel who fairly and adequately protected the
    interests of the putative class throughout this litigation and

    appoints them as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

Whitestone is a company focused on luxury mattresses and home
goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 15, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GYm6B9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

WHOLE FOODS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Jan. 15, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that participants in the
Whole Foods Market Growing Your Future 401(k) Plan with an account
balance at any time between Nov. 6, 2017, and July 24, 2025, or who
are beneficiaries or alternate payees of such participants may be
eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.

Whole Foods Market Inc. agreed to pay $2 million to resolve a class
action lawsuit alleging it allowed its 401(k) plan to pay excessive
recordkeeping and administrative fees and failed to adequately
monitor the plan's fiduciaries.

Who are the class members?

Class members must have participated in the Whole Foods Market
Growing Your Future 401(k) Plan or are beneficiaries or alternate
payees (such as those subject to a qualified domestic relations
order) with an account balance at any time between Nov. 6, 2017,
and July 24, 2025.

The settlement divides class members into the following
categories:

  -- Current participants: Individuals who currently have an active
account with a balance greater than $0 in the plan as of July 24,
2025

  -- Former participants: Individuals who had an account with a
positive balance during the class period but do not have an active
account as of July 24, 2025

  -- Beneficiaries or alternate payees: Individuals entitled to a
portion of a participant's account, including those under a
qualified domestic relations order, who do not have an active
account as of July 24, 2025.

The settlement administrator determines eligibility based on the
plan's records.

How much can class members get?

The total settlement fund is $2,000,000. After deductions for
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, administration costs and
service awards to class representatives, the settlement
administrator will distribute the remaining amount to eligible
class members.

The exact amount each class member receives depends on:

  -- The number of eligible class members

  -- The length of time each class member participated in the plan
during the class period

  -- The account balance of each class member during the relevant
period

If a former participant is eligible for $9.99 or less, they will
not receive payment. This restriction does not apply to current
participants.

How to claim a class action rebate

Current participants with an active account in the plan do not need
to submit a claim form. The settlement administrator will deposit
payment automatically into their account if the settlement receives
final approval.

Former participants, beneficiaries or alternate payees without an
active account must file a claim online or download, print,
complete and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement
administrator. The claims deadline is Nov. 21, 2025.

Settlement administrator's mailing address: Whole Foods Market
ERISA Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2010, Chanhassen, MN
55317-2010

What information is required to submit a claim?

All participants must provide their Social Security number.

To file an online claim, class members must provide the claim
number and PIN from their settlement notice.

Payout options

  -- Eligible current participants will receive their payment
directly into their active 401(k) plan account.

  -- Eligible former participants, beneficiaries or alternate
payees without an active account will receive a payment by paper
check or rollover.

$2 million settlement fund settlement

The $2,000,000 settlement fund covers:

  -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined

  -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $666,666.67

  -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $75,000

  -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each for
seven representatives (total up to $35,000)

  -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining funds

Important dates

  -- Claim submission deadline: Nov. 21, 2025
  -- Objection deadline: Dec. 16, 2025
  -- Final approval (fairness) hearing: Jan. 15, 2026

When is the Whole Foods 401(k) ERISA settlement payout date?

The settlement administrator will send payments after the court
grants final approval of the settlement and resolves any appeals.

Why is there a class action settlement?

The class action lawsuit alleged Whole Foods Market Inc. and
related fiduciaries allowed the 401(k) plan to pay excessive
recordkeeping and administrative fees and failed to properly
monitor those responsible for the plan.

The defendants deny all wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid
the expense and uncertainty of further litigation. [GN]

WILSON AIR: Yates Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS C. YATES, IV, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
WILSON AIR CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02874 (W.D.
Tenn., September 15, 2025) is brought against Defendant as a
multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff
and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid line
technicians of Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant had a common plan,
policy, and practice of working Plaintiff and those similarly
situated "off the clock" within weekly pay periods without
compensating them for such hours at the applicable FLSA overtime
compensation rates of pay during all times material to this
lawsuit.

As a result of Defendant's willful failure to pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated in compliance with the applicable FLSA
overtime compensation requirements, they have suffered lost
compensable wages as well as other damages, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid line
technician within this district during the applicable statutory
limitations period of this action.

Wilson Air Center LLC, is a Tennessee limited liability company
which owns and manages private airports in Memphis, Tennessee;
Chattanooga, Tennessee; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq.  
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001  
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  jleatherwood@jsyc.com

ZILLOW INC: Requires Flex Agents to Pay Hidden Fees, Taylor Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALUCARD TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ZILLOW, INC., ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,
ZILLOW HOMES, INC., and ZILLOW LISTING SERVICES, INC., Washington
Corporations, Case No. 2:25-cv-01818 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 19, 2025)
is class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a Class consisting
of all persons and entities who bought a home using a Zillow agent,
alleging statutory violations, fraudulent conduct and unjust
enrichment claims against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff contends that by requiring Flex agents to pay hidden
fees, Zillow is further violating the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, because Zillow is receiving a payment that is not
in exchange for completing the property transaction.

Accordingly, Zillow is the undisputed market leader in online real
estate listings. In investment presentations, it notes that it has
66% of the U.S. real estate audience share -- twice as high as its
nearest competitors. It also promotes the fact that 80% of
consumers come to Zillow directly, and that "Zillow revenue growth
has meaningfully outperformed a challenged housing market."

According to Zillow, it has a "leading category traffic position"
and "market-leading audience," with "4x the daily active app users
of nearest competitors."

Zillow's ability to monetize this dominance is based on deceptive
and illegal conduct. When potential buyers are on Zillow's website,
Zillow tricks them into signing up with a Zillow agent. If the
agent is part of Zillow's "Flex" program, Zillow gets 40% of the
agent's commission -- a payment on the back end that is undisclosed
to all parties involved. When a house is for sale on Zillow, the
Zillow website has a big button in bright blue lettering posted
next to the house listing that says "Contact Agent."

The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the Class accordingly brings
this lawsuit for Defendants' violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act  consumer protection violations under the
laws of the State of Washington, and common law unjust enrichment.


The Plaintiff accordingly seeks treble damages, single damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, and the costs of this lawsuit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff Taylor is a resident of Portland, Oregon. On July 1,
2022, he purchased a home in Portland using a Zillow agent, R.H.
Prior to his purchase, Plaintiff Taylor was browsing Zillow.com to
look for houses, and identified a house that interested him.

The Defendants are Washington State corporations engaged in online
real estate transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  jerrodp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, 8th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Still Defends Personal Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Core & Main, Inc., has been and continues to be a defendant in
asbestos-related litigation matters., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Like other companies in our industry, we have
been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising
from the types of products that we distribute. As a distributor in
this industry, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product
liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have
distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged
to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property
damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws.
Such product liability claims in the past have included, and may in
the future include, allegations of defects in manufacturing,
defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the
product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdfh3bzy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EIDP Inc. to Pay $9MM to Mesothelioma Victim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Parra writing for delawareonline.com, reports that a
Delaware jury has awarded $9 million to the family of an Illinois
hunter who died of mesothelioma, which court documents say was
caused by asbestos-containing bullets produced by the former DuPont
Co. and one of its subsidiaries.  

The award is one of the largest in recent Delaware memory, said
Thomas C. Crumplar, one of the attorneys representing the family of
Eugene Schoepke, an Illinois man who died on March 27, 2022, of
mesothelioma – a cancer that is commonly caused by asbestos
exposure.


                            *********

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 ***