251008.mbx

251008.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 8, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 201 Headlines 538 WASHINGTON: Ariza Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind 7TH STREET BB: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind AGC BIOLOGICS: Court Stays Discovery in Lomibao Suit AHOLD DELHAIZE: Evans Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ALAN KING: Valencia Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Certification Order to 4th Circuit AMAZON.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Mbadiwe Class Suit AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fischer Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duties AMERICAN AMICABLE: Rowan Alleges Pre-Recorded Telemarketing Calls AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Lewis Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info AMERICAN REPAIR: Phillips Seeks Field Technicians' Unpaid Wages AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class Action ANGUS STEAKHOUSE: Gaitan Seeks Regular & OT Wages Under FLSA ARDAGH GLASS: Class Cert Hearing in Castaneda Continued to Oct. 23 AUSTIN KNUDSEN: Fourstar Seeks to Certify Class Action AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes BARRETT-JACKSON: Court Orders Jurisdictional Statement Filing BATH PLANET: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines BAYER CORPORATION: Allowed to Redact Certain Descriptions in Docs BEAUTY BIOSCIENCE: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BENEFICIENT COMPANY: GWG Securities Suit Settlement Has Prelim OK BENWORTH CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Davis Says BETTER TAX: Silva Seeks Leave to Conduct Immediate Discovery BODYHEALTH.COM LLC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CAVITAS SENIOR: Formuli Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CHESAPEAKE HOSPITAL: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Parks Says CHICKEN N PICKLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Loomis Class Suit COMPUTERSHARE INC: Court OKs Judgment on Pleadings in "Sauls" DOORS.COM LLC: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Operates Illegal Casino, Koetting Alleges DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Labaton Keller Named Lead Counsel DRAFTKINGS INC: Benson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind EHANG HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in Pujo Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ENERGY CONTROL: Pretrial Management Order Entered EXTRA SPACE: "Amos" Remanded to Nevada State Court EXTREME NETWORKS: Filing for Class Cert. Due April 17, 2026 FCPT SUNSHINE: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says FEDERAL HOME: OPERS Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Circuit FOROM LLC: Wills Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website GATEWAY CHURCH: Loses Bid to Dismiss Leach Suit GAVAL COCONUT: Ariza Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GEORGE'S INC: Haff Poultry Sues Over No-Poach Agreement GITLAB INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Dolly Suit GUNTER OIL: Fendley Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers HANWHA OCEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Asubiaro Alleges HENDERSON, NV: Discovery Deadlines Extended HOME DEPOT: Court Dismisses Franklin Suit HOPSONS INC: Lewis Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Parking HUDSON GASTROPUB: Faces Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HUME HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 16, 2026 HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Dean Balks at Breach of Fiduciary Duties ILLINOIS: Pris Sues Over Medicaid Redeterminations' Procedures INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Seeks to Amend Class Cert Scheduling Order INVESTMENTS DYNAMICS: Johnson Seeks Conditional Certification JAMES LEBLANC: Court Stays Betz Class Action JENNY PACKHAM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says JM SMUCKER: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal JOHN WOOD: Bids for Judgment on the Pleadings Tossed KELLWOOD COMPANY: Echols Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website KGI TRADING: Faces EEOC Labor Class Suit Over Sex Discrimination KJBR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Alleges KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT: Fernandez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website KRISTI NOEM: Court Certifies Class in L.G.M.L LAUNDRY DEPOT: Seeks to Decertify Class in Leong Lawsuit LAUNDRYBEE FOREST: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Court to Grant $464K in Attys' Fees LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Turner Amended to Nov. 18 LINKEDIN CORP: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Johnson Claims LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Cert in Cuevas Extended to Nov. 14 LIVE NATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 19 LUCERO AG: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 26, 2026 MARCO RUBIO: Class Cert. Briefing Postponed MCGRAW ENTERPRISES: Court Remands SFCI Suit to State Court MDL 3152: Panel Consolidates 8 Equipment Rental Antitrust Suits MDL 3153: 11 Data Coinbase Data Breach Suits Consolidated in SDNY MDL 3154: 2 Respimat Pharma Antitrust Suits Consolidated in Mass. MDL 3155: 11 Air Crash Suits Consolidated in D. Minn. MEMBERS 1ST: Cox Suit Removed from State Court to M.D. Pa. MENTAVI INC: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 28, 2026 MERCURIAL SECURITY: Cimbal Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA META PLATFORMS: Cook Seeks to File Class Materials Under Seal META PLATFORMS: Cook Suit Seeks Class Certification MEWBOURNE OIL: Griffith Sues Over Underpayment of Gas Royalties MIDWEST CATALOG: Bids for Class Cert. in McGonigle Due Nov. 12 NANCY JACOBY: Court Tosses Puchel Suit with Prejudice NEIL JONES: Filing for Class Cert in Vallejo Due May 22, 2026 NESTOR LIQUOR: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NEVADA: Bid to Dismiss C.W. Class Action Tossed NEW JERSEY: Thieme Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit NEW YORK, NY: Court Awards $350K to Wilds-Bethea NEW YORK, NY: Scheduling Status Report Order Entered in Bowser NEW YORK: Filing of Bid to Dismiss R.M. Suit Extended to Oct. 20 NEW YUNG WAH: Court Endorses Partial OK of Class Cert Bid NVIDIA CORP: Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ODIN PROPERTIES: Corn Seeks OT Wages for Maintenance Technicans PACIFICORP: Filing for Class Cert. in Wilson Due Feb. 13, 2026 PALM BAY, FL: Discriminates Against Police Women, Forish Suit Says PORT WASHINGTON: Khan Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bid to Certify Class Modified to May 29, 2026 PREMIER CHOICE: Esparza Balks at Automatic Subscription Renewal PRET A MANGER: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Walston Says PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Response PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply QUIKAID INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilson Due August 21, 2026 QVC INC: Faces Cordova Suit Over TCPA Violation RESTORIX HEALTH: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in "Wells" ROBERT KENNEDY: Pretrial Management Entered in Berman Class Suit ROBLOX CORPORATION: Class Cert Hearing Set for August 14, 2026 ROSEVILLE, CA: Class Settlement in Colbert Gets Final Nod RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Wanek" SAFEWAY INSURANCE: Wins Appeal in Insurance Coverage Dispute SAGBOLT LLC: Settlement Compliance Affirmed in Tip Dispute Appeal SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Allegations in Keene Tossed w/o Prejudice SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Orders Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint SANDOZ INC: Court Approves $230MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit SAVE MART: Class Settlement in Baker Suit Gets Final Nod SAZERAC CO: Pizarro Can File Class Documents Under Seal SAZERAC COMPANY: Court Certifies Class in Koonce SAZERAC COMPANY: Pizzaro Wins Bid to Certify Class SENIOR LIFE: Faces Sutton Suit Over Prerecorded Voice Messages SEYBOTH TEAM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 10 SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Court Stays Kogut Securities Suit ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Barot ST. MARKS: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA STAKE CENTER: Fuller-Layton Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 30, 2026 TAO GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Faces Dawkins Class Suit Over Pixel Trackers TIMOTHY C WARD: Discovery Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss "Foster" TOP GOLF 1: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boulware Alleges TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Korlou Says TSYS MERCHANT: Scheduling Order Deadlines Stayed in S.B.C.W. Suit UNCHARTED SUPPLY: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS: "Zuniga" Remanded to Nevada State Court UNICOIN INC: Faces Finch Suit Over Misleading Rights Certificates UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Suit Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order UNITED HEALTHCARE: Dean Balks at Discrimination, Unfair Termination UNITED STATES: Cameron Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Emrit Complaint with Prejudice UNITED STATES: Mercado Wins Class Certification Bid UNITED STATES: Parties Seek Class Cert. Briefing Schedule UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ainsworth Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Braunstein Suit Removed to D. New Jersey UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Rosenblit Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Wins Dismissal of Sales Tax Class Suit UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 14, 2026 VENEZUELA: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Deadline WALMART ASSOCIATES: Court Vacates $312K Fee Award in Alvarado Labor WILSON'S TEXAS PROPERTIES: Mackey Sues Over Physical Barriers WNS GLOBAL: Iams Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Remote Senior Advisors WYETH INC: Class Cert Hearing Adjourned to Feb. 2026 WYNN LAS VEGAS: Elias Second Amended Complaint Dismissed ********* 538 WASHINGTON: Ariza Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ARIZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 538 WASHINGTON LLC d/b/a LA MULATA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-24376-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://lamulatasouthbeach.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. 538 Washington LLC d/b/a La Mulata operates as a restaurant, specializing in Cuban cuisine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com duranandassociates@gmail.com - and - Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 7TH STREET BB: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7TH STREET BB HOLDCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07757 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.7thstreetburger.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 8, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. He asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. 7th Street BB Holdco, LLC operates the website that offers smashburgers, fries, and classic sides.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 AGC BIOLOGICS: Court Stays Discovery in Lomibao Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUFRONIO LOMIBAO, v. AGC BIOLOGICS INC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00361-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay discovery as follows: (a) Discovery is stayed, pending resolution of the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (b) The Plaintiff's FLSA claims are tolled. (c) If the Court denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, in whole or in part, within 14 days of the decision, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a stipulated motion or competing requests regarding the case schedule, including the discovery cutoff. The Plaintiff initiated this action the Defendant on Feb. 26, 2025, alleging violations of both Washington and federal employment law on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees. AGC is a global Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XkaA2s at no extra charge.[CC] AHOLD DELHAIZE: Evans Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- DANTE EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA, INC. d/b/a STOP & SHOP, Case No. 1:25-cv-07937 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website, www.stopandshop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people 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 Ahold provides to their non-disabled customers through www.stopandshop.com. 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 ADA. Ahold is a division of Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V., a multinational grocery conglomerate headquartered in Zaandam, Netherlands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ALAN KING: Valencia Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALAN KING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07767 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.akings.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 13, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Alan King, LLC operates the website www.akings.com which is a premium fashion brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mai: rsalim@steainsakslegal.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Certification Order to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLY FINANCIAL INCORPORATED is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Michael Sheridan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00616, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. On Apr. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Frank W. Volk granted on July 22, 2025. The Court concludes that Ally's liability is a common question that would be inefficient to continuously litigate and risk nonconformity in decisions. Pursuing this matter as a class action is superior to any other method available. On Aug. 6, 2025, the Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal the Class Certification Order. The appellate case is entitled Michael Sheridan v. Ally Financial Incorporated, Case No. 25-2145, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Denali S. Hedrick, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 94 Long Street Westover, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 940-9809 - and - Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Defendant-Appellant ALLY FINANCIAL INCORPORATED is represented by: Megan Burns, Esq. John Curtis Lynch, Esq. Jason E. Manning, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7778 (757) 687-7765 (757) 687-7764 AMAZON.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Mbadiwe Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAFARI MBADIWE and RACHEL MILLER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09542-(B (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Specifically, the following claims survive dismissal: Arizona claims between November 8, 2018, and March 2019; Arkansas claims before August 1, 2017; Connecticut claims; Florida claims between November 8, 2018 and March 2019; Hawaii claims; Illinois antitrust claims; Iowa claims; Maine claims; Maryland claims; Michigan claims; Minnesota claims; Nebraska claims; Nevada claims; New Hampshire antitrust claims; New Mexico claims; New York claims; North Carolina claims; North Dakota claims; Oregon claims; Rhode Island claims; South Dakota claims; Utah claims; Vermont claims; • West Virginia claims; and Wisconsin claims. Accordingly, even though the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims under Illinois law are not tolled by Frame-Wilson, they are tolled by the Illinois savings statute. Because I do not find that any of Plaintiffs’ claims are tolled, I accordingly find that Plaintiffs’ claims under Kansas law are time barred. Accordingly, Amazon’s motion to dismiss the claims under Kansas law is GRANTED as untimely. Because I find that Plaintiffs have antitrust standing under AGC, I therefore find that they have antitrust standing under Michigan law. Accordingly, Amazon’s motion to dismiss the claims under Michigan law is DENIED. The Plaintiffs brought this class action against Amazon.com asserting claims under various antitrust and consumer protection laws. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cPoQNO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Goldman, Esq. Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr., Esq. Nancy J. Sandoval, Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 369-3700 E-mail: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com - and - Gordon Ball, Esq. GORDON BALL, PLLC 3728 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 E-mail: gball@gordonball.com The Defendant is represented by: Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fischer Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05289 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Defendants and other American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff alleges that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to control the Plan's administrative and recordkeeping costs paid to Fidelity, the Plan's recordkeeper. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. The Defendants' actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant American Airlines Inc. for roughly 10 years a fleet service agent. American Airlines, Inc. is a major airline in the United States. The Company is the sponsor and administrator of the Plan with a principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the America, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com AMERICAN AMICABLE: Rowan Alleges Pre-Recorded Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN ROWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AMICABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS, a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00433-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., September 18, 2025) seeks to stop Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing pre-recorded telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other consumers without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted unwanted telephone calls to Plaintiff Rowan and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class using a pre-recorded voice message. These pre-recorded voice calls were made en masse without the prior express consent of the Plaintiff and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class. American-Amicable sells life insurance and annuity products to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED 539 W. Commerce St. #1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (972) 767-9099 E-mail: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Lewis Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUNCAN LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CRITICAL CARE NURSES, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02161 (C.D. Cal., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. 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 in or around March 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, says the suit. American Association of Critical Care Nurses is a nursing organization, headquartered in Aliso Viejo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com AMERICAN REPAIR: Phillips Seeks Field Technicians' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS PHILLIPS, DALE ARTHUR FILKINS, JR. and JOSHUA CHUMBLEY, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN REPAIR MAINTENANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02882-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., September 18, 2025) is brought against Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action to recover the applicable overtime compensation rates of pay owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated hourly-paid field technicians pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have performed work for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to this lawsuit without being paid the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay for such work time. Additionally, the Defendant had a common plan, policy, and practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for weekend "on call" time during all times material. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were required to be on assigned weekend "on call" duty within weekly pay periods without being paid the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rate of pay for such time, says the suit. American Repair Maintenance, LLC is a repair and preventive maintenance company with its principal address in Spring Lake, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. IV 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 AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-01545-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class action with three subclasses, as described in the memorandum of law; 2. Certifying the North Atlantic Funds and the Living Trust as Class Representatives of the BDO Subclass; Jupiter Capital as Class Representative of the November 2015 Common Stock Subclass; and the Living Trust as Class Representative of the September 2016 Series F Preferred Stock Subclass; and 3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. AmTrust is a New York City-based multinational property and casualty insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fNlsFh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Robert D. Gerson, Esq. Mark T. Millkey, Esq. Natalie C. Arenella, Esq. Joshua D. Forgy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com rgerson@rgrdlaw.com mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com narenella@rgrdlaw.com jforgy@rgrdlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: Jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ANGUS STEAKHOUSE: Gaitan Seeks Regular & OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Pablo Gaitan, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. Angus Steakhouse, Inc., Moo! Meat Art Corp, Martin A. Garcia Casal, Osmany Estopinan, and Adriana A. Gorosito, Case No. 0:25-cv-61925-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Gaitan was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, full-time cook and restaurant worker from December 2, 2024, through June 5, 2025, a period of 26 weeks. The Defendants are Argentine steakhouse restaurants operating in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida. The Plaintiff worked for both establishment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ARDAGH GLASS: Class Cert Hearing in Castaneda Continued to Oct. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass Inc. (re ARDAGH GLASS), Case No. 4:23-cv-03547-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to continue the hearing on the Plaintiff's motions for class and conditional certification. The Court orders that the new hearing on the Plaintiff's motions for class and conditional certification is as follows: The hearing on Plaintiff's motions for class and conditional certification is continued from Sept. 18, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. to Oct. 23, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. On June 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, entitled Alex Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass Inc., Case No. CV035655, asserting claims under the California Labor Code. On July 17, 2023, the Defendant removed the Class Action to this Court. On Aug. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Private Attorneys General Act Action in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, entitled Alex Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass Inc., Case No. 23CV041542. Ardagh manufactures custom glass containers for a variety of food applications. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bbolcB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Melissa M. Kurata, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg, Esq. Tazeen Hussain, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda Avenue, Fifteenth Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Melissa@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com Tazeen@lebelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Matthew J. Goodman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com mgoodman@bakerlaw.com AUSTIN KNUDSEN: Fourstar Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Victor C. Fourstar, Jr., et al., v. Montana Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-00128-DWM (D. Mont.), the the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NBAUYu at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SHAPLLO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80770-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes: Nationwide Class: "All citizens of the United States who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased the Defendant's Steering Wheel Covers advertised as genuine leather." Florida Subclass: "All citizens of the State of Florida who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased the Defendant's Steering Wheel Cover advertised as genuine leather." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made false and deceptive representations that the product was genuine leather when it was actually made of faux leather. AutoZone is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TaaGRE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com BARRETT-JACKSON: Court Orders Jurisdictional Statement Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Covington, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barrett-Jackson Holdings LLC, Defendant, No. CV-25-03271-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz.), Judge Michael T. Liburdi of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ordered Defendant Barrett-Jackson Holdings, LLC, to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement after finding deficiencies in the Notice of Removal asserting diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The Court reviewed Defendant's Notice of Removal and subsequent Disclosure Statement, finding both insufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The Notice of Removal asserted diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Court noted its independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, with the removing party bearing the burden of properly alleging the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction under CAFA. Under CAFA, federal jurisdiction exists where there is minimal diversity, an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, and at least 100 putative class members. Minimal diversity is satisfied when any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant. The Court emphasized that to evaluate both minimal diversity and potential exceptions, it must know the citizenship of each defendant. For a limited liability company, citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members, not by its state of organization or principal place of business. LLC ownership must also be traced through each layer until reaching a natural person or a corporation. The Court found Defendant's Notice of Removal deficient because it alleged only that Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Arizona, which is insufficient. The subsequently filed Disclosure Statement did not cure the deficiency. The Disclosure Statement listed several parent companies but did not identify the members of Barrett-Jackson Holdings, LLC or the citizenship of those members. Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether minimal diversity exists or whether a CAFA exception may apply. Therefore, the Court ordered that, on or before October 6, 2025, Defendant must file a supplemental jurisdictional statement that (1) identifies each member of Barrett-Jackson Holdings, LLC as of the date of removal, and (2) sets forth the citizenship of each member. Failure to comply may result in remand of this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The Court further ordered that Defendant must file a disclosure statement that fully complies with Rule 7.1 and LRCiv 7.1.1. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXVp9g from PacerMonitor.com BATH PLANET: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Margulis v. Bath Planet of St. Louis, LLC et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01265 (E.D. Mo., Filed Sept. 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order granting second motion for extension of expert witness deadline and class certification deadlines. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Bath specializes in creating stylish, modern, and affordable home improvement.[CC] BAYER CORPORATION: Allowed to Redact Certain Descriptions in Docs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newman v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-07087-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order permitting the Defendants to redact the following, viewable only by Selected Parties: 1. Portions of Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Decertification containing descriptions of and excerpts from Plaintiff's Exhibits 5 through 12 to the Declaration of Max S. Roberts in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. This Court has already sealed those exhibits. 2. Portions of Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Decertification containing excerpts from Defendants' Exhibit D to the Declaration of Jonathan Cohn in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. This Court has already sealed that exhibit. Bayer produces and markets healthcare and agricultural products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7b7kPe at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq. LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP 200 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 E-mail: jon@lkcfirm.com BEAUTY BIOSCIENCE: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Beauty Bioscience, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11554 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 24, 2025) alleges that Echols failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Beautybio.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, Beautybio.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. Beautybio.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Beauty Bioscience.[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 BENEFICIENT COMPANY: GWG Securities Suit Settlement Has Prelim OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Beneficient Company Group, L.P., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that the settlement in the securities class action lawsuit filed against GWG Holdings Inc. has preliminary court approval. On February 18, 2022, Shirin Bayati and Mojan Kamalvand, on behalf of themselves and of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against GWG Holdings Inc., its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Murray Holland, its former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Evans, and certain past and present members of the board of directors of GWG and BCG (Roy Bailey, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., David Chavenson, Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, and David H. de Weese). The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act by issuing materially misleading statements in a June 3, 2020 registration statement. On April 20, 2022, GWG filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas. On April 21, 2022, the district court ordered all parties to submit statements by May 5, 2022 on whether the automatic stay in bankruptcy extends to the non-debtor defendants. On April 25, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel. On May 2, 2022, a notice of dismissal was filed, dismissing defendants Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer. On May 12, 2022, the district court extended the bankruptcy stay to all non-debtor defendants, although it permitted a limited modification of lifting of the stay to allow the court to consider the pending lead plaintiff motion. On August 5, 2022, the district court entered an order appointing Thomas Horton and Frank Moore as lead plaintiffs for the putative class. On May 26, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, filed a second class action lawsuit against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. On March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against Ben, certain members and former members of the Board (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of GWG (Jon R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO and Emerson Equity LLC. The suit alleged that the defendants defrauded GWG investors in connection with the sale of GWG's L Bonds and preferred stock, and it asserted claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG's L Bonds or preferred stock of GWG between December 23, 2017 and April 20, 2022. The suit alleged that (i) the Company, the individual defendants, and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, (ii) that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and (iii) that Emerson violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the lead plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 Cases in order to file a motion in the Northern District of Texas seeking to consolidate the Bayati and Scura Actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Scura Action filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice. On August 16, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the Lead Plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a notice regarding the confirmation of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 plan in the GWG bankruptcy, a motion seeking to lift the bankruptcy stay and a motion to consolidate the Bayati and Horton Actions. On September 12, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the Bayati and Horton Actions. The court ordered that the consolidated action shall bear the caption In re GWG Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court lifted the bankruptcy stay and ordered the Lead Plaintiffs to file a new consolidated complaint within 20 days. On October 2, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer (the "Ben Individual Defendants"), Murray T. Holland, Timothy L. Evans, David H. de Weese, Roy W. Bailey, David F. Chavenson, and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and further alleges that the Company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2023. On January 4, 2024, defendants Murray Holland, Roy Bailey, Tim Evans, Whitley Penn, David Chavenson and David H. de Weese filed motions to dismiss. The Lead Plaintiffs' responded to the various motions to dismiss on February 20, 2024, and the defendants (other than Whitley Penn) filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on March 21, 2024. On October 24, 2024, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the claims without prejudice. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 14, 2024. On December 26, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff, the Company, and other defendants filed a motion informing the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. While the settlement has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas as it relates to the GWG Litigation Trust Adversary Proceedings, this matter has not yet been approved by the relevant court. The Lead Plantiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval and, on September 25, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing on whether to grant final approval of the settlement has been set for January 13, 2026. If the settlement is not approved, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. BENWORTH CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Davis Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LANIER DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.  BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24403 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2025) arises out of Benworth's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. This failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a May 2025 data breach (Data Breach) of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of Benworth, an organization that finances property in Florida to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, asserts the suit. The data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in or about May 2025 to compromise Defendant's network (the Data Breach) that contained personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and other individuals. The Plaintiff was a mortgage borrower of Benworth's. Plaintiff Davis received notice of the Data Breach dated Sept. 16, 2025. According to Benworth's website, the Company is "one of Florida's premier hard money lenders, focusing exclusively on transactions involving real estate in 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 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com BETTER TAX: Silva Seeks Leave to Conduct Immediate Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA SILVA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BETTER TAX RELIEF LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00308-KC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to conduct immediate discovery prior to the 26(f) conference to determine the propriety of class certification, including the identity of the class, whether the class is ascertainable, and to calculate damages. The Plaintiff also seeks to extend the deadline for moving for default judgment by six months until March 17, 2026. The Plaintiff requests that the Court find that there is good cause for conducting discovery to determine the propriety of class certification prior to entering default judgment and that the deadline for default judgment should be extended by six months The Defendant has been properly served, has refused to respond to this action, and is now in default. On Aug. 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint on behalf of three putative classes against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Better offers tax relief services nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kcLdqm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com BODYHEALTH.COM LLC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BODYHEALTH.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07952 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bodyhealth.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bodyhealth.Com, LLC provides alternative health, weight loss, and hormone replacement services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CAVITAS SENIOR: Formuli Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Neelab Formuli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavitas Senior Healthcare LLC d/b/a Ariel Pointe Senior Living, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02545-N (N.D. Tex., September 19, 2025) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant who, like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from January 2025 until August 21, 2025 as a care giver. Cavitas Senior Healthcare LLC, d/b/a Ariel Pointe Senior Living, operates senior independent living facility with principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com CHESAPEAKE HOSPITAL: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Parks Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS PARKS, individually and for others similarly situated v. CHESAPEAKE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY t/a CHESAPEAKE REGIONAL HEALTHCARE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00593 (E.D. Va., September 18, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, although Chesapeake pays Parks and the other patient care employees by the hour, it does not pay them for all hours worked. Instead, Chesapeake automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees' hours for so called "meal periods." But the employees do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. They are required to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts, including during these "meal periods", and subjects them to work interruptions during their "meal periods". Additionally, Chesapeake requires the employees to clock in and out for their shifts via its timekeeping system, but Chesapeake automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit. Chesapeake also pays Parks and the other patient care employees non discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of pay, says the suit. Plaintiff Parks worked for Chesapeake as a registered nurse from approximately June 2023 until June 2024. Chesapeake Hospital Authority is a Virginia hospital authority and maintains its principal place of business in Chesapeake, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com - 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 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CHICKEN N PICKLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. CHICKEN N PICKLE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07973 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://chickennpickle.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant operates the Chicken N Pickle online retail store, as well as the Chicken N Pickle interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Loomis Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc, Case No. 1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered an order granting scheduling order as follows: -- The jury trial scheduled to begin on Dec. 8, 2025, is adjourned to April 27, 2026, at 9:45 A.M. -- The final pretrial conference will be held on April 13, 2026 at 3:00 P.M. The conference will be conducted at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York at Room 1106. -- By Sept. 23, 2025, the parties shall file a joint letter containing a proposed order with pre-trial submission deadlines. The proposed order should assume that the final pretrial order shall be filed no later than March 9, 2026, and all motions in limine, including Daubert motions, shall be fully briefed no later than March 2, 2026. -- In the joint letter, the parties shall state how many Daubert motions will be filed by each party, as that may impact the Court's evaluation of the parties' proposed schedule to ensure sufficient time to decide motions. Cumulative testimony, including expert testimony, will not be permitted. -- No further adjournments will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Citigroup provides banking and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y727kc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Baltay, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 832-1262 E-mail: MBaltay@foleyhoag.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Paskin, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Two Manhattan West, 375 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 474-1760 E-mail: mpaskin@cravath.com COMPUTERSHARE INC: Court OKs Judgment on Pleadings in "Sauls" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Erin Ashley Sauls, Plaintiff, v. Computershare Inc., Defendant, No. 2:24-cv-03164-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand, granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff Erin Sauls filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals against Defendant Computershare Inc. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant employed her as an employee in Sacramento County. She typically worked more than eight hours per day, five days per week. The Defendant maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of committing various wage and hour violations. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for all of the hours that she worked including overtime and minimum wages. Additionally, the Defendant sometimes, but not always, required the Plaintiff to work over five consecutive hours in a single shift without providing her with a mandatory 30-minute meal period. The Plaintiff also sometimes, but not always, was required to work over four consecutive hours in a single shift without a mandatory 10-minute rest period. The Plaintiff incurred various business expenses in direct discharge of her duties for which she received no reimbursement. The Defendant furnished deficient wage statements which omitted all applicable hourly rates, all gross and net wages earned, and the Defendant's address. The Defendant also willfully failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff all wages owed to her upon the conclusion of her employment, including overtime wages, meal period premium wages, rest period wages, minimum wages, and her final paycheck. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserted eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 204, 1184, 1194.2, 1197; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1198; (3) failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802; (6) failure to timely pay wages at termination in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226; (8) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. On November 12, 2024, the Defendant filed an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court. On November 14, 2024, the Defendant removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. On December 19, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On January 2, 2025, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s motion . Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 10, 2025. On February 20, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her motion to remand this action back to the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Defendant removed this action to federal court pursuant to CAFA contending that the parties are minimally diverse, there are at least 100 putative class members, and the amount in controversy is $10,623,538. In her motion to remand, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The parties did not dispute that the putative class in this case exceeds 100 members and that there is minimal diversity. The sole dispute on the motion to remand was whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Regarding the meal period claim, the Court concluded that the Defendant's assumption that the putative class missed three out of five meal periods per week, which amounts to a 60% violation rate, is reasonable. The Court found that the amount in controversy as to the alleged meal period violations is $1,517,162. For the rest period claim, the Court concluded that the Defendant's 60% violation rate assumption is unreasonable. The Court applied a reasonable assumption of 30% and found that the amount in controversy as to the Plaintiff's rest period claim is $757,149.06. As to the overtime claim, the Court concluded that a 20% violation rate is more reasonable than the Defendant's 40% violation rate assumption. The Court found that the Plaintiff's overtime wages claim renders an amount in controversy of $758,581. For the minimum wage claim, the Court concluded that the Defendant's assumption of a 40% violation rate is unreasonable and applied a 20% violation rate instead. The Court also adjusted the Defendant's calculation to reflect the mean minimum wage in California throughout the statutory period. The total amount in controversy for the minimum wages claim is $572,730. Regarding waiting time penalties, the Court concluded that the amount in controversy is $727,097.52. For the reimbursement claim, the Court reduced the Defendant's calculation to 50%, finding that the Plaintiff's business expenditure claim adds $385,887.15 to the total amount in controversy. The Court concluded that at least $4,718,606.73 has been placed into controversy in this action, excluding attorneys' fees. Therefore, to exceed the $5 million threshold under CAFA, the Defendant must only show that the Plaintiff will likely recover $281,394.27 in attorneys' fees. The Court concluded that it is reasonable to assume that the Plaintiff will obtain at least 6% in attorneys' fees should she prevail in this case. Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings as to all of the Plaintiff's claims on the grounds that they lack sufficient factual detail or are derivative of other claims. The Defendant also moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, strike the Plaintiff's class allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) due to the Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently allege facts satisfying the Rule 23 class requirements. Regarding the overtime claim, the Court found that the Plaintiff alleges that she was typically scheduled to work at least 5 days in a workweek, and typically in excess of 8 hours in a single workday. The Defendant maintained a policy and practice of not paying the Plaintiff for all hours worked, including all overtime wages. The Plaintiff was sometimes unable to clock into work, and was required to contact technical support while off the clock to resolve the issue, uncompensated. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's allegation of a specific task does not push her claim into plausibility. The Court found that the factual allegations of the Plaintiff's complaint fail to plausibly allege a claim for unpaid overtime wages. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiff's overtime claim. For the minimum wage claim, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff's minimum wage claim is insufficiently pled for the same reasons related to her overtime claim. The Court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiff's minimum wage claim. As to the meal and rest period claims, the Court found that the complaint contains only conclusory allegations of meal and rest break violations. The Plaintiff alleged in general fashion that the Defendant regularly failed to provide meal periods as required by California law and that the Defendant sometimes, but not always, required the Plaintiff to work over four hours without a rest break or five hours without a meal break. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for meal or rest break violations. The Court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to those claims. Regarding the business expenditure claim, the Court found that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to explain why the Plaintiff's personal printer, computer, office supplies, cellphone, and home internet usage were required for her job. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claim fails as to the second and third elements necessary to state a business expenditure reimbursement claim. The Court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiff's reimbursement claim. For the final wages, wage statement, and Unfair Competition Law claims, the Court noted that the Defendant argued that these claims must be dismissed because they are derivative of the Plaintiff's other insufficiently pled claims. Because the Court concluded that the Plaintiff's minimum wage, overtime, meal period, and rest break claims are all insufficiently pled, it is appropriate to dismiss the concededly derivative wage statement, final wages, and Unfair Competition Law claims as well. The Court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Plaintiff's final wages, wage statement, and Unfair Competition Law claims. Regarding the class allegations, the Court concluded that dismissal of the Plaintiff's class allegations is appropriate at this time. The Plaintiff's individual claims which underlie the class allegations are insufficiently pled. As a result, there is no basis upon which the Court can conclude that the alleged violations were suffered on a class-wide basis. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's class claims and denied the Defendant's motion to strike as having been rendered moot. In their opposition to the pending motion, the Plaintiff requested leave to amend. The Court observed that several of the pleading deficiencies identified in this order may be capable of being cured by additional and more detailed allegations. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. Within twenty-one days from the date of entry of this order, the Plaintiff shall file either a first amended complaint, if she can do so in good faith, or a notice of her intent not to do so. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GNFwe0 from PacerMonitor.com DOORS.COM LLC: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Doors.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03709 (D. Minn., September 19, 2025) alleges that Defendant's website, www.doors.com, is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiffs and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs, full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. In addition to the claim under the ADA, the Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Doors.com, LLC operates the website that offers doors for sale including, but not limited to, exterior doors, interior doors, barn doors, custom doors and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Operates Illegal Casino, Koetting Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON KOETTING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01854 (W.D. Wash., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Revised Code of Washington, Washington Consumer Protection Act, and Utah's Gambling Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal gambling operation through its DoubleDown Gambling Platform available at www.doubledown.com. According to the complaint, the games offered on the DoubleDown Gambling Platform between July 2, 2023 and May 31, 2025 constituted "gambling devices," and the Defendant amassed significant revenue from the Plaintiff and numerous others in the United Stated who lost money playing them. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals wagered money or other things of value on the Defendants' casino website and lost, says the suit. DoubleDown Interactive LLC is an online gambling platform operator, with a place of business in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW PLLC 450 Alaskan Way S., #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 Email: Nick@NickMajorLaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Labaton Keller Named Lead Counsel -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc., Mark Zagorski, and Nicola Allais, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04332 (S.D.N.Y.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the unopposed motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. The Court established a Master File for this proceeding as Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04332. The action was renamed In re DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Court ordered that this Order shall apply to the above-captioned action and to each case that relates to the same subject matter that is subsequently filed in this Court or is transferred to this Court, and is consolidated with the action. The Court appointed the Pension Funds, consisting of Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. and Teamsters Retirement Pension Plan, to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the action pursuant to Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B) of Title 15 of the United States Code. The Court approved the Pension Funds' selection of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) of Title 15 of the United States Code. The Court granted Lead Counsel the authority to speak for all Plaintiffs and Class members in all matters regarding the litigation, including pre-trial proceedings, motion practice, trial, and settlement. Lead Counsel was assigned responsibilities including briefing and arguing motions, initiating and conducting discovery, directing and coordinating the examination of witnesses in depositions, acting as spokesperson at pretrial conferences, initiating and conducting any settlement negotiations with Defendants' counsel, consulting with and employing experts, and receiving and reviewing periodic time reports of all attorneys on behalf of Plaintiffs. The Court ordered that each new case that arises out of the subject matter of the action shall be consolidated with the action. The Order was dated September 26, 2025 and is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bhbcta from PacerMonitor.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Benson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07943 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, website www.draftkings.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. DraftKings Inc. operates as a daily fantasy sports contest and sports betting company. The Company allows users to enter daily and weekly fantasy sports-related contests and win money based on individual player performances in American sports. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com EHANG HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in Pujo Suit Gets Prelim. Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Damien Pujo v. EHang Holdings Limited et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10165-MWC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting Lead Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court also discharges the Order to Show Cause re Dismissal set for hearing on Sept. 19, 2025, in light of the parties' stipulation of settlement. The Court approves the proposed class notice, subject to the inclusion in the Long Notice and Summary Notice that the Escrow Agent may disburse at the direction of Class Counsel up to $200,000 from the Settlement Fund for reasonable and necessary administrative costs. Class Members shall have until Friday, Dec. 19, 2025 (21 days before the final approval hearing) to opt out or object to the settlement. The Court approves the proposed notice plan, subject to the addition that the Class Administrator should perform skip tracing in the event a mailed notice is returned. The Stipulation defines the Settlement Class as: "all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded American Depositary Shares of EHang between March 29, 2022 and Nov. 6, 2023 [the "Class Period"], both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Under the Stipulation, the Defendants agree to pay $1,985,000 into the Settlement Fund, which is an escrow account managed by an escrow agent. On Oct. 14, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). In the FAC, Lead Plaintiff generally alleged that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding pre-orders for autonomous aerial vehicles ("AAVs") placed by two of EHang's largest customers: United Therapeutics Corporation and Prestige Aviation. EHang is a pilotless aerial vehicle technology platform company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cmDr4u at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGY CONTROL: Pretrial Management Order Entered ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, v. ENERGY CONTROL SERVICE INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07503-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. The Parties and counsel are cautioned: 1. If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. Energy is a building automation company that provides temperature controls, energy auditing, and enterprise solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4gjcAy at no extra charge.[CC] EXTRA SPACE: "Amos" Remanded to Nevada State Court -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Adam Amos, et al., v. Extra Space Management, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01696-CDS-NJK (D. Nev) Judge Cristina D. Silva of the United States District Court of Nevada remanded the case for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and closed the case and discharged the order to show cause. According to the Court "This negligence case arises from a fire that started at defendant Extra SpaceManagement’s storage facility. See Compl., ECF No. 2-3. After reviewing Extra Space’s notice of removal, asserting diversity jurisdiction, United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe issued an order to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge D. Silva noted that "In a class action not removed under the Class Action Fairness Act, at least one named plaintiff in the class must satisfy the $75,000amount in controversy requirement. Id. (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S.546, 549 (2005); Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 398 (9th Cir. 2010)). She further stated that Extra Space’s "removal papers do not attempt to show that any named plaintiff has a claim exceeding $75,000" and instead, Extra Space "attempts to aggregate the amount in controversy." Id. Extra Space filed a timely response to the show-cause order, conceding that aggregation is inappropriate and, therefore, remand is proper. Resp., ECF No. 7. As there is no valid basis for removal or for diversity jurisdiction, this matter must be remanded to state court. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K1cSub from PacerMonitor.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Filing for Class Cert. Due April 17, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security, v. Extreme Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-05102-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a final revised case management and scheduling order: Trial date: June 21, 2027 Final pretrial conference: May 20, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 13, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 31, 2026 Class certification: Hearing: July 7, 2026 Reply: June 5, 2026 Opposition: May 15, 2026 Motion filed by: April 17, 2026 Extreme delivers a unified platform that simplifies and secures IT operations. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nEf3su at no extra charge.[CC] FCPT SUNSHINE: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. FCPT SUNSHINE PROPERTIES LLC and BAHAMA BREEZE HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A BAHAMA BREEZE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24293 (S.D. Fla., September 19, 2025) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. The individual Plaintiff frequently visits the Defendant's commercial property and tenant business (including the related parking lots and common areas) to include visits on May 8, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial plaza and businesses therein. The architectural barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza property, and restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurant business therein and likewise endangered his safety, says the suit. FCPT Sunshine Properties LLC owns and operates the places of public accommodation all of which are located together in the same commercial property located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com FEDERAL HOME: OPERS Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, aka Freddie Mac, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:08-cv-00160, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging that the Defendants violated federal securities laws by making "false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk management and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry." On April 10, 2008, the court appointed Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) as lead Plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel. On Sept. 2, 2008, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007. On Nov. 7, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading allegations against only Patricia Cook. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second and third amended complaints, which the Court initially denied. On April 13, 2013, the judge who had presided over the case since 2008 recused himself, and the case was reassigned to a new judge. On August 23, 2013, the new judge granted the Defendants' motion to vacate the previous judge's orders denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Defendants filed new motions to dismiss the complaint on October 8, 2013. On October 31, 2014, the Court granted the Defendants' motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all Defendants, with prejudice. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which Judge Benita Y. Pearson granted on Aug. 29, 2025. The Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the movants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Final judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff. The appellate case is entitled OPERS v. FHLMC, et al., Case No. 25-3765, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Defendants-Appellees FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, aka Freddie Mac, et al. are represented by: Jason D. Frank, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 951-8153 - and - Frank Robert Volpe, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN 1501 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 - and - Michael V. Rella, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 880-3973 - and - Michael S. Doluisio, Esq. DECHERT 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 994-4000 FOROM LLC: Wills Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOROM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05384 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, e, www.foromshop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 5, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a stereo, since he was interested in upgrading his current setup with a product that would provide superior sound quality and style. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GATEWAY CHURCH: Loses Bid to Dismiss Leach Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE LEACH, GARRY K. LEACH, MARK BROWDER, TERRI BROWDER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. GATEWAY CHURCH, ROBERT MORRIS, THOMAS M. LANE, KEVIN L. GROVE, STEVE DULIN, Defendants. Case No. 4:24-cv-00885-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order denying Gateway's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and brief in support and Defendant Robert Morris's motion dismiss and supporting memorandum brief. The Court further entered an order that Plaintiffs be granted leave to file a further amended complaint no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. After reviewing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the arguments presented in the briefs, Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). Further, Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to establish their fraud and breach of contract claims began to accrue at their discovery in 2024, when Plaintiffs experienced the lack of transparency or substantiation for Gateway’s use of Plaintiffs’ tithes. Accordingly, dismissal is unwarranted, and Defendants’ 12(b)(6) Motions should therefore be denied. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants induced the Plaintiffs to donate money to Gateway by falsely representing fifteen percent (15%) of all donations would be distributed to global missions and Jewish ministry partners. The Plaintiffs further allege the Defendants guaranteed Plaintiffs a refund of their donated funds if Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with Gateway’s use of such funds. The Plaintiffs have initially defined the proposed class as follows: (a) "All persons who donated money to Gateway Church in reliance upon the 15% promise for the funds to go to Global Mission work," and (b) "All persons who want their money back pursuant to the guarantee of Gateway and Robert Morris." Gateway is one of the largest nondenominational churches in the United States with current and past membership exceeding 100,000 members. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dNIYa1 at no extra charge.[CC] GAVAL COCONUT: Ariza Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ARIZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAVAL COCONUT GROVE LLC d/b/a KOKO BY GRUPO BAKAN, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-24364-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://kokobybakan.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Gaval Coconut Grove LLC d/b/a Koko By Grupo Bakan owns and operates a restaurant located at Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com duranandassociates@gmail.com - and - Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 GEORGE'S INC: Haff Poultry Sues Over No-Poach Agreement ------------------------------------------------------- HAFF POULTRY, INC., NANCY BUTLER, JAMES MICHAEL MERCER, JONATHAN WALTERS, MARC MCENTIRE, KAREN MCENTIRE, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEORGE'S INC., GEORGE'S CHICKEN, LLC, OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC., GEORGE'S FOODS, LLC, and GEORGE'S PROCESSING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00099-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., September 15, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of a proposed class of broiler chicken growers the Defendants, which operate Broiler processing plants, arising from alleged anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and bad faith conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing services in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act. The case involves agreements by the Defendants and their Co-Conspirators to reduce competition for Broiler Grow-Out Services by agreeing to limit or eliminate efforts to solicit, recruit, or hire one another's growers, with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels. By agreeing not to compete for the services of one another's Growers, the Cartel members attempted to insulate themselves from normal competitive pressures. The No-Poach Agreement inoculated the Cartel against competition for Grower pay, which would have a market wide ripple effect on Grower compensation because of standardization in Grower contracts and pay rates, says the suit. George's Inc. is a privately owned poultry processor headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle McNew, Esq. MICHIE HAMLETT PLLC 310 4th Street NE, P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (424) 951-7273 Facsimile: (434) 951-7254 E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bergermontague.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Sarah R. Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bergermontague.com pmadden@bergermontague.com mwallin@bergermontague.com szimmerman@bergermontague.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Erika A. Inwald, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: einwald@hausfeld.com - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Michael L. Silverman, Esq. ROACH LAW FIRM 205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: msilverman@rlbfirm.com GITLAB INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Dolly Suit ------------------------------------------------- Gitlab Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2025, that on September 4, 2024, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Dolly v. GitLab et al.," Case No. 5:24-cv-06244-EKL, naming GitLab and certain of its officers. On August 14, 2025, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss. The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired our common stock between June 5, 2023 and June 3, 2024. He alleged that, during the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding its use of AI features and ability to monetize AI capabilities that artificially inflated its stock price. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, as well as fees and costs. He amended his complaint on February 5, 2025 and March 7, 2025. Gitlab moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in April 2025. GitLab operates a "DevSecOps" platform, accelerating customers' software development by removing the need for point tools and eliminating manual work, Its DevSecOps platform is built on an open-core business model that enable any customer and contributor to add functionality to the platform. GUNTER OIL: Fendley Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA FENDLEY, Plaintiff v. GUNTER OIL COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01612-AMM (N.D. Ala., September 19, 2025) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Fendley is a resident of Jefferson County, Alabama, who has mobility disabilities and is limited in the major life activity of walking, which has caused her to utilize a wheelchair for mobility. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Fendley visited the gas station and Power Mart convenience store owned and/or operated by Defendant within the last two years, where she experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk in the exterior and interior areas of the facilities due to inaccessible parking, inaccessible and/or obstructed accessible routes, obstructions maintained within the required clear floorspace to approach accessible elements, self-serve food and beverage operable parts and accessories such as cups, lids, straws and condiments being located out of wheelchair reach range, along with the other ADA access violations. As a result of Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff Fendley's ability to access and use Defendant's facilities has been significantly impeded and she has suffered an injury-in-fact in precisely the manner and form that the ADA was enacted to guard against, says the suit. Gunter Oil Company, Inc. owns and operates a number of gas station and convenience store locations and facilities in Alabama, specifically the Morris Shell gas station and Power Mart convenience store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward I. Zwilling, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD I. ZWILLING, LLC 4000 Eagle Point Corporate Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 Telephone: (205) 822-2701 E-mail: edwardzwilling@zwillinglaw.com - and - Peter H. Burke, Esq. CR LEGAL TEAM, LLP 3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 222 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 747-1901 E-mail: phburke@crlegalteam.com - and - John Allen Fulmer II, Esq. FULMER LAW FIRM, PC 2330 Highland Avenue, South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 210-5555 E-mail: jaf@jafulmerlaw.com HANWHA OCEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Asubiaro Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- LATEEFAH ASUBIARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANWHA OCEAN GLOBAL OPERATION CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-04533 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 23, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a strategic sourcing manager. HANWHA OCEAN GLOBAL OPERATION CENTER, LLC operates as a shipbuilding and offshore company. The Company provides floating structure construction, steel wire drying, commercial vessels, specialty vessels, gas carrier, tanker, containership, roro, bulk carrier, submarine, warship, auxiliaries, cruise ships, and ferries manufacturing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Verde, Esq. THE VERDE LAW FIRM, PLLC 12012 Wickchester Ln, Suite 330 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (713) 909-4347 Facsimile: (713) 588-2431 Email: josh@verde-law.com HENDERSON, NV: Discovery Deadlines Extended ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY WOODBURN and THOMAS WOODBURN, and JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF HENDERSON; DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01488-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order extending discovery deadlines as follows: 1. The Phase I Discovery cut-off deadline shall be extended from Dec. 8 2025, to April 7, 2026. 2. The parties agree to and propose a deadline to disclose experts for Phase I 60 days prior to the close of Phase I Discovery: Feb. 6, 2026. 3. To the extent that Plaintiffs continue as a collective, the Parties agree to and propose a deadline to file collective certification, collective decertification, and dispositive motions 30 days after the close of Phase I Discovery: May 7, 2026. 4. Plaintiffs Kelly Woodburn, Thomas Woodburn, and Joshua Rodriguez, together with Defendant the City of Henderson, stipulate and agree to amend the Stipulated Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, first entered July 27, 2022, and subsequently amended by order on June 9, 2025. Henderson is a city near Las Vegas, in Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l1dsjn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony P. Sgro, Esq. Alanna C. Bondy, Esq. Kathleen L. Fellows, Esq. Marc Kustner, Esq. SGRO & ROGER 2901 El Camino Ave., Suite 204 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 384-9800 E-mail: TSGRO@SgroandRoger.com ABONDY@SgroandRoger.com KFELLOWS@SgroandRoger.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew S. Clark, Esq. Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq. Ethan D. Thomas, Esq. Taylor A. Buono, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 8474 Rozita Lee Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89113.4770 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811 E-mail: mpaek@littler.com edthomas@littler.com asclark@littler.com tbuono@littler.com HOME DEPOT: Court Dismisses Franklin Suit ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS FRANKLIN, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-03657-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Freeman entered an order: -- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part; and -- denying as moot alternative motion to strike. The Court notes that its ruling is consistent with that in Radford v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc, Case No. 24-cv-08118-RFL, 2025 WL 829601 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2025). The Court observes an eerie similarity between the complaint at issue in Radford and the complaint here, which indicates that the Court may have been asked to evaluate a boilerplate document. Franklin alleges that Home Depot failed to pay minimum wages or overtime, provide meal and rest periods, reimburse business expenses, provide accurate wage statements, pay final wages due upon separation, or pay proper sick leave. He brings this putative class action for alleged unfair business practices and violations of wage and hour laws. The UCL claim is asserted on behalf of a putative "California Class." This putative class is comprised of "non-exempt" "individuals who are or previously were employed" by the Defendant in California during the "California Class Period." It includes "any employees staffed with the Defendant by a third party." The California Class Period is defined as the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending at a date to be determined by the Court. The other eight claims are brought on behalf of a putative "California Labor Sub-Class." It is comprised of "non-exempt" "individuals who are or previously were employed" by the Defendant Home Depot in California during the "California Labor Sub-Class Period." It likewise includes "any employees staffed with Defendant by a third party." The California Labor Sub-Class Period is defined as the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending at a date to be determined by the Court. Home is a home improvement retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LAwQN4 at no extra charge.[CC] HOPSONS INC: Lewis Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Parking --------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOPSONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01855 (W.D. Wash., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Washington Law Against Discrimination. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its properties and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking spaces and access to aisles. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Hopsons, Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dustine Bowker, Esq. 4115 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite B Seattle, WA 98105 Telephone: (206) 428-3172 Email: dustine@wacda.com - and - Conrad Reynoldson, Esq. 4115 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite B Seattle, WA 98105 Telephone: (206) 876-8515 Email: conrad@wacda.com HUDSON GASTROPUB: Faces Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- COBIE-RAY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUDSON GASTROPUB LLC d/b/a THE WARREN, DIMITRI LIBERIS, and PREMETESH CHATOO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07951 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, unlawfully retained tips and gratuities, wage deductions, unjust enrichment, conversion, and failure to provide accurate wage statements, and retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender from on or about May 9, 2024 through on or about January 3, 2025. Hudson Gastropub LLC, doing business as The Warren, is a gastropub owner and operator, located at 131 Christopher Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 - and - Kevin Shehan, Esq. SHEHAN LEGAL, PLLC 845 Third Avenue, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (917) 740-7805 HUME HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 16, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERI BUTLER BROCKINGTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. HUME HEALTH, LLC; Case No. 3:25-cv-00161-KAC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Crytzer entered a phase one scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall disclose any expert testimony related to the issue of class certification in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by Dec. 15, 2025. The Defendant shall disclose any expert testimony rlated to the issue of class certification in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by Dec. 29, 2025. Parties shall disclose rebuttal expert testimony no later than Jan. 5, 2026. -- The Parties must complete all discovery related to the issue of class certification, including expert depositions, by Jan. 16, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification under Rule 23 on or before Feb. 16, 2026. Any response shall be filed on or before Mar. 9, 2026. Hume offers products and an app for advanced health tracking. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WBB6jU at no extra charge.[CC] HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Dean Balks at Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------ Ethan D. Dean, individually and as a representative of a Class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Huntington Ingalls Industries Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. and HII Administrative Committee, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00124-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va., September 19, 2025) is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint arises from the Defendants' (1) failure to comply with Huntington Ingalls Industries Savings Plan terms; (2) breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties; (3) violation of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules; and (4) violation of ERISA's anti-inurement provision. According to the complaint, instead of following the terms of the Plan and loyally and prudently acting in the best interest of Plan participants and avoiding prohibited transactions, the Defendants chose to use Plan assets to overwhelmingly benefit Huntington, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by using over $15.3 million of Plan assets to offset Huntington's contractual obligations to make declared matching contributions to the Plan, while not using any forfeitures to offset Plan expenses and requiring Plan Participants to pay over $28.2 million in Plan expenses to the Plan's third-party service providers, both directly and indirectly, that should never have come out of (or reduced the value of) their accounts. The Plaintiff brought this complaint individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Huntington Ingalls Industries Savings Plan. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. is a military shipbuilding company in the United States. Huntington is the Plan sponsor under ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com paul@butlercurwood.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Seth J. Bloom, Esq. BLOOM LEGAL LLC 825 Girod Street, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 599-9997 E-mail: sjb@bloomlegal.com - and - M. Kevin Horan, Esq. Bradley D. Daigneault, Esq. HORAN & HORAN, PLLC 1500 Gateway P.O. Box 2166 Grenada, MS 38902 Telephone: (662) 226-2185 E-mail: horanmain@horanandhoranlaw.com ILLINOIS: Pris Sues Over Medicaid Redeterminations' Procedures -------------------------------------------------------------- ELZBIETA PRIS and ERMA BARNES, individually and as the representatives of a limited class of similarly situated entities, Plaintiffs V. ELIZABETH M. WHITEHORN, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, and and DULCE QUINTERO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11320 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2025) arises from Medicaid long-term care benefits in which Plaintiffs, as residents of long-term nursing care, have a protected property interest. According to the complaint, the Defendants are failing to provide constitutionally adequate appeal procedures for Medicaid redeterminations, in violation of Federal statutes and regulations. Specifically, the Defendants are issuing Notices of Decisions on redetermination applications to residents receiving long-term care benefits without the explicit opportunity to request the continuation of Medicaid benefits during the appeal process, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and prevailing case law, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are all applicants or enrollees in Illinois' Medicaid program who allegedly received notices that HFS was going to deny, reduce, or discontinue assistance. Elizabeth M. Whitehorn is the director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. HFS is an Illinois state agency that provides Medicaid services to enrollees in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janice Morrison, Esq. 1426 N. 3rd St. Suite 120 PO Box 5400 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (773) 329-1373 Facsimile: (717) 909-5925 E-mail: jmorrison@sb2inc.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Seeks to Amend Class Cert Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashworth v. International Paper Co et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff and the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their proposed second amended scheduling order for class certification hearing. The amended scheduling order is sought in good faith and not intended to cause improper delay. This amended scheduling order will also not materially impede the progress of this case or prejudice the parties. The parties made a good faith effort to obtain the consent of the Defendant but were unable to reach counsel. International is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W2vkhv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry R. Sanders, Jr., Esq. THE SANDERS LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (719) 630-1556 E-mail: perry@perrysanders.com - and - David L. Wallace, Esq. 518 North Pine Street, P.O. Box 489 DeRidder, LA 70634 wnblawoffice@bellsouth.net Telephone: 337-462-0473 - and - Andrew K. Glenn, Esq. Trevor J. Welch, Esq. Jason Rotstein, Esq. Nathan J. Ades, Esq. GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 970-1600 E-mail: aglenn@glennagre.com twelch@glennagre.com jrotstein@glennagre.com nades@glennagre.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Mulholland, Esq. Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. T. Joel Fyke, Esq. Taylor D. Waxley, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8600 Facsimile: (601) 960-8613 E-mail: LAEService@formanwatkins.com INVESTMENTS DYNAMICS: Johnson Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TASIA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. INVESTMENTS DYNAMICS, INC., a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and JACQUELYN WHITE, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00160-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: (a) conditionally certifying the following FLSA class: "All adult entertainers/dancers who worked at Blue Flame Lounge in the past three years"; (b) requiring the Defendants to produce within 14 days a list of all adult entertainers/dancers who worked in the past three (3) years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, email address and last four (4) digits of their social security number; and (c) authorizing notice in the form and manner requested. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and overtime wage provisions of the Fair labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants' customers in the form of fees, fines, mandatory charges and other payments to Blue Flame employees, such as the disc jockeys ("DJs") and bouncers, in violation of the Tip Income Protection Act ("TIPA"). Investments owns and operates an adult entertainment club in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LualSF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com JAMES LEBLANC: Court Stays Betz Class Action -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODRICK S. BETZ, V. JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to stay. The Court further entered an order administratively closing the case pending the resolution of the class certification motions. The two purported class actions bringing the same claims as those brought by Plaintiff in this action, and with unresolved motions for class certification, are currently pending in the Court: "Humphrey v. LeBlanc, Case No. 20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ;" and "Giroir v. LeBlanc, Case No. 21-cv-00108-JWD-SDJ." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QEF9nQ at no extra charge.[CC] JENNY PACKHAM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. JENNY PACKHAM (US) LIMITED, Case No. 1:25-cv-07956 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://jenny-packham.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant operates the Jenny Packham online retail store, as well as the Jenny Packham interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JM SMUCKER: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Humphrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal portions of the Defendants' response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which reference information the Defendants designated as Confidential. The portions of the Defendants' response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification contain quotes from other documents that the Defendants have designated as confidential and sought to seal. These documents concern Smucker's pricing, and business strategy that, in some instances, go beyond the issues in this lawsuit. Smucker has a legitimate interest in keeping this information under seal. Public disclosure of Smucker's business and pricing strategy would cause injury to Smucker’s competitive standing if sealing is denied, as competitors would have access to this confidential and proprietary information. The documents or portions thereof Defendants seek to seal are narrowly tailored and are only those portions that contain confidential business information of Defendants. JM is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vt6D9P at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. Spencer E. Krebs, Esq. Bart L. Kessel, Esq. Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com spencer.krebs@tuckerellis.com bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com JOHN WOOD: Bids for Judgment on the Pleadings Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA WALTHER, et al., v. JOHN WOOD, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-ALT (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Gretchen Lund entered an order denying the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. On Oct. 22, 2024, per the parties' joint request, the Court temporarily stayed the discovery, and some briefing deadlines, in this case pending the resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and Defendant Eagle's and Wood's Motion for judgment on the pleadings. Additionally, the Court notes that the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class on Sept. 20, 2024. In light of the Court's Sept. 30, 2024 Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, and now, the Court's denial of the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, the Court denies the motion without prejudice, and grants the Plaintiffs' leave to refile such a motion, if they choose, consistent with the Court's findings. Due to Defendant Wood's insufficient and underdeveloped motion, the Court finds that it is not necessary to address his motion further. On July 14, 2023, the Plaintiffs, current and former employees of 80/20, Inc. initiated this lawsuit against the Defendants, alleging various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XLa8hS at no extra charge.[CC] KELLWOOD COMPANY: Echols Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLWOOD COMPANY, LLC D/B/A DEMOCRACY CLOTHING, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11557 (N.D. Ill., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://democracyclothing.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: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff 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. Kellwood Company, LLC, doing business as Democracy Clothing, is a company that sells online goods and services, with its headquarters in City of Industry, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law KGI TRADING: Faces EEOC Labor Class Suit Over Sex Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. KGI TRADING GA, INC., d/b/a MOON N SEA, GA; KGI TRADING FL, INC., d/b/a MOON N SEA, FL; and KGI TRADING NC, INC., d/b/a MOON N SEA, NC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05455-TRJ-CMS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 24, 2025) is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Bianca Lott and a class of similarly situated female job applicants who were adversely affected by such practices. In this complaint, EEOC alleges that the discriminated against Lott and the Applicant Class when Moon N Sea failed to hire them based on sex. The Plaintiff is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1). KGI Trading maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 4575 Atwater Court, Buford, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus G. Keegan, Esq. Lakisha Duckett Zimbabwe, Esq. Robyn M. Flegal, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Atlanta District Office 100 Alabama St., SW, Suite 4R30 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (470) 531-4862 Facsimile: (404) 562-6905 E-mail: robyn.flegal@eeoc.gov KJBR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JANNA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KJBR, L.L.C. d/b/a CLUB PLATINUM GENTLEMAN'S CLUB; and SINEET TESFAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05441-AT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018, as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer. KJBR, L.L.C. d/b/a Club Platinum Gentleman's Club operates as an adult entertainment club. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT: Fernandez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05386 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.kotobukirestaurants.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on March 20, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase several high-protein meals, including the protein plus fit mac sliders & curly fries, protein plus beef & cheese grilled burrito, and protein plus fit beef & cheese sliders. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com KRISTI NOEM: Court Certifies Class in L.G.M.L --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.G.M.L. et al., v. KRISTI NOEM et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02942-TJK (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Kelly entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted to the extent it is consistent with the class described below. It is further ordered that the following class is provisionally certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): "all unaccompanied alien children from Guatemala who are or will be in the custody of Defendants and who (1) are not subject to an executable final order of removal and (2) have not been permitted to voluntarily depart under 8 U.S.C. section 1229c and applicable regulations"; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted. It is further ordered that the 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; and 3. It is further ordered that the Plaintiffs shall, by Sept. 22, 2025, post a $1.00 bond in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sdXAsf at no extra charge.[CC] LAUNDRY DEPOT: Seeks to Decertify Class in Leong Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NYOK MOY LEONG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. LAUNDRY DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-03545-HG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant shall move for decertification of the class based on the memorandum of law dated Sept. 17, 2025, the Declaration of Tommy Ngai Lau Defendant and all attachments thereto. Laundry is a laundromat, offering a wide range of self-service and drop-off laundry options. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5rcmSu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Robert J. Adinolfi, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF KASEN & LIU PLLC Telephone: (718) 337-8012 E-mail: robertadinolfesq@gmail.com LAUNDRYBEE FOREST: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAUNDRYBEE FOREST HILLS LLC (D/B/A LAUNDRYBEE), and HAN HSU CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05272 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Gonzalez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says the suit. Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as a laundry worker at Laundrybee from approximately June 2021 until July 21, 2025. Laundrybee Forst Hills LLC operates a laundromat located in the Forest Hills section of Queens, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Court to Grant $464K in Attys' Fees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL P. MCDONOUGH, v. LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00375-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand will grant in part Mr. McDonough's motion for costs and attorneys' fees as follows: 1. Mr. McDonough will be awarded $464,335.95 in attorneys' fees. 2. Mr. McDonough will be awarded $2,255.96 in costs. The Court finds persuasive the attorney declarations submitted by Mr. McDonough attesting to the reasonableness of SLG's requested rates. Leopold has offered no other evidence of what a reasonable market rate is in Pittsburgh for SLG’s services, and the Court does not find Leopold’s reliance on rates approved in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York helpful to that determination. On balance, the Court finds that the rates requested by SLG—$650 for Mr. Sanders, $500 for Mr. Cader, and $330 for Ms. McCabe—are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will approve those rates. Mr. McDonough initially filed this case in 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. He alleged that Defendants Leopold and Trinity violated various provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when Leopold sent him a letter seeking to collect a time-barred debt that Mr. McDonough owed to Trinity. Leopold is a multi-state law firm. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dkusky at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Turner Amended to Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turner v. Liberty Mutual Retirement Benefit Plan, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11530 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 14, 2020), the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV entered an amended deadlines order: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file Motion for Class Certification Nov. 18, 2025. -- Liberty Mutual's deadline to file a Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification Dec. 9, 25. -- Plaintiff's deadline to file a Reply to Liberty Mutual's Response to Motion for Class Certification Dec. 19, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the E.R.I.S.A. involving Employee Retirement. Liberty is a single-employer-defined benefit corporate pension plan based in Boston, Massachusetts.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Johnson Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-08100-SVK (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Electronic Communications Privacy Act and common law invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of intercepting the Plaintiff's and Class members' confidential personal health communications with Nevada Health Link's website, www.nevadahealthlink.com, without their knowledge or consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant's tracking technology, the LinkedIn Insight Tag, was embedded on the website to track visitors' actions as they navigate through the website and collect sensitive personal information. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered mental anguish arising from their loss of privacy and confidentiality of their sensitive health information, says the suit. LinkedIn Corporation is a social networking site company, headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com tiffine@lcllp.com - and - Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Cert in Cuevas Extended to Nov. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS and DORA MEZA DE CASTILLO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the case schedule as follows. 1. Responses to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion due by Nov. 14, 2025; 2. Replies due by Dec. 19, 2025; and 3. Motion for class certification hearing set for Jan. 6, 2026 or Mar. 17, 2026. On June 17, 2025, the Parties filed a joint stipulation seeking to modify the class certification schedule. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. As part of the Plaintiffs' motion, the Plaintiffs submitted the declarations of 13 class member declarants and two retained experts. Little is the American multinational operator of the Little Caesars pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u5RSQy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2523 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com LIVE NATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MADRIGAL, et al., v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-02375-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order approving stipulation re: class certification briefing schedule 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and related expert disclosures shall be served and filed by Dec. 19, 2025. 2. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and related expert disclosures shall be served and filed by Feb. 13, 2026. 3. The remainder of the case schedule set forth in the Court's Sept. 2, 2025 Order shall remain in effect. Live promotes, operates and manages ticket sales for live entertainment internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NRqldO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brandon D. Fox, Esq. Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kristen L. Green, Esq. Eric W. Wolff, Esq. Alison I. Stein, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: BFox@jenner.com ASmith@jenner.com KGreen@jenner.com Eric.Wolff@jenner.com AStein@jenner.com LUCERO AG: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ortiz, et al., v. Lucero Ag Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01319 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered a scheduling order: -- Deadline of May 15, 2026, for the close of all discovery pertaining to the merits as to the named Plaintiffs and class certification. -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than June 26, 2026. -- the Defendant Paragroup shall file a response to the first amended complaint by no later than Oct. 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs and Defendant Paragroup Farms, Inc. are directed to meet and confer regarding settlement and jointly email Courtroom Deputy Felicia Navarro ( fnavarro@caed.uscourts.gov ) by no later than Oct. 3, 2025, regarding whether they wish to participate in a court- facilitated settlement conference or private mediation. The suit alleges violation of the Agricultural Acts involving Farmworker Rights.[CC] MARCO RUBIO: Class Cert. Briefing Postponed ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OCA – ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN ADVOCATES, et al., v. MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00287-TJK (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to postpone class certification briefing and directing the submission of joint status reports. On June 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a class action amended complaint as of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). This Complaint added class action allegations for the first time in this matter. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXBLY8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Freedman, Esq. Sally Pei, Esq. Jonathan L. Stern, Esq. Ronald D. Lee, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com Sally.Pei@arnoldporter.com Jonathan.Stern@arnoldporter.com Ronald.Lee@arnoldporter.com - and - John C. Yang, Esq. Niyati Shah, Esq. Noah Baron, Esq. ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE-AAJC 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 200036 Telephone: (202) 296-2300 E-mail: jcyang@advancingjustice-aajc.org nshah@advancingjustice-aajc.org nbaron@advancingjustice-aajc.org - and - Kaitlin Banner, Esq. Sarah Bessell, Esq. Madeleine Gates, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 E-mail: aitlin_banner@washlaw.org sarah_bessell@washlaw.org madeleine_gates@washlaw.org MCGRAW ENTERPRISES: Court Remands SFCI Suit to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUPERIOR FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., v. MCGRAW ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01400-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order granting Superior Fence's motion to remand to state court and denying Superior Fence's request for costs and expenses under 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c). Because McGraw preserved its argument that counsel's statements served as the basis for removal in its notice, the Court does not find that McGraw unequivocally waived its right to remove by litigating in the state court before that basis arose. Mcgraw is a specialty contractor. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jfup2k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott E. Davis, Esq. Caroline L. Desmond, Esq. Jeffrey S. Love, Esq. Derrick W. Toddy, Esq. Kevin M. Hayes, Esq. KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP One World Trade Center, 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 The Defendant is represented by: Steven T. Lovett, Esq. Elliott J. Williams, Esq. Kaitlyn K. Lindaman, Esq. Brian D. Bollt, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP, 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 MDL 3152: Panel Consolidates 8 Equipment Rental Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers five cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, two from the Central District of California and one from the Southern District of Iowa, all to the Northern District of Illinois, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Sara L. Ellis for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3152. All responding parties support centralization but differ as to the proposed transferee forum. All plaintiffs allege that the rental company defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanges of detailed, accurate, non-public, competitively sensitive information, including supply and utilization strategies with one another. They all allege that the information exchange occurred through the Rouse defendants. According to plaintiffs, Rouse offers an analytic platform and algorithmic pricing tool that uses the rental company defendants' non-public data to generate a uniform, real-time price benchmark for each piece of equipment. As a result of the alleged conspiracy by the rental company defendants to align pricing, plaintiffs allege that they paid supra-competitive prices for rental equipment. All actions propose putative nationwide classes of those who rented construction equipment from the rental company defendants. The panel finds that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Nine of the nineteen actions and potential tag-along actions are pending in this district, which has broad support from defendants and some plaintiffs. Rouse defendant RB Global, Inc., is headquartered in this district. Most of the cases in this district have been consolidated before Judge Ellis, it adds. A full-text copy of the court's August 13, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3152-Transfer_Order-7-25.pdf MDL 3153: 11 Data Coinbase Data Breach Suits Consolidated in SDNY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers five cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and one each from the Central District of California and the Western District of Washington, and consolidated these with four cases pending the Southern District of New York. With the consent of the Southern District of New York court, all cases were assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Coinbase Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3153. Plaintiffs are customers of Coinbase, one of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges. They all allege that their personally identifiable information, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, partial Social Security numbers, masked bank account numbers, government-issued ID images, and account data, was compromised during a cybersecurity incident affecting Coinbase. The actions raise common questions of fact, such as how and when the breach occurred, the sufficiency of Coinbase's data security practices, how and when Coinbase notified breach victims, and the nature of the alleged damages. The Southern District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation, says the panel. Four actions and four potential tag-along actions are pending in the district. Coinbase maintains corporate offices in New York and has a major data center in nearby Secaucus, New Jersey. Thus, relevant witnesses and documents may be in or near said court, it adds. A full-text copy of the court's August 7, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3153-Transfer_Order-7-25.pdf MDL 3154: 2 Respimat Pharma Antitrust Suits Consolidated in Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers one case from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and consolidated this with one case pending in the District of Massachusetts. Both cases were assigned to Judge Denise J. Casper for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Respimat Pharmaceuticals Antitrust Litigation," MDL. No. 3154. Plaintiffs are health and welfare funds that have paid for members to purchase Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Respimat. The actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that Boehringer has misused the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act to suppress generic competition in the market for Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Combivent products by improperly listing "device-only patents" (patents that do not claim a drug as the invention) in the FDA's Orange Book. Plaintiffs also allege that Boehringer delayed competition by bringing sham lawsuits against the first generic manufacturer seeking approval to market generic versions of the products. Plaintiffs in both actions seek to represent a nationwide class of persons or entities that purchased or paid for Combivent Respimat, Spiriva Respimat, or generic equivalents thereof. Plaintiffs bring antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of multiple states, and a claim for injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. Boehringer opposed centralization, arguing that informal coordination of the two actions is practicable and stressing that it is willing to work cooperatively with plaintiffs. It argued that the same defendants are named in both actions and represented by the same counsel, and that both actions are at an early stage. "While we applaud defendants’ spirit of cooperation, given the complexity of these actions, we are persuaded that centralization is the surest means of serving the convenience of the parties and witnesses, ensuring efficient proceedings, and conserving judicial and party resources," the panel rules. "The District of Massachusetts is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation," it adds. "All parties support centralization there, in the first instance or in the alternative. The first-filed action is pending in the district and is somewhat more advanced than the District of Connecticut action, having produced a ruling on Boehringer's motion to dismiss. We assign the litigation to Judge Denise J. Casper, an experienced transferee judge who presides over the Massachusetts Laborers action. We are confident that she will steer this matter on an efficient and prudent course." A full-text copy of the court's August 7, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3154-Transfer_Order-7-25.pdf MDL 3155: 11 Air Crash Suits Consolidated in D. Minn. ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers one case each from the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Texas, and consolidated the two cases with nine cases pending in the District of Minnesota. With the consent of the Minnesota District court, the 11 cases were assigned to Judge Jerry W. Blackwell for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedingsin the multi-district action captioned "In re: Air Crash at Toronto Pearson International Airport on February 17, 2025," MDL No. 3155. Defendants Delta Air Lines, Inc., and Endeavor Air, Inc., moved to centralize this litigation in the District of Minnesota. All responding plaintiffs supported the motion. These actions share factual questions arising from the crash landing of Delta Flight 4819 at Toronto Pearson International Airport on February 17, 2025. Plaintiffs in each action assert personal injury and property damage claims against the same two defendants under the Montreal Convention, a treaty that governs international travel and limits liability for air carriers. Accordingly, centralization in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation, rules the panel. "The District of Minnesota is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation," the panel adds. "The center of gravity for this litigation lies in Minnesota, the accident flight departed from Minneapolis, the flight crew is based there, and Endeavor Air, which operated the flight, is headquartered in Minnesota. Witnesses and documentary evidence thus are likely to be concentrated in this district. Sixteen of the nineteen related actions in this docket are pending there. All of these actions are assigned to Judge Jerry W. Blackwell. . . We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. A full-text copy of the court's August 8, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3155-Transfer_Order-7-25.pdf MEMBERS 1ST: Cox Suit Removed from State Court to M.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN COX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEMBERS 1ST, LLC d/b/a MEMBERS 1ST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2025-08228 (Filed Aug. 12, 2025) was removed from the Cumberland Court of Common Pleas to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on September 25, 2025. The Middle District Of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01796-YK to the proceeding. The State Court Action arises from a cyber-attack alleged to have compromised the Plaintiff's personal information when "an unauthorized party accessed and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from Alera Group's network systems." The Plaintiff's specific claims include: negligence; breach of implied contract; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of confidence; and unjust enrichment / quasi contract. Although the Plaintiff only names Defendant in the Complaint, the real target of Plaintiff's lawsuit is Alera Group. The Plaintiff alleges that on "July 29, 2025, Alera Group, an insurance brokerage firm that contracts with Defendant for services, began sending Plaintiff and other Data Breach victims a Notice of Data Breach letter on behalf of Defendant. The Alera Group Notice Letter states that "On April 28, 2025, Alera Group confirmed that personal information may have been removed from its network as the result of unauthorized access to the Alera Group technology environment that occurred between July 19, 2024, and August 4, 2024." MEMBERS 1ST, LLC offer financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Wilson, Esq. Paul Bond, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 252-9600 Facsimile: (215) 867-6070 E-mail: Benjamin.Wilson@hklaw.com Paul.Bond@hklaw.com MENTAVI INC: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 28, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL MARTINEZ et al., v. MENTAVI, INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00228-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker entered a first case management order as follows: Completion of discovery: Sept. 30, 2026 Dispositive motions: Dec. 31, 2025 Motion for class certification: Feb. 28, 2026 Second Rule 16 scheduling conference: Mar. 24, 2026 Mentavi is a telehealth company that provides affordable, accessible diagnosis and mental health treatment for adults and children A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HcXuQo at no extra charge.[CC] MERCURIAL SECURITY: Cimbal Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENIS CIMBAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCURIAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03029 (D. Colo., Sept. 25, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Mercurial Security. Plaintiff Cimbal worked for Mercurial Security as a first responder. He and other first responders for Mercurial Security regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. According to the complaint, Mercurial Security did not pay Cimbal and the other first responders overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Instead, Mercurial Security improperly classified Cimbal and the other first responders as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation, asserts the suit. Mercurial Security's failure to pay proper wages for all hours worked violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the D.C. Code section 32-1001 et seq. This action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Mercurial Security to these workers. Mercurial Security provides risk management services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law META PLATFORMS: Cook Seeks to File Class Materials Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor, and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., F/K/A FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. The documents sought to be sealed are Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of motion for class certification and various exhibits to the Declaration of Brian C. Gudmundson. The Plaintiff requests that this Court preliminarily seal the documents set forth above and determine whether continued sealing of the documents is appropriate. Meta owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, among other products and services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sw9yCQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. June P. Hoidal, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq. James F. Mcdonough, Esq. ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC 712 W. 14th Street, Suite C Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (210) 289-7541 E-mail: hardt@rhmtrial.com jim@rhmtrial.com META PLATFORMS: Cook Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor, and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., F/K/A FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 5, 2026, will move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying a class action. The Plaintiff moves to certify a Nationwide Class and Florida Subclass defined as follows: Nationwide Class. "All individuals and entities in the United States who submitted or had submitted on their behalf a DMCA takedown notice to Meta that reported one or more ads on Facebook infringing on their registered copyright and that received no counter notice." Florida Subclass. "All individuals and entities in Florida who submitted or had submitted on their behalf a DMCA takedown notice to Meta that reported one or more ads on Facebook infringing on their registered copyright and that received no counter-notice." As to the Nationwide Class, Plaintiff moves to certify under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief and under Rule 23(b)(3) for damages due to Meta's vicarious copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations. As an alternative to Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff moves to certify, under Rule 23(c)(4), three issue classes that address common issues, the resolution of which will advance the claims of the Nationwide Class as a whole. As to the Florida Subclass, the Plaintiff moves to certify under Rule 23(b)(3) for damages due to Meta's violation of Florida's Unfair Deceptive Trade Practice Act. Additionally, the Plaintiff moves the Court to appoint them as Class Representative and appoint Zimmerman Reed LLP and Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC as Class Counsel. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IfXz7Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. June P. Hoidal, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com - and - Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq. James F. McDonough, III, Esq. ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC 712 W. 14th Street, Suite C Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (210) 289-7541 E-mail: hardt@rhmtrial.com jim@rhmtrial.com MEWBOURNE OIL: Griffith Sues Over Underpayment of Gas Royalties --------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH GRIFFITH, as Trustee of the R.W. Griffith and Carolyn Griffith Trust, and DOWLCO LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY, and its successors and affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00339-DES (E.D. Okla., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, and accounting. The case arises from Mewbourne Oil Company's breach of its express and implied duties under oil and gas leases to pay royalties to the Plaintiffs and the putative Class on the full production of natural gas and all constituents from wells in Oklahoma in which the Plaintiffs and the Class own mineral interests. According to the complaint, Mewbourne is underpaying the royalties owed to the Plaintiffs and the Class by (a) not paying royalty on the full value of natural gas liquids ("NGL's") that were or could have been extracted from the gas stream and sold separately, thus not obtaining the best price available for the natural gas; (b) allowing its wholly-owned affiliate, Mewbourne Marketing, Inc., to purchase and/or market the gas; and (c) not paying royalty on natural gas produced from the Oklahoma Wells that Mewbourne used, caused to be used and/or allowed third parties to use off the lease premises as fuel to, inter alia, power compressors and other machinery and equipment in gathering system and/or gas plant operations. The Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered monetary damage as a result of these breaches. Dowlco LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Arnett, Oklahoma. Mewbourne Oil Company is an exploration, development, and production company, with its principal place of business located in Tyler, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1310 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 641-8662 Email: randy@rcsmithlaw.com - and - Brady L. Smith, Esq. Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq. Chelsea C. Smith, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 Email: brady@blsmithlaw.com skeeter@blsmithlaw.com chelsea@blsmithlaw.com MIDWEST CATALOG: Bids for Class Cert. in McGonigle Due Nov. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGonigle, Andrew v. Midwest Catalog Brands LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00864 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Dec. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' joint motion to extend the case schedule through dispositive motions by 90 days. The following are reset: -- Motions for class certification & Plaintiff's disclosure of class certification expert reports/summaries due Nov. 12, 2025. -- Opposition to class certification & Defendant's disclosure of class certification expert reports/summaries due Dec. 17, 2025. -- Reply brief in support of motion for class certification & deadline for filing Daubert motions for class certification experts due Jan. 21, 2026. -- Responses to Daubert motions due Feb. 11, 2026. -- Replies due Feb. 25, 2026. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Midwest is a retail company.[CC] NANCY JACOBY: Court Tosses Puchel Suit with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL PUCHEL, v. NANCY JACOBY, Case No. 3:24-cv-03294-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael Mihm entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion for leave to file reply is granted. 2. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment to enter for the Defendant. 3. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is moot. 4. The Plaintiff has already amended his pleadings once. He does not seek leave to replead if the dismissal motion is granted, nor does he indicate he could amend his pleadings to state a claim. Further amendment would be futile. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint seeks to allege, on behalf of himself and a similarly situated class, that Nancy Jacoby in her official capacity as the Acting Chief Records Officer of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) violated the Fourteenth Amendment via a Department Policy governing calculation of Illinois Mandatory Supervised Release for individuals whose sentences have been amended. The Plaintiff alleges the Department's policy resulted in his being placed on Mandatory Supervised Release and subject to its constraints while others with similar convictions and sentences are not. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mYRat9 at no extra charge.[CC] NEIL JONES: Filing for Class Cert in Vallejo Due May 22, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VALLEJO, VICTOR ESPERICUETA and CHRISTOPHER JONES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD COMPANY, dba SAN BENITO FOODS, Case No. 5:24-cv-06835-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order granting the Defendant / Cross complainant's motion to amend scheduling order dates: Description Date Close of class certification discovery: March 6, 2026 Close of expert discovery: April 24, 2026 Deadline to file motion for class certification Motion: May 22, 2026 Responses: June 26, 2026 Replies: July 17, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: Aug. 5, 2026 Deadline to file joint pretrial statement: Feb. 17, 2027 Final pretrial conference: March 3, 2027 Trial: March 22, 2027 Neil specializes in processing fresh-packed Pacific Northwest fruit and California tomatoes. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=akLjC5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: David J. Weiland, Esq. Steven C. Clark, Esq. COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP 499 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 116 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 248-4820 Facsimile: (559) 248-4830 E-mail: dweiland@ch-law.com sclark@ch-law.com NESTOR LIQUOR: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTOR LIQUOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11483 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.nestorliquor.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Nestor Liquor, Inc. online liquor store for whiskey, bourbon, tequila, wine and hard to find liquors. Also specializing in engraved alcohol bottles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8706 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com NEVADA: Bid to Dismiss C.W. Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.W., et al., v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01800-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Gloria M. Navarro entered an order: -- denying Clark County School District's motion to dismiss, -- denying Clark County School District's motion to strike, -- denying the State Defendants' motion to dismiss, and -- denying as moot the State Defendant's motion to strike. The Court is not convinced that this is the appropriate stage to decide the class certification question. The case arises out of CCSD and NDE's alleged failure to educate students with disabilities. Named Plaintiffs are parents of students who have disabilities and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), an organization bringing this suit on behalf of its members. The Plaintiffs bring this case against CCSD, NDE, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Johne M. Ebert on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, seeking to remedy the district's systemic failure to comply with federal disability discrimination laws. The Plaintiffs allege that CCSD, the fifth largest school district in the country, maintains district-wide policies that systematically deny the over 40,000 students with disabilities their right to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). They also assert that these policies discriminate against students in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Nevada is a semi-independent state education agency responsible for public education for the U.S. state of Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vitrZ2 at no extra charge.[CC] NEW JERSEY: Thieme Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER THIEME, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Christopher Thieme, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael Carvajal, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00682, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants negligently exposed Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI") Fort Dix prisoners to unacceptable health risks by transferring incarcerated individuals from FCI Elkton in Ohio to FCI Fort Dix in September and October 2020. The Plaintiffs brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and for monetary and injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on behalf of themselves and a proposed class. On Feb. 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 8, 2022. On Sept. 4, 2025, Judge Renee Marie Bumb entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiffs' causation theory with respect to staff masking is too speculative, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider that theory under the FTCA. The appellate case is entitled Christopher Thieme, et al. v. Michael Carvajal, et al., Case No. 25-2832, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER THIEME, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. Ruth O'Herron, Esq. GIBBONS One Gateway Center 1145 Raymond Plaza West Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4731 (973) 985-2695 Defendants-Appellees MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in his individual capacity and his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prisons, et al. are represented by: John F. Basiak, Jr., Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 402 E. State Street, Suite 430 Trenton, NJ 08608 Telephone: (609) 989-2190 - and - Samantha R. D'Aversa, Esq. John T. Stinson, Jr., Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Camden Federal Building & Courthouse 401 Market Street Camden, NJ 08101 Telephone: (856) 968-4928 (856) 757-5139 NEW YORK, NY: Court Awards $350K to Wilds-Bethea ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSA GULINO, ET AL., v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:96-cv-08414-KMW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kimba Wood entered an order adopting the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to Peter Wilds-Bethea, and awards 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 R&R, the Court holds there is no just reason for delay and certifies the judgment as final and appealable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Court holds that an incentive award of $350,000 to 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 notes 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. On May 20, 2014, this case was referred to Special Master John S. Siffert under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(B) and this Court's inherent equitable powers and authority. On Aug. 6, 2025, Special Master Siffert filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") regarding incentive awards for Peter Wilds-Bethea, the Estate of Elsa Gulino, and Dianne Nia Greene. On Sept. 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. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4STCk at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Scheduling Status Report Order Entered in Bowser -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bowser v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-06183 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2023), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered a Scheduling Status Report Order. The Plaintiff must submit a pre-motion conference letter seeking leave to file a motion for class certification at the appropriate time. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC] NEW YORK: Filing of Bid to Dismiss R.M. Suit Extended to Oct. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.M. et al., v. New York State Office of Mental Health et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06667-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hellerstein entered an order adopting the following schedule as follows: 1. The deadline for the Defendants to file their motion to dismiss is extended to Oct. 20, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the motion on or before Dec. 4, 2025, and the Defendants shall file their reply on or before Dec. 18, 2025. 2. The Defendants shall file opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction within 45 calendar days after the receipt of sealed documents. The Plaintiffs reply shall be submitted within 14 calendar days of receipt of opposition. 3. Briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is stayed until resolution of the aforementioned motions. New York State Office of Mental Health promotes the mental health and well-being of all New Yorkers. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LxW340 at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YUNG WAH: Court Endorses Partial OK of Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUNYU XIA, SIAN GAO, PING AN LI, FNU LOBSANG MONLAM, DESHENG JIANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, et al., v. NEW YUNG WAH CARRIER, LLC, NEW YUNG WAH TRADING, LLC, XIN PING ZHENG, JUAN QING LIN, JIHONG LEE a/k/a JI HONG LEE, HIU MING MA, YU JIE ZHENG a/k/a JESSIE ZHENG, YU ZHEN ZHENG a/k/a YUZHEN NANCY ZHENG a/k/a YU ZHEN NANCY ZHENG, Case No. 1:21-cv-04475-HG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vera Scanlon recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to their wage-notice and wage statement claims be denied without prejudice, and that within 30 days of the adoption of this report and recommendation, should it be adopted, the Plaintiffs be ordered to show cause as to why their wage- notice and wage-statement claims should not be dismissed for lack of standing. 2) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to their NYLL pay-frequency claim be granted in part and denied in part, and that the Court certify a class of: "All full-time drivers, helpers and warehouse workers employed by New Yung Wah Carrier, LLC and/or New Yung Wah Trading, LLC, from Aug. 9, 2015, to Sept. 29, 2023, in connection with the Plaintiffs' pay-frequency claim under N.Y. Lab. L. section 191" (the "Pay-frequency Class"). 3) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to their NYLL overtime claim be granted in part and denied in part, and that the Court certify a subclass of: "All full-time drivers and helpers employed by New Yung Wah Carrier, LLC and/or New Yung Wah Trading, LLC, from Aug. 9, 2015, to Sept. 29, 2023, in connection with the Plaintiffs' overtime claim under N.Y. Lab. L. sections 190 et seq. and the corresponding New York regulations" (the "Overtime Subclass"). 4) Heng Wang & Associates, P.C., be appointed as class counsel and that the Plaintiffs Chunyu Xia, Sian Gao, Ping An Li, Fnu Lobsang Monlam and Desheng Jiang be appointed as class representatives for the aforementioned Pay-frequency Class and Overtime Subclass. 5) The class notice filed on the docket at ECF No. 200-1 and the opt-out form filed on the docket at ECF No. 200-2 be approved as modified in Exhibits A and B to this report and recommendation. The Plaintiffs include JIN FU HUANG, JIANPING WU, QUIANG LI, YING JIE WANG, JIAN HUA ZHENG, TIN SOON WONG, YI TIM CHENG, YUE G. CHEN, YOUWEN YUAN, KUN WANG, MIN CHEN, JIANGNIE CHEN, CHONGLI YANG, YUN DENG ZHANG, JIAXIN ZHOU, NAIQI LI, QINGWEI QUAN, YA CHEN, GENGHAI ZHANG, GUO QIANG LI, BAOZHOU LIAN, JUN LIANG, SHIGANG TIAN, XIANMING WANG, ZUNCHANG LIN, SHI HAN YAN, XIUCHUN WANG, CHUNYAN DONG, ZHE ZHONG ZOU, ZHEN SHENG LI, LINHAI LI, HANYANG LIN, QING BIN GAO, XIN XING LIN, XINZHU LIN, KONG HUI WANG, SEN QI, XIAO DAN ZHU, ZHEN XING XIE, JIN FENG LIAN, SONGGUAN XIE, AH YENG PHUAN and WEN XING LIU. New Yung is a New York-based trucking company specializing in transporting a variety of goods, including produce, meat, and cold foods. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwzcpX at no extra charge.[CC] NVIDIA CORP: Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order sealing fifteen exhibits in the concurrently-filed Appendix of Exhibits (Exhibits B, E, F, O, Q, Z, AA, CC, GG, HH, KK, LL, UU, VV, and WW) in support of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel. The Defendants tailored their sealing requests as narrowly as possible, and seek to seal only that information which, if publicly disclosed, could cause competitive and business harm to Defendants, or reveal personally identifiable information. The Defendants seek to seal confidential, non-public email communications produced pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order in this case, and excerpts from three transcripts of testimony provided to the SEC, which contain NVIDIA's non-public, highly sensitive, and competitively valuable business information. Specifically, these documents contain information about NVIDIA's business processes; internal strategy; inventory; pricing and distribution strategies; financial planning and forecasting; discussion of competitor activities and competitive strategies based on non-public data; and analyses of market demand, usage, and positioning. Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RfRzKk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Amanda A. Main, Esq. John C. Bostic, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com amain@cooley.com jbostic@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com slightdale@cooley.com - and - Scott A. Edelman, Esq. Jed M. Schwartz, Esq. Andrew B. Lichtenberg, Esq. Olivia S. Choe, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com jschwartz@milbank.com alichtenberg@milbank.com ochoe@milbank.com ODIN PROPERTIES: Corn Seeks OT Wages for Maintenance Technicans --------------------------------------------------------------- AVRIL CORN and IZRAA EL, for themselves and all others similarly situated v. ODIN PROPERTIES LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05517 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 25, 2025) contends that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, by knowingly requiring or allowing full-time, hourly leasing agents and maintenance technicians to work during their unpaid meal breaks without properly tracking this work or paying overtime premium wages owed for it. The Plaintiffs are members of the FLSA Collective because they were employed by Defendant on a full-time, hourly basis during the relevant period, worked during virtually all of their unpaid meal breaks, and were not paid overtime wages for any of this work. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant from May 2024 to June 2025. Odin Properties was founded in 2009 to identify and acquire under-performing assets in the Eastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com PACIFICORP: Filing for Class Cert. in Wilson Due Feb. 13, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. PacifiCorp., Case No. 6:24-cv-01956 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 21, 2024), the Hon. Ann L. Aiken Judge entered an order granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time: -- Class Certification Fact Discovery is to be completed by Jan. 16, 2026. -- Class Certification Motion deadline and deadline for Plaintiff to Serve Class Certification Expert Reports is Feb. 13, 2026. -- Opposition to Class Certification Motion deadline, deadline for Defendant to Serve Class Certification Expert Reports, and Daubert/ evidentiary motions related to Plaintiff's class certification-related experts deadline is April 14, 2026. -- Reply in Support of Class Certification Motion and Daubert/ evidentiary motions related to Defendant's class certification-related experts deadline is May 26, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant is an energy services provider.[CC] PALM BAY, FL: Discriminates Against Police Women, Forish Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ STACEY FORISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PALM BAY, FLORIDA, POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01853 (M.D. Fla., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged discrimination against the Plaintiff in terms of conditions of her employment, promotions, and compensation in comparison to similarly situated younger male employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant, by and through its agents, officials and/or employees, unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff by paying her lower wages than were paid to male employees in the same position and otherwise treated the Plaintiff differently in the terms and conditions of her employment with the Defendant than male employees. As a result of the Defendant's discriminatory actions, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer lost wages, benefits and entitlements, and damage to her career, says the suit. Palm Bay Police Department is a public agency with its principal office in the City of Palm Bay, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil L. Henrichsen, Esq. HENRICHSEN LAW GROUP PLLC 301 W. Bay St., 14th Floor Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 381-8183 Facsimile: (904) 212-2800 Email: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com PORT WASHINGTON: Khan Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AKLEEMA KHAN, v. PORT WASHINGTON HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NINO'S BEACH, NINO AQ LLC d/b/a NINO'S AQ, 46th STREET HOSPITALITY, INC. d/b/a NINO'S 46, FILLAS RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, VENDOME HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, EVP HOSPITALITY, INC., FRANCO VENDOME, MICHAEL VENDOME, GENNARO VENDOME, CHRISTOPHER FILLAS, ELIAS FILLAS, and EFTHIMIOS PAPANASTASOPOULOUS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01064-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Locke entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action, in that certification is denied without prejudice, but that discovery relevant to the subject matter must be produced; and -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for discovery related to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action. The remaining discovery issues, including whether a Fed R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition is still necessary, whether disagreements regarding ESI issues remain, and the deadline to complete depositions will be addressed at a status conference scheduled for Oct. 21, 2025 at 10:45 a.m. in Courtroom 820 of the Central Islip courthouse. The September 30, 2025 deadline to complete discovery will be reset at this conference, but the parties are encouraged to procced with the discovery contemplated by these rulings. The Court anticipates further progress before then. The parties are further instructed to submit a joint letter outlining any outstanding discovery issues for the Court to consider at this conference by Oct. 17, 2025. The Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint and in her Declaration are insufficient to demonstrate that the Plaintiff and the potential members of the collective "were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law" sufficient to conditionally certify a collective action. Ultimately, the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly establish that other members of the proposed collective are similarly situated to her. Accordingly, Khan's motion for conditional certification is denied without prejudice. Although the Plaintiff has failed to establish that conditional certification is presently appropriate, the Court does not conclude that certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 216(b) is impossible. Accordingly, applying these standards, the Plaintiff's motion seeking discovery related to conditional certification of a collective action is granted. Khan alleges that the Defendants committed various wage and hour violations under both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), including failure to compensate for the state-mandated spread of hours premium, failure to provide a wage notice and wage statements, failure to provide meal credits, and various illegal tip practice. She asserts these claims on behalf of herself and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, seeks to represent a class that includes: "All non-exempt employees (including but not limited to servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, barbacks, line cooks, cooks, chefs, porters, hosts, among others) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six (6) years before the filing of the Complaint." From April 2022 until March 2023, the Plaintiff worked as a bartender and server at Nino's Beach, while also occasionally working at Nino's AQ as needed. PWH owns and operates three restaurants in New York City and on Long Island. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ujFsrt at no extra charge.[CC] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bid to Certify Class Modified to May 29, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nyberg, et al., v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00733 (D. Or., Filed April 28, 2016), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order adopting the deadlines outlined in the Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report as follows and as modified: -- Discovery is to be completed by : March 30, 2026 -- Discovery motions, if any, are due by: March 30, 2026 -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution April 29, 2026 Report is due by: -- Motion to certify class, if any, due by: May 29, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). Portfolio is a debt collection company.[CC] PREMIER CHOICE: Esparza Balks at Automatic Subscription Renewal --------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER CHOICE INC., a California corporation, d/b/a WWW.URTHBOX.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08990 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff for his purchase of an automatically renewing paid subscription from Urthbox Inc. via its website, www.urthbox.com, which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service in violation of the California's Automatic Renewal Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law 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 foregoing violations of the Automatic Renewal Law by Defendant likewise constitute violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law, says the suit. 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. Premier Choice Inc. is an online retailer that sells products across the U.S. including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com knowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com PRET A MANGER: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05320 (E.D.N.Y., Sept 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.pret.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pret A Manger (USA) Limited retails food products. The Company markets prepared food and beverages for on premise or immediate consumption. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8706 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Walston Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN WALSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07949 (N.D. Cal., September 18, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and similarly situated Class Members' sensitive personally identifying information, which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. Due to Defendant's failure to implement reasonable or adequate data security measures, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including their full names in combination with Social Security numbers, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate data security and breaches of its duties to handle PII with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII has been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals. The present and continuing risk to Plaintiff and Class Members will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who, in order to obtain financial services from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public PII. Prosper Funding, LLC is a financial services company offering a variety of lending products to consumers and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON ET AL., v. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL TEXAS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), FirstService ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion and extend the deadline for FirstService to file a response to the motion to and including Oct. 17, 2025. FirstService's current deadline to file a response to the motion to certify class is Sept. 19, 2025. The Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by an extension of time, and the Plaintiffs are unopposed to this Unopposed Motion. FirstService is property management company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=loBdjx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura B. Beshara, Esq. Michael M. Daniel, Esq. DANIEL & BESHARA, P.C. 3301 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226-1637 Telephone: (214) 939-9230 E-mail: laurabeshara@swbell.net Daniel.michael@att.net The Defendants are represented by: Roger L. McCleary, Esq. James C. Burnett, Esq. Max Wagner, Esq. PARSONS MCENTIRE MCCLEARY PLLC One Riverway, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 960-7315 Facsimile: (713) 960-7347 E-mail: rmccleary@pmmlaw.com jburnett@pmmlaw.com Mwagner@pmmlaw.com - and - Sarah R. Smith, Esq. David A. Talbot, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis St., Suite 7350 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 293-7878 Facsimile: (346) 293-7877 E-mail: Sarah.Smith@dinsmore.com David.Talbot@dinsmore.com PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON. SHEILA NATHAN, ALONZO TUTSON; EVORA SYKES, CHANELL HOBBS, REVISHA SILAS, EVETTE TOWNSEND, v. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL TEXAS, INC. Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for an extension of its reply deadline and enter an order extending its deadline to reply to Oct. 17, 2025 The Defendant Providence Homeowners Association, Inc.'s current deadline to file its Reply is Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rhHmy3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah R. Smith, Esq. David A. Talbot, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis St., Suite 7350 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 293-7878 Facsimile: (346) 293-7877 E-mail: Sarah.Smith@dinsmore.com David.Talbot@dinsmore.com QUIKAID INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilson Due August 21, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN WILSON, v. QUIKAID, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03238-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting the request for an extension of the discovery deadline and setting the deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Close of Fact Discovery: April 2, 2026 Parties' initial expert disclosures: April 2, 2026 Close of expert discovery: July 11, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 21, 2026 certification and Daubert motions: The Defendant's opposition to the Sept. 25, 2026 Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Daubert Motions, the Defendant's Daubert motions: The Plaintiff's reply in support of Oct. 16, 2026 motion for class certification and Daubert motions, opposition to the Defendant's Daubert motions: Quikaid provides Social Security disability (SSDI & SSI) representation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpXTsF at no extra charge.[CC] QVC INC: Faces Cordova Suit Over TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------- MARTHA BEATRIZ CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QVC, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01259 (E.D. Cal., September 19, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant negligently and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on her telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, in Defendant's overzealous attempt to market its services, the Defendant knowingly and willfully made (and continues to make) unsolicited telemarketing phone communications without the prior written express consent of the recipients including Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff's cell phone number being registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for over 31 days, the Defendant sent several unsolicited telemarketing texts to Plaintiff's cell phone, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a resident of Stanislaus County, State of California. QVC, Inc. is a stock corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business located in West Chester, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com RESTORIX HEALTH: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in "Wells" ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Elizabeth Wells, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Restorix Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01204-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the parties' third request to strike Plaintiff's response and extend the briefing schedule for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on August 29, 2025. Plaintiff's response was originally due Septembhttps://writenewsnow.com/?p=3255351&preview=trueer 12, 2025. On September 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to extend the due date for Plaintiff's response by two weeks, to September 26, 2025. The Court granted the stipulation on September 12, 2025, but the Order was not filed until September 15, 2025. Plaintiff filed her response on September 13, 2025, as the Order granting the stipulation had not been filed and Plaintiff did not want the pending motion to stand without a response. The parties filed this Stipulation to put them back to where they intended to be under their original stipulation. There currently exists a similar class action in Louisiana State Court filed on March 27, 2025. The parties are still attempting to confer with counsel in the Louisiana Action to explore the possibility of consolidation. Therefore, the parties respectfully requested additional time to permit Plaintiff's counsel to confer with counsel in the Louisiana Action regarding potentially consolidating this action with the Louisiana Action. The parties sought to have the Response that was filed stricken. The parties also sought to extend the current briefing deadlines to allow additional time to confer with counsel in the Louisiana Action. The Court granted the stipulation on September 25, 2025. The revised briefing schedule provides that Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is due on October 10, 2025, and Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss is due within seven days of the date of service of Plaintiff's Response. Mark J. Bourassa, Esq., Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq., The Bourassa Law Group, Las Vegas, Nevada For Defendant: Jennifer W. Torrez, Esq., Timothy J. Lowe, Esq., McDonald Hopkins LLC/PLC, Chicago, Illinois and Bloomfield Hills, Michigan; Joseph P. Garin, Esq., Garin Law Group, Las Vegas, Nevada. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pWAR6t from PacerMonitor.com ROBERT KENNEDY: Pretrial Management Entered in Berman Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDEE M. BERMAN, v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. SEC'Y OF HHS, Case No. 1:25-cv-05442-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. The Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on August 14, 2025. On Sept. 9, 2025, the case filing fee was paid and summons issued as to defendant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity. Plaintiff is reminded that she must serve the summons and complaint on the defendant no later than December 8, 2025. Service of court orders cannot be accomplished if a party does not update the Court when a change of address occurs. Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the court of each change in her address or electronic contact information. A copy of the change of address form provided by the Court https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/node/823. If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pV3SUO at no extra charge.[CC] ROBLOX CORPORATION: Class Cert Hearing Set for August 14, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL GARCIA ET AL, V. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-03476-WLH-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order as follows: Last date to hear motion to amend Apr. 24, 2026 pleadings / add parties: Last date to hear motion for class Aug. 14, 2026 Certification: Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 20, 2026 Final pretrial conference: Feb. 26, 2027 Jury trial: Mar. 22, 2027 Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dhaC23 at no extra charge.[CC] ROSEVILLE, CA: Class Settlement in Colbert Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS HILL-COLBERT, JENNIFER TIMMONS, HERMINIO LeBRON, DANIEL REED, VINCENT BARNAO, ERIN McMARLIN, and JAMES THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TYLER CANTLEY, and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:22-cv-01651-WBS-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Shubb entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement: (1) The court certifies the following class: "all homeless persons who were excluded from a City of Roseville park facility pursuant to Roseville Municipal code section 8.02.316, but not arrested at the time, within two years before Sept. 20, 2022"; (2) The court appoints named plaintiffs Marcus Hill Colbert, Jennifer Timmons, Herminio LeBron, Daniel Reed, Vincent Barnao, Erin McMarlin, and James Thompson as class representatives and finds that they meet the requirements of Rule 23; (3) The court appoints Mark E. Merin, Paul H. Masuhara, and Paul W. Comiskey to serve as class counsel for settlement purposes only; (4) The Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of $162,500, with $122,500 to be paid to Mark E. Merin and $40,000 to be paid to Paul W. Comisky, and litigation costs in the amount of $644.28; (5) The Plaintiffs Marcus Hill-Colbert, Jennifer Timmons, Herminio LeBron, Daniel Reed, Vincent Barnao, Eric McMarlin, and James Thompson are entitled to incentive awards in the amount of $250; (6) $34,100 shall be paid to participating class members for loss of property and park exclusion, in accordance with the parties' stipulated terms; and (7) This action is dismissed with prejudice. However, without affecting the finality of this Order, the court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement with respect to all parties to this action and their counsel of record. The plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the defendants alleging various torts and constitutional rights violations. Roseville is the most populous city in Placer County, California, located within the Sacramento metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sze4NU at no extra charge.[CC] RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Wanek" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Danny Wanek, Juan Duarte, and Rick Ruberton, as representatives of the certified class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Russell Investments Trust Company, Caesars Holdings, Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan Committee, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.)Judge Cristina D. Silva of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Caesars defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied defendant Russell Investments Trust Company's motion for summary judgment. Participants of a 401(k) plan brought this suit against the plan's fiduciaries for alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Defendant Caesars Holdings, Inc. sponsored the 401(k) plan, the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, for its eligible employees. Caesars Holdings formed the Plan Investment Committee and the 401(k) Plan Committee to oversee the Plan's investments. The Committee hired defendant Russell Investments Trust Company as the Plan's investment manager. Plaintiffs Danny Wanek, Juan Duarte, and Rick Ruberton sued Russell and the Caesars defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA arising from Russell's role as the Plan's investment manager. They brought this suit on behalf of a certified class of individuals, which included all participants and beneficiaries of the Plan at any time from August 1, 2017, through December 17, 2021. In January 2016, the Plan Investment Committee retained a consultant, Tejera & Associates, to run a request for proposal to select and hire an investment manager for the Plan. Russell was one of five candidates selected. After receiving the candidates' responses, Tejera made a Proposal Evaluation Report for the Committee. The report ranked Russell as one of the top-three candidates. In November 2016, the Committee reviewed and approved Russell's proposal to serve as the ERISA Section 3(38) Plan investment manager. A month later, Caesars and Russell executed an Investment Management Agreement. Under the agreement, Russell would provide delegated investment management services for the Plan in exchange for a service fee based on overall Plan assets under management. This cost plus fee arrangement was product-agnostic: Russell would receive the same fee regardless of whether it selected Russell funds for the Plan. In August 2017, Russell assumed control of the Plan's investment menu and transferred the Plan's assets to the selected menu. Russell's investment menu for the Plan included Russell Lifecycle target date funds and white labeled asset class funds. The Russell TDFs served as the Plan's default investment alternative. The plaintiffs alleged that Russell breached its fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence under ERISA by replacing the Plan's investment options with inferior Russell funds. Russell's self-serving swap allegedly brought in $1.4 billion in new investment at a critical time when other plan sponsors were leaving Russell's funds. The swap allegedly cost Plan participants over $100 million in lost investment earnings. The plaintiffs also claimed that the Caesar defendants breached their duty of prudence for their engagement with Russell. Russell filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to raise any triable issue of fact as to Russell's loyalty and prudence under ERISA. The Court found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Russell breached its duties of loyalty and prudence. The evidence indicated a genuine issue of material fact as to Russell's reasons for selecting Russell funds for the Plan's investment menu. There was evidence suggesting that Russell's product-agnostic, cost plus fee arrangement with Caesars was a special deal that Russell cut to secure the much needed AUM in the Russell funds. Russell acknowledged internally that Caesars would be a huge DC win and we need AUM. The deal itself was dependent on the active AUM and TDFs moving to Russell funds. The record showed that switching Plan assets out of Russell TDFs would mean losing over half of Russell TDF AUM. Russell's portfolio managers predicted that Russell TDFs would shrivel up and die if Caesars were to terminate Russell. The Court found there was direct evidence showing that Russell employed unsound methods in deciding to include Russell funds on the Plan. Although Russell was not contractually obligated to select Russell funds for the Plan, the record showed that Russell funds were internally required to be included on the Plan's investment menu. The record also showed that Russell was unwilling to serve as a DC plan fiduciary on non-Russell TDFs because the economics don't support it. Because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to Russell's reasons for selecting and retaining Russell funds on the Plan's investment menu, Judge Silva denied Russell's motion for summary judgment. The Caesars defendants argued that they were entitled to summary judgment because their process for selecting, hiring, and monitoring Russell was prudent as a matter of law. The Court found the Caesars defendants exercised prudence in Russell's hiring by bringing on Tejera & Associates to assist with the RFP, a rigorous process designed to vet and select the best investment manager for the Plan. The Committee selected lead candidates across the country to participate in the RPF, reviewed the candidates' detailed responses, made thorough evaluations of the candidates, conducted additional external due diligence of the candidates, screened for conflicts of interests, met the finalists in person, negotiated lower fees, and discussed the pros and cons of each finalist. The Committee outsourced its investment selection authority to Russell. Russell was hired to manage Plan investments in the Plan's best interest. The Russell funds were only included on the Plan from 2017 to 2021, a period too short to draw conclusions about their performance. The IPS stated that the appropriate measurement period for evaluation of performance must be of sufficient length to cover economic and capital market cycles (i.e., historically five years or longer).According to the Court "The evidence showed that Russell made quarterly reports and met with the Committee on a quarterly basis to discuss those reports. The Court granted the Caesars defendants' motion for summary judgment." Russell moved to seal documents filed in support of the summary judgment motions. The Court found that Russell offered a compelling reason to seal the records at issue because they contained sensitive business information. The Court granted Russell's motions to seal. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/2urz4ahd from PacerMonitor.com SAFEWAY INSURANCE: Wins Appeal in Insurance Coverage Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Safeway Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beatrice Ebijimi and Dada Ebijimi, Defendants-Appellants, No. 1-23-1543 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist.), Circuit Judge Samantha D. Mikva of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Safeway Insurance Company in this long-running insurance coverage dispute. The case arose from an automobile accident nearly 20 years ago when Beatrice Ebijimi was struck by a vehicle allegedly driven by an uninsured motorist, Patricia Tyson. Dada Ebijimi, Beatrice's mother, initiated a claim for uninsured motorist coverage under a personal automobile insurance policy issued by Safeway Insurance Company. Following years of intermittent correspondence through the Ebijimis' attorney, Robert Langendorf, Safeway filed suit for a declaration of no coverage on the basis that the Ebijimis failed to submit a claim form, give a sworn statement, or submit Beatrice to an independent medical examination, all conditions precedent to coverage set out in the policy. The Ebijimis asserted an affirmative defense of estoppel, arguing that Safeway led Mr. Langendorf to believe that any attempts to satisfy those conditions would be futile if the Ebijimis could not produce evidence of the driver's uninsured status in the specific form that Safeway demanded. The Ebijimis alleged that Safeway wrongfully demanded a certified letter from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) as the only acceptable proof of a driver's uninsured status. According to the Ebijimis, when IDOT records indicated that Ms. Tyson was insured by Affirmative Insurance Company, they obtained and forwarded to Safeway on December 17, 2007, a letter from Affirmative confirming that Ms. Tyson was not one of the company's insureds at the time of the accident. In an attached letter dated July 18, 2008, however, Safeway told Mr. Langendorf: We need IDOT certification and a completed accident report form that was previously forwarded to you. Upon receipt of same, we can schedule your client's sworn statement. You will need to set your client's IME as explained in our numerous letters to you. After an earlier appeal in which the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Safeway, the case proceeded to a five-day bench trial in January 2023. During the trial, the trial court barred Mr. Langendorf from continuing to testify as a sanction for what the judge viewed as a violation of her order not to communicate with his co-counsel, Mr. Connolly, about his testimony during a break in proceedings. The trial court cited Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 as authority for the sanction and entered judgment in favor of Safeway, finding that the Ebijimis failed to comply with condition 10 of the policy and failed to prove their affirmative defense of equitable estoppel. On appeal, the Ebijimis' primary argument was that the trial court abused its discretion by barring Mr. Langendorf's testimony. The Appellate Court agreed that the sanction was an abuse of discretion. The Court explained that Rule 219 is not a basis for sanctioning conduct that occurs at trial, as the Rule concerns discovery or pretrial procedures, not trial conduct. The Court further found that the trial court's instruction to Mr. Langendorf when a break was taken did not clearly prohibit the conduct for which his further testimony was barred. The trial court told Mr. Langendorf: you are still under oath, which means, as in any other witness, it would be inappropriate for you to confer with Counsel about your testimony that you've already had, and the testimony you are about to give. The Court noted that unlike prior directives to other witnesses, the trial court's admonition to Mr. Langendorf concerned only his testimony and never specifically instructed him not to communicate with Mr. Connolly regarding the trial exhibits. The Court examined the Zoom recording from February 9, 2023, which showed that when the trial court addressed both Mr. Connolly and Mr. Langendorf and instructed them together to let the court's staff know when the exhibits were ready, a reasonable person in Mr. Langendorf's position would not have understood that he was forbidden from engaging in any discussion whatsoever with Mr. Connolly regarding the trial exhibits. The Court held that absent a clear violation of a clear order, the imposition of a sanction was improper. However, the Appellate Court concluded that the Ebijimis failed to show they were prejudiced by this error. To establish prejudice requiring reversal, the party seeking reversal must demonstrate that the erroneous evidentiary ruling was substantially prejudicial and affected the outcome of the trial. The Court examined Mr. Langendorf's offer of proof, which consisted solely of his 2016 affidavit submitted in opposition to Safeway's motion for summary judgment. The affidavit referenced various conversations with attorneys from Parillo, Weiss & O'Halloran and specifically Cheryl Fleming, stating that during conversations Cheryl Fleming told me Safeway was not accepting coverage and that nothing would be done on the Ebijimis' claim by Safeway because they did not have a certified letter from IDOT stating that Ms. Tyson was uninsured. The Appellate Court found that the conclusory statements, vague references to undated phone calls, and Mr. Langendorf's assertion that he believed Safeway had given a clear indication that it would deny coverage would not have been enough to satisfy the Ebijimis' burden of proving the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel by clear and convincing evidence. The Court explained that to establish equitable estoppel, the party asserting the defense must show that it reasonably and in good faith relied upon the conduct or statements of the opposing party to its detriment, such that it would be unfair to permit the opposing party to now deny the truth of its representations. The party claiming estoppel has the burden of proving it by clear and unequivocal evidence. The Appellate Court noted that unlike at summary judgment, where portions of the affidavit were sufficient to raise an issue of fact, at trial the Ebijimis had the burden of proof on this defense, and it was a high one. The trial court had before it Ms. Fleming's July 18, 2008, letter and her testimony specifically denying that Safeway required IDOT certification or that compliance with policy conditions would be futile. The trial court found that the letter did not establish that Safeway communicated to Mr. Langendorf that compliance with the conditions in the policy would be futile. The Ebijimis also challenged two evidentiary rulings. First, they argued the court wrongly excluded checks made out by Mr. Langendorf to the American Arbitration Association under the best evidence rule. The Appellate Court found this argument forfeited due to lack of citations to the record and failure to show prejudice. Second, the Ebijimis argued it was error to bar the evidence deposition of Michael McCready, an attorney who would have testified concerning Safeway's pattern and practice of requiring IDOT certification. The trial court refused to admit the deposition because the Ebijimis did not disclose him as a witness until midway through trial, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f). The Appellate Court found no abuse of discretion, noting that Mr. McCready's testimony regarding what Safeway did in other cases could not substitute for admissible evidence regarding what Safeway said and did in this case. The Ebijimis argued that the trial court denied them the counsel of their choice by refusing to grant a continuance just four days before trial. The Appellate Court rejected this argument, noting that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil cases and that it is well settled that a litigant does not have an absolute right to a continuance. The Court noted that Cook County Circuit Court Rule 5.2 provides that a continuance shall not be granted upon the ground of substitution or addition of attorneys. The Court found that the Ebijimis raised no especially grave reasons for a continuance and that the denial was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. The Ebijimis also argued that the trial judge harbored a bias against Mr. Langendorf that prevented her from fairly deciding the matter. The Appellate Court held that a trial judge is presumed to be impartial and that to overcome this presumption, a party must point to an extrajudicial source of bias or show that the judge's comments and conduct reveal a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. The Court found no evidence of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism, noting that Mr. Langendorf's conduct often appeared designed to prompt frustration and that the trial judge often exhibited extraordinary patience and restraint. Finally, the Ebijimis challenged the trial court's refusal to limit court reporting fees. The Appellate Court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider this issue because the notice of appeal specified only the July 27, 2023, final judgment and did not mention any order concerning court reporting fees. The Court further noted that any such order came after the judgment order, not before it, and that the court reporting service was not a party to the case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FzAwJv from PacerMonitor.com SAGBOLT LLC: Settlement Compliance Affirmed in Tip Dispute Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Evelyn O'Brien et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. Sagbolt LLC et al., Appellants, decided on October 2, 2025, Associate Justice Edward J. Fisher of the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the lower court's order, reversing the determination that Defendant breached the settlement agreement and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, while affirming the redistribution of unclaimed funds to authorized class members. Plaintiff commenced a class action in 2018 alleging violations of the Labor Law for unpaid tips since 2012, on behalf of all hourly waitstaff employees who worked catered events at The Sagamore, a resort and hotel owned and operated by Defendant in the Town of Bolton, Warren County. Following certification of the class and four years of disclosure, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Defendant agreed to make a total financial obligation of $1.2 million toward class counsel's fees and costs, service payments to the named plaintiffs, expenses to the claims administrator and settlement payments to authorized class members. Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and, after holding a fair hearing, granted Plaintiff's motion for final approval. A dispute arose between the parties regarding who was supposed to prepare the various settlement checks and how to handle the unclaimed funds from uncashed checks sent to the authorized class members. This prompted Plaintiff to move to enforce the settlement agreement and require Defendant to pay into a settlement fund allegedly contemplated by the approved agreement, so that the claims administrator could redistribute the remaining money from uncashed checks back to the authorized class members. Defendant submitted opposition, contending that the settlement agreement did not require them to establish a settlement fund, but even if it did, they complied with the terms of the agreement by placing money into a settlement fund for the claims administrator to distribute payments to class counsel and the named plaintiffs, and then separately provided settlement checks for the claims administrator to send to authorized class members. Defendant further contended that the agreement did not provide for a redistribution, therefore any unclaimed funds should revert to them. Supreme Court found that the settlement agreement required Defendant to deliver the $1.2 million into a settlement fund and, although the agreement was silent regarding how to handle the unclaimed funds, that redistribution was consistent with the terms of the agreement requiring a pro rata distribution of remaining settlement funds to the authorized class members. As a result, Supreme Court determined that Defendant breached the contract and their covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and granted Plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division explained that class action settlement agreements and releases are contracts to be interpreted in accordance with principles of contract law, and therefore carry a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties. The court noted that a settlement agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms. The parties agreed to resolve the litigation for a Gross Settlement Sum of $1.2 million, representing the maximum amount that Defendant would fund under the settlement agreement. Payments made to class counsel for fees and costs, the claims administrator and the named plaintiffs would be deducted from the Gross Settlement Sum. The remaining balance became the Net Settlement Sum, and each authorized class member would receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Sum based on a specified formula using their hours worked during the relevant period. The agreement defined the Qualified Settlement Fund as the account established and controlled by the claims administrator for the purposes of retaining and distributing the Final Settlement Amount in accordance with the agreement. The court found that both parties acknowledge deficiencies in the terms of the settlement agreement, notably undefined terms. Nonetheless, Defendant contended that they complied with the terms of the settlement agreement because they were not required to establish a settlement fund. The court stated that adopting Defendant's interpretation would render significant portions of the agreement meaningless and ignore the fact that they did pay into a settlement fund for certain awards as part of this class action settlement. The court concluded that the undefined term Final Settlement Amount simply corresponds with the total amount that Defendant is obligated to contribute toward resolving this class action after preliminary and final approval by Supreme Court. However, the court found that Defendant also contended that, if they were required to pay into a settlement fund, they nevertheless complied with the terms of the agreement when they 1) deposited a sum of money with the claims administrator to distribute to class counsel and the named plaintiffs, and 2) provided the claims administrator with settlement checks to distribute to the authorized class members. The court found such contention to have merit. The court noted that the settlement agreement acknowledges that Defendant has the option to distribute funds to the authorized class members. By depositing a portion of the Gross Settlement Sum with the claims administrator to distribute to class counsel and the named plaintiffs, while also providing pre-written settlement checks to the authorized class members, Defendant has given meaning to the terms of the agreement that authorized both the claims administrator and Defendant to distribute funds. The court determined that it cannot say that Defendant breached terms of the settlement agreement when they did so, and therefore Supreme Court erred when it made such determination. Regarding unclaimed funds, the court recognized that courts have broad discretionary powers in shaping equitable decrees for distributing unclaimed class action funds. The court explained that in considering a procedure for distributing unclaimed settlement funds, a court's alternatives will generally include 1) reversion to the defendant, 2) pro rata redistribution to the class members who filed/accepted claims, 3) escheat to a government entity, or 4) a cy pres or fluid distribution, usually to a charity whose goals are consistent with the underlying causes of action. The court found that it is undisputed that the settlement agreement does not specifically address how to distribute the unclaimed funds. Nonetheless, the court held that it cannot say that Supreme Court abused its discretion in directing the unclaimed funds be redistributed to authorized class members. Such directive is not adding to or modifying the terms of the agreement, which expressly provided that the only entities to receive any compensation from the Gross Settlement Sum were class counsel, the named plaintiffs, the claims administrator and the authorized class members; there was no provision affording return of funds to Defendant. The court stated that permitting reversion of the unclaimed funds to Defendant would be equivalent to awarding them the benefit of their own wrongdoing, a result which should not be sanctioned. The court further considered that the provision for class counsel fees were based on 33% of the total amount to be paid by Defendant and not based on the total amount of claims made by class members. The court found that the underlying construction of the agreement evinces an intent for Defendant to be disgorged of $1.2 million, with the exception to only receive a partial refund should Supreme Court reduce the award to class counsel or the named plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court perceived no basis to disturb the determination of Supreme Court ordering redistribution of the unclaimed funds to the authorized class members. The court was mindful that Supreme Court found Defendant to have breached their covenant of good faith and fair dealing by contesting redistribution of the unclaimed funds, but the court stated it need not and does not find Defendant's contentions premised on bad faith. The court explained that it examined the remaining contentions of the parties and found them to be without merit or rendered academic. The court ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as determined that Defendant breached the settlement agreement and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; motion denied to said extent; and, as so modified, affirmed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vo99oT from PacerMonitor.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Allegations in Keene Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SELINA KEENE, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. Case No. 4:22-cv-04319-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge White entered an order for dismissal of class action allegations without prejudice and without notice to putative class: 1. All class action allegations in the above action are dismissed without prejudice. All individual allegations on behalf of Plaintiffs are to remain as set forth in the operative First Amended Complaint. 2. No party shall be entitled to costs or attorneys fees because of this dismissal. 3. Based on the factors identified in Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir., 1989), the above dismissal of the class allegations may be made, and is made, without notice to the putative class. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aYFFvn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin T. Snider, Esq. Matthew B. McReynolds, Esq. PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE Sacramento, CA 95827 Telephone: (916) 857-6900 Facsimile: (916) 857-6902 E-mail: ksnider@pji.org mattmcreynolds@pji.org - and - Michael Bruno, Esq. Alyson Cabrera, Esq. Mana Koleini, Esq. Pamela Ng, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 315 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 E-mail: mbruno@grsm.com acabrera@grsm.com mkoleini@grsm.com png@grsm.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Orders Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.T., through her father and guardian SAMER TAWASHA; L.R., through her mother and guardian GWEN LEE; C.L., through her mother and guardian NAOMI LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, WILLIAM SCOTT, THOMAS HARVEY, MATT SULLIVAN, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered an order re leave to amend complaint and alter discovery deadlines order: 1. Within 14 days of this order, the Plaintiffs shall amend their complaint to (1) add putative class members S.H., a minor boy, and Jack Brundage, an adult male, as named plaintiffs, (2) remove claims that were dismissed by the Court in its Order on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (3) specify the Defendant(s) against which every claim is asserted. 2. The Defendants shall have 60 days from the date the amended complaint is filed to conduct fact discovery (including depositions and written discovery) regarding Mr. Brundage and S.H. as named plaintiffs. 3. If Plaintiffs do not amend to add S.H. and Mr. Brundage as named plaintiffs within the time provided in this stipulation, Defendants may take the depositions of S.H. and Mr. Brundage based on their declarations in support of the Motion for Class Certification, even if fact discovery is otherwise closed. 4. If the Plaintiffs seek to make any other amendments to the complaint, other than those identified in paragraph one of this Order, the Parties will meet and confer. 5. The existing expert discovery deadlines are vacated and rescheduled as follows: a. Opening expert reports and disclosures shall be due 60 days from the completion of all fact discovery; b. Rebuttal expert reports and disclosures shall be due 14 days after the opening reports. c. The close of expert discovery shall be 21 days after rebuttal expert reports and disclosures are served. San Francisco is a commercial, financial, and cultural center of Northern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m3qCC0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Lederman, Esq. PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 1720 Broadway, Suite 430 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 508-4955 E-mail: rachel.lederman@justiceonline.org The Defendants are represented by: David Chiu, Esq. Jennifer E. Choi, Esq. Margaret S. Schroeder, Esq. Renee E. Rosenblit, Esq. Morgan E. Lewis, Esq. CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN FRANCISCO Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3929 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 E-mail: sabrina.m.berdux@sfcityatty.org deedee.schroeder@sfcityatty.org oliver.fong@sfcityatty.org SANDOZ INC: Court Approves $230MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL NO. 2724, 16-MD-2724, (E.D. Pa) Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of settlements with Defendants Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals for a monetary payment between $230,000,000 and $275,000,000. The End-Payer Class Plaintiffs (EPPs) sought final approval of settlements with the Settling Defendants. The Court held a hearing on July 23, 2025, to determine whether the proposed class-action settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The named EPPs include 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund; 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 47 Health & Welfare Fund; City of Providence, Rhode Island; Detectives Endowment Association of the City of New York; Hennepin County; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a/ Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; Self-Insured Schools of California; Sergeants Benevolent Association of the Police Department of the City of New York Health and Welfare Fund; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Uniformed Fire Officers Association Family Production Plan Local 854; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health & Welfare Trust; Nina Diamond; Ottis McCrary; Valerie Velardi; and Robby Johnson. The Court found that Settling Defendants caused timely notice of the settlement and related materials to be sent to the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of all U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Court found that such notification complies with the applicable requirements of CAFA. No class members objected to the settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Class as: All persons and entities in each of the 50 United States (except Indiana and Ohio), as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, that indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for any Drugs at Issue, other than for resale, from May 1, 2009 through December 31, 2019. The Settlement Class comprises both entities that paid for prescriptions on behalf of others (Third-Party Payors, or TPPs) and individual consumers who paid out-of-pocket for some or all of their own prescriptions. Although not part of the class, a number of states, through their attorneys general, raised objections to the settlement as amici curiae (the Amici States). The Court denied their motion to intervene but heard argument at the Fairness Hearing from them. The State of Florida, which settled its sovereign claims with Sandoz, was granted leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the settlement. The Amici States opposed the inclusion of individual consumers, arguing that approval of the settlement could extinguish State Attorney General claims and public interest remedies, including parens patriae claims and claims brought pursuant to the States' enforcement authority. The Amici States further argued that the allocation plan is manifestly inadequate for consumers: its documentation requirements and pro rata distribution mean that consumers are highly unlikely to recover meaningful relief. The Amici States also contended that Ms. Velardi has a conflict of interest because she stands to receive a service award under the EPPs' settlement. The Amici States argued that they have been at the forefront of the investigation of generic drug pricing, and that the proposed settlement undermines their enforcement authority in favor of the EPPs, who have never looked after the interests of consumers. The Amici States argued that their actions, not this settlement, represent the best outcome for the consumers, and therefore, EPPs cannot show the superiority of this settlement over the cases brought by the Amici States. Upon careful consideration of the objections, the Court certified the Settlement Class. The Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied. There is no dispute as to numerosity; there are many thousands of potential class members geographically dispersed throughout the United States. The Court found common issues of law and fact as to all class members: that they purchased generic pharmaceuticals that were priced higher than they should have been because of an alleged conspiracy among manufacturers, including Settling Defendants. The Court found that Plaintiffs demonstrated that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. There is no challenge to the TPP class representatives, and the Court disagreed that the proposed service award to the individual representatives results in a misalignment of interests with the consumer class members. Class counsel are qualified, experienced, and fully capable of litigating the class members' claims. The Court accepted that there are strategic reasons for pursuing a non-consumer class in the initial bellwether cases while including consumers in the settlement class. The Court found that there is some burden on consumer class members, as they must present a proof of purchase showing one payment for each of the drugs claimed; however, consumers do not need proof of each purchase. Given the number of drugs at issue in the settlement, this is a reasonable requirement to deter fraudulent claims. The Court concluded that the common questions of class members predominate over any individual issues as all class members were allegedly harmed in the same way by paying increased prices for generic drugs. The Court also concluded that considering all of the relevant factors, this class action settlement is superior to other options. The Court stressed that there is no question that the state attorneys general have played a key role in the litigation over the prices of generic pharmaceuticals, and that their lawsuits also could result in meaningful relief in some form to some of the class members. However, the Court previously held that Amici States have not shown that their parens patriae authority, whether statutory or not, supplants the ability of consumers to pursue actions for damages. The Court therefore certified the settlement class for purposes of the final settlement. The Court directed that notice be provided as part of the preliminary settlement approval. Notice was made through different means to reach both consumers and TPPs through the use of digital advertising for 45 days in English and Spanish on social media platforms including YouTube and Instagram, websites such as AARP.org and websites for industry professionals, and a publication notice in People magazine. Direct notice was sent to 42,493 TPPs. The Court concluded that due process did not require notifying consumers of the existence of other litigation; indeed, such information could have been confusing as the Amici States have not settled with Sandoz, and at this point it is impossible to determine whether and to what extent consumers could recover through that litigation. Fairness of Settlement The Court determined that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The litigation is extremely complex and, in the absence of the settlement, it would likely be several years before all of the claims asserted by EPPs are resolved. No class members objected to the settlement, and potential class members have been able to opt out of the settlement. There has been extensive motion practice and discovery through which the parties have learned of the claims. Settling Defendants denied liability, and in the absence of the settlement, EPPs would be required to litigate issues of liability, damages, and class certification. Negotiations occurred at arm's length over a significant period of time and there has been extensive discovery in the MDL. The Court determined that the relief provided to the class is adequate. According to the Settlement "The Settlement Fund consists of a $275,000,000 monetary payment, which may be reduced by up to $45,000,000 based on the number of opt-outs from the settlement. EPPs sought the following disbursements from the Settlement Fund: (1) service awards for the class representatives of $30,000 for each TPP Class Representative and $5,000 for each Consumer Class Representative, for a total of $410,000; (2) attorneys' fees of one-third of the net settlement fund; (3) litigation expenses of $25,700,911.41; and (4) costs of notice and claims administration, of up to $750,000. In the context of the settlement award, the Court found that these amounts are appropriate." The settlement funds will be allocated on a pro rata basis among all class members that file claims, which treats the class members equitably. The Amici States argued that this means the consumers will not receive a meaningful recovery, but the recovery will be proportional of the consumers' loss. This is equitable treatment for purposes of evaluating the fairness of the settlement. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rTlnSm from PacerMonitor.com SAVE MART: Class Settlement in Baker Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE BAKER, JOSÉ LUNA, EDGAR POPKE, and DENNY G. WRASKE, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS and SAVE MART SELECT RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-04645-RMI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Illman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 23. -- The Court therefore certifies the following Settlement Class: "All people who were participants in the Save Mart Select Retiree Health Benefit Plan as of June 30, 2022, all people who retired and met the Eligibility Criteria at any time on or after April 22, 2022, and all current Save Mart employees who have not yet retired but have otherwise met the Eligibility Criteria." -- The Court confirms its previous appointment of the Plaintiffs Katherine Baker, José Luna, Edgar Popke, and Denny G. Wraske, Jr. as Settlement Class Representatives. -- The Court confirms its previous appointment of LCHB, BKK, and Matern as Settlement Class Counsel. -- The $20,545,000 settlement provides substantial benefits to the Settlement Class in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims asserted. -- The Court overrules the objection of Glendal Forrest Richardson, attached to the Shaver Declaration as Exhibit A. -- The Court overrules the objection of Rex Dickenson, attached to the Shaver Declaration as Exhibit B. The case concerns defendant Save Mart Supermarkets' purported termination of the Save Mart Select Retiree Health Benefit Plan. Settlement Class Representatives Katherine Baker, Jose Luna, Edgar Popke, and Denny G. Wraske, Jr. allege that Save Mart's purported termination of the Plan violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), because (1) Save Mart promised non-union retirees that their retiree medical benefits would last for their lifetimes and would always be as good as or better than the union's benefits and (2) Save Mart did not terminate those benefits in accordance with the Plan’s written terms. The Defendant is an American grocery store operator. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RHu31C at no extra charge.[CC] SAZERAC CO: Pizarro Can File Class Documents Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pizarro v. Sazerac Company, Inc. (RE: SAZERAC CONSUMER LITIGATION), Case No. 7:23-cv-02751-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order permitting the Plaintiffs to file the class documents under seal. In light of Circana's or Sazerac's designation of the documents as "Confidential" under the Protective Order, good cause exists to permit Plaintiffs to file these documents under seal. In ruling on a motion to seal, the Court must balance the competing interests at stake, which include the public's interest in access to judicial documents, and the privacy interest of the party resisting disclosure. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r1dZ0E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 North Washington Avenue, Floor 2 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 SAZERAC COMPANY: Court Certifies Class in Koonce ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY KOONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-04323-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motions to certify a class, -- appointing the Plaintiff Sharon Pizarro as class representative for the Pizarro Action, -- appointing the Plaintiff Cindy Koonce as class representative for the Koonce Action, and -- appointing Reese LLP, Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Laukaitis Law LLC as class counsel for both actions. The Plaintiffs assert that the 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 ("GBL"). The Plaintiffs seek certification of their GBL claims for the following classes: "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[,]"; and "[a]ll 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." Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=soEbsI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 875 6th Ave New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd #412, Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 - and - Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com - and - Neal Jamison Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave Unit 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 930-6495 The Defendant is represented by: Creighton R. Magid, Esq. Elizabeth R. Baksh, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 51 W 52nd St, New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 415-9200 SAZERAC COMPANY: Pizzaro Wins Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON PIZZARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. (RE: SAZERAC CONSUMER LITIGATION), Case No. 23-CV-2751 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motions to certify a class, -- appointing the Plaintiff Sharon Pizarro as class representative for the Pizarro Action, -- appointing the Plaintiff Cindy Koonce as class representative for the Koonce Action, and -- appointing Reese LLP, Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Laukaitis Law LLC as class counsel for both actions. The Plaintiffs assert that the 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 ("GBL"). The Plaintiffs seek certification of their GBL claims for the following classes: "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[,]"; and "[a]ll 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." Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oHXrhv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 875 6th Ave New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd #412, Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 - and - Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com - and - Neal Jamison Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave Unit 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 930-6495 The Defendant is represented by: Creighton R. Magid, Esq. Elizabeth R. Baksh, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 51 W 52nd St, New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 415-9200 SENIOR LIFE: Faces Sutton Suit Over Prerecorded Voice Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY SUTTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENIOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00397 (W.D. Tex., September 18, 2025) seeks to stop Defendant's illegal practice of placing unsolicited phone calls with artificial or prerecorded voice messages, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by the alleged conduct pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. As part of marketing of its business, the Defendant makes calls to thousands of consumers' phone numbers using an artificial or prerecorded voice message. By placing phone calls using prerecorded voice messages to people who have registered their phone numbers on the national database, Defendant violated the privacy and statutory rights of Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff therefore seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to stop its unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and statutory fines to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Senior Life Insurance Company is an insurance agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis Iudiciani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless, Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-MSM-AEM (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a brief two-week extension of time to file his motion for class certification, from Sept. 26, 2025 to Oct. 10, 2025. The Plaintiff is in the process of analyzing that data for class certification purposes with the assistance of an expert witness, whose analysis will be disclosed in conjunction with the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for class certification, but which is not yet complete. Moreover, in the interim, the Plaintiff's counsel, Alex Kruzyk, was also unexpectedly ordered to fly from Texas to Wisconsin for an in-person hearing in another matter on Sept. 25, 2025, thereby occupying two key days previously dedicated to briefing the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion, and significantly impacting the Plaintiff's ability to coordinate the pending data analysis with his forthcoming motion. No other pending deadlines would be affected by this brief extension of time, and therefore no party will be prejudiced by this brief extension of time. On June 6, 2025, the Court entered an amended scheduling order setting deadlines for the Defendant to produce certain class discovery by Aug. 4, 2025, for the parties to complete a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition by Aug. 29, 2025, and for the Plaintiff to move for class certification by Sept. 26, 2025. Seyboth is a real estate brokerage. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SCgdEs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE & CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. 2 Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 E-mail: Chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Court Stays Kogut Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2025, that on January 22, 2024, Jon Kogut filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On March 27, 2025, the court stayed the action pending the resolution of motions to dismiss in other cases challenging advance notice bylaws. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors or officers of the Company and is captioned "Kogut v. Bejar, et al.," C.A. No. 2024-0055-MTZ (Del. Ch.). In his complaint, Mr. Kogut contends that certain provisions in the company's advance notice bylaws are invalid and void and that the members of the board have breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and maintaining the Challenged Provisions. In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, Mr. Kogut seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses on behalf of the putative class. Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. operates a retail sporting goods stores with 146 stores in 32 states and an e-commerce platform at www.sportsmans.com. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Barot --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shrikant Barot v. St. John's University, Case No. 1:22-cv-04823-NRM-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order granting SJU's motion for summary judgment in full. As this outcome disposes of Barot's lawsuit in its entirety, his motion to certify the proposed class is moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Barot's motion for class certification and to close this case. Thus, because Barot's reliance on the allegedly misleading statements occurred outside of GBL section 349's three-year statute of limitations, and he has presented no evidence to support his claim that the continuing-violations doctrine should apply, summary judgment must be granted in favor of SJU on this claim. The Plaintiff Shrikant Barot brings this case against St. John’s University, alleging a breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Law section 349, and discrimination on the basis of national origin under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The Amended Complaint alleges a class defined as "All Graduate Teaching Assistants at the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences at St. John's University from Aug. 16, 2016, to the present." On Dec. 20, 2024, Barot filed his fully briefed motion for class certification. St. John's is a private Catholic university in Queens, New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vJCBsj at no extra charge.[CC] ST. MARKS: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO ESCOBAR and JANE DOES 1-1000, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. ST. MARKS 2 BROS PIZZA, INC. d/b/a 2 BROS PIZZA, TD 129 SECOND AVE LLC d/b/a TAQUERIA DIANA, 542 TACO LLC d/b/a TAQUERIA DIANA, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20, ELI HALALI, and OREN HALALI, Case No. 1:25-cv-07941 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to time shaving, unpaid spread of hours premiums, liquidated damages, statutory penalties due to WTPA violations, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including cashiers, food preparers, cooks, servers, countermen, food runners, bussers, dishwashers, among others) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case. The Defendants own a restaurant enterprise, comprised of at least 10 locations in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 STAKE CENTER: Fuller-Layton Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA FULLER-LAYTON and JOHN SHADE III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01080-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, September 19, 2025) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are current and former employees of Defendant who did not receive one and a half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Under the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act, the Defendant was required to pay for all hours Named Plaintiffs and Putative Plaintiffs worked and pay them 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. By willfully failing to compensate Named Plaintiffs and Putative Plaintiffs who performed pre-shift, meal break, and post-shift work, the Defendant violated the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, says the suit. Named Plaintiff Fuller-Layton was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Fiber Locator Technician-Level 7 from April 2018 until July 2023 and October 2024 until July 2025. Stake Center Locating, LLC is a limited liability company registered to do business in the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC. Case No. 4:23-cv-05034-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Last day to exchange expert witness Oct. 16, 2025 rebuttal reports: Discovery cut-off: Nov. 14, 2025 Last day to file replies to dispositive Feb. 9, 2026 motions: Dispositive motion hearing: Mar. 5, 2026 Last day to file motion for class Mar. 30, 2026 certification: Last day to file opposition to class Apr. 20, 2026 certification: Last day to file reply in further support May 11, 2026 of class certification: Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for residential customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O0Neqe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: ted@brodericklaw.com - and - Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street, #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com TAO GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAO GROUP OPERATING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07731 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://taogroup.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on September 12, 2025, in an attempt to make a restaurant reservation from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the reservation due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Tao Group Operating LLC operates the website that offers hospitality services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Faces Dawkins Class Suit Over Pixel Trackers ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. TIFFANY AND COMPANY, a New York corporation, Case No. 2:25-at-01284 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.tiffany.com, a website that Defendant owns and operates. According to the complaint, the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish the Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users’ electronic communications such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance, says the suit. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls the Website which is an online platform that offers goods and services to consumers. The Company is a globally recognized luxury jewelry and specialty retailer, originally founded in New York City in 1837.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com TIMOTHY C WARD: Discovery Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss "Foster" ---------------------------------------------------------------- United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, in the case captioned as John M Foster, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner Timothy C Ward, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-CV-143-TES-CHW, Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, issued an Order and Notification of Motion to Dismiss addressing multiple motions filed by Plaintiff. The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Request for Permission to File Surreply Motion. To the extent that Plaintiff's submission serves as a surreply to portions of Defendant Asia Cliett's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's request is granted and the proposed surreply brief is accepted for that purpose. Plaintiff's remaining requests within the proposed surreply include a stay on the Court's ruling on Defendant Cliett's motion for summary judgement until the Wellpath Defendant's discovery is complete, class certification and appointment of class counsel, and a declaratory judgment against the Department of Corrections regarding library access. The Court denied these remaining grounds for relief. The Court said it will not delay ruling on the motion for summary judgment based on another Defendant's posture in the case, and the Court cannot order a declaratory judgment against a non-party on a claim not before the Court. As to Plaintiff's request for class certification and appointment of class counsel, he has failed to explain who the class members would be, which of his remaining claims would be involved, or anything else related to a class action as contemplated by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, a prisoner proceeding pro se is not, as a matter of law, an adequate class representative and may not litigate on behalf of others. The Court granted in part Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Discovery. As to Defendant Wellpath, the discovery period is hereby extended as requested until October 21, 2025. Dispositive motions are due by November 21, 2025. Discovery as to Defendant Taylor is hereby stayed, until either the pending motion to dismiss is resolved or until further Order of the Court. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Taylor. Defendant Taylor alleges that he is entitled to dismissal of all claims against him pursuant to a Plan confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas because Plaintiff failed to opt-out of the Plan's Third-Party Release as directed. Because the bankruptcy has been resolved, the stay of the case as to Defendants Wellpath and Taylor is hereby lifted. The Court notified Plaintiff that failure to respond to and rebut the legal arguments set forth in Defendant's brief may result in these statements being accepted as uncontested and correct. The Court could grant judgment to Defendant and there would be no trial or further proceedings. Plaintiff is notified of his right to submit a response brief and submit any affidavits and documents that supports his attempts to opt-out of the Third-Party Release within twenty-one days of receipt of this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a0njqx from PacerMonitor.com TOP GOLF 1: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boulware Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- SHANA BOULWARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP GOLF 1, LLC d/b/a LUST GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-12687-SAL (D.S.C., Sept. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Boulware was employed by the Defendant as an entertainer. Top Golf 1, LLC d/b/a Lust Gentleman's Club operates as a strip club located in Myrtle Beach, SC and Martinsburg, WV. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel M. Mokeba, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 1418 Park St. Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-4700 Facsimile: (803) 799-3036 Email: smokeba@stanleylawsc.com - and - Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 Email: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Korlou Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TRISTANO KORLOU and JESSICA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11569 (N.D. Ill., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/wantonness, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about July 28, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TransUnion, LLC is a credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 TSYS MERCHANT: Scheduling Order Deadlines Stayed in S.B.C.W. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.B.C.W. CONSULTING, INC, v. TSYS MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03193-SRM-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena R. Murillo entered an order staying deadlines in the scheduling order as follows: 1. All discovery and trial deadlines set in the Scheduling Order are Stayed; 2. Within ten (10) days after the Court enters its Order on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the parties shall provide the Court with a new proposed scheduling order for all remaining deadlines; 3. The Parties' proposed scheduling order shall provide for at least 90 days following the Court's ruling to complete fact discovery and 30 days after the close of fact discovery for initial expert disclosures. On September 15, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery and Trial Deadlines pending a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. TSYS offers credit card processing and other related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m0dKkv at no extra charge.[CC] UNCHARTED SUPPLY: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uncharted Supply Company, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11631 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 22, 2025) alleges that Perfect failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Unchartedsupplyco.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, Unchartedsupplyco.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. Unchartedsupplyco.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 UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS: "Zuniga" Remanded to Nevada State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joel Ismael Zuniga, Plaintiff, v. Unforgettable Coatings, Inc., et al., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-CV-1221 JCM (MDC) (D. Nev.), Judge James C. Mahan of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada remanded the case to Nevada state court. The Court noted that the Plaintiff brought this class action because of alleged violations of both federal and state law. However, the court dismissed the federal law claims, leaving only the state law claims to be adjudicated. Jurisdiction over state law claims arises under supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 USC Section 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of right. City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). According to the Court "A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 USC Section 1367(c). The decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c) should be informed by the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)." Judge James C. Mahan of the District courts have the power to remand cases sua sponte when lacking subject matter jurisdiction. See Maniar v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 979 F.2d 782, 784-785; May v. California Hotel & Casino, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00066-GMN, 2014 WL 1494231, at *5 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2014) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and remanding the case to state court). Because Plaintiff has no federal causes of action and the parties are not diverse, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction and remands this action to Nevada state court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e1Zxm3 from PacerMonitor.com UNICOIN INC: Faces Finch Suit Over Misleading Rights Certificates ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW FINCH and ERNST TEUFEL BEJARANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNICOIN, INC. f/k/a TransparentBusiness, Inc., ALEXANDER KONANYKHIN, MARIA SILVINA MOSCHINI, ALEJANDRO DOMINGUEZ, and RICHARD DEVLIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-07939 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Unicoin Rights Certificates from the Defendants. According to the complaint, from Unicoin's New York City headquarters, the Defendants launched a massive -- and extremely deceptive -- public marketing campaign designed to hawk worthless certificates known as Unicoin Rights Certificates. This campaign was very successful, as they sold over 100 million dollars of the Unicoin Rights Certificates to an unsuspecting public. The Defendants' marketing efforts emanated broadly, but targeted New York City with particular vigor. For instance, the Defendants ran advertisements on thousands of New York City taxi cabs, buses and ride-share cars, New York Waterway ferries, LinkNYC public wi-fi kiosks, and office building elevator screens in New York City, including in Manhattan; they sponsored high-visibility digital billboards in public spaces such as Times Square, the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, and all three major New York City-area airports. In addition, Konanykhin regularly issued so-called "Investor Updates" throughout the relevant period, posting them to the Company's public website. These were periodic promotional communications, authored by Defendant Konanykhin and disseminated to the Company's large email distribution list of actual and potential investors, and others who signed up for updates and provided Unicoin with their contact information, as a way of stirring up public interest in the Certificates, says the suit. Accordingly, behind the Defendants' lavish marketing campaign stood a singular goal: to convey the false and misleading impression that the Unicoin Rights Certificates constituted safe, legally compliant and highly-sought-after "next-generation" crypto assets. In reality, however, the Unicoin Rights Certificates were nothing more than worthless unregistered securities that Defendants issued in violation of state and federal law, and almost everything that Defendants said when marketing them to unsuspecting investors was a lie, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Finch and the other members of the Class purchased Certificates during the Class Period. Unicoin was incorporated in 2015 in Delaware. Unicoin has claimed to have facilities in Nevada, New York, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Michael Cohen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com mcohen@rosenlegal.com UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Suit Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grigg v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 4:21-cv-03124-JFB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to expedite consideration of motion to amend the court's order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs bring this motion seeking an expedited response to the Plaintiffs' contemporaneously filed motion to amend this Court's order granting class certification. As the Plaintiffs explain in that motion, this Court should make certain technical adjustments to the class certification order to ensure that the order adequately defines the class, defines the class claims, and appoints class counsel, as required by Rule 23. The Court should also order Union Pacific to respond on an expedited basis and rule on the motion in advance of the September 29 deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal. While Union Pacific opposes the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the class-certification order, the Plaintiffs do not understand Union Pacific to disagree with the core legal premise of the Plaintiffs' position: that Rule 23 requires any order granting class certification to define the class, define the class claims, and appoint class counsel. Union is an American rail company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9hioDm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. Colin R. Reeves, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com colin@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW LLC 525 Junction Rd, Ste 6500 Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (612) 293-5249 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law mthomson@caseyjones.law UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waldschmidt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Case No. 8:22-cv-00210-JFB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to expedite consideration of motion to amend the court's order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs bring this motion seeking an expedited response to the Plaintiffs' contemporaneously filed motion to amend this Court's order granting class certification. As the Plaintiffs explain in that motion, this Court should make certain technical adjustments to the class certification order to ensure that the order adequately defines the class, defines the class claims, and appoints class counsel, as required by Rule 23. The Court should also order Union Pacific to respond on an expedited basis and rule on the motion in advance of the September 29 deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal. While Union Pacific opposes the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the class-certification order, the Plaintiffs do not understand Union Pacific to disagree with the core legal premise of the Plaintiffs' position: that Rule 23 requires any order granting class certification to define the class, define the class claims, and appoint class counsel. Union is an American rail company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t41o03 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. Colin R. Reeves, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com colin@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW LLC 525 Junction Rd, Ste 6500 Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (612) 293-5249 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law mthomson@caseyjones.law UNITED HEALTHCARE: Dean Balks at Discrimination, Unfair Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENENE DEAN v. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF THE MIDWEST, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-3273 (W.D. Mo., Sept. 24, 2025) is a class action suit brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant in Greene County, Missouri between. January 2018 and April 2025. The Plaintiff has disabilities, including migraine headaches, acute stress, dry eyes, ADHD, brain fog, confusion, anxiety, PTSD and fibromyalgia. In June of 2023, the Plaintiff took FMLA leave for two weeks and returned to work with a doctor's note requesting accommodation. The Defendant allegedly refused to engage with Plaintiff regarding her need for accommodation at that time. In February 2024, the Plaintiff took FMLA and Short-Term Disability leave for her disabilities. The Plaintiff was in contact with Defendant's manager Jay Taylor while on leave about accommodation requests and return to work dates. The Plaintiff returned to work on August 19, 2024. On August 27, 2024, the Defendant made an accommodation response that approved some of requests while denying others. The Plaintiff continued to work from home and fulfill all job requirements until December 2024 when she was placed on an expediated, 30-day, Corrective Action Plan. The CAP stated the Defendant had "loss of trust and confidence" regarding the Plaintiff's ability to do her job. The Defendant's CAP stated the Plaintiff would have additional job duties outside of her initial job description and not to demonstrate frustration towards Defendant of not being supported. From December 2024 to April 2025, the Plaintiff continued to work for the Defendant while being excluded from the decision-making process, scrutinized over her decisions, and reprimanded for not attending meetings that were not mandatory. The complaint asserts that the Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on or about April 2, 2025. The stated reason for Plaintiff's termination was for not making substantial improvements on the CAP. The Plaintiff had in fact made substantial improvements on the CAP, added the suit. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF THE MIDWEST, INC. is a subsidiary of the larger UnitedHealth Group, a multinational healthcare and health insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Lampert, Esq. LAMPERT LAW OFFICE, LLC 1531 E. Bradford Pkwy., Ste. 200 Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 886-3330 Facsimile: (417) 886-8186 E-mail: ray@lampertlaw.net UNITED STATES: Cameron Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASHIF MICHAEL LAMAR CAMERON, v. DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23808-EFD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Ellen D'Angelo entered an order that: -- Plaintiff's IFP motion is denied without prejudice. -- Plaintiff's Emergency motion to transfer venue is denied without prejudice. -- Plaintiff's Notice of Appearance and Request for Issuance of Subpoena is denied without prejudice. -- Plaintiff's Demand for Production of Documents Pursuant to 39 C.F.R. second 265.12 is denied without prejudice. -- Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show is denied without Prejudice. -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied without prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iiQC4p at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Emrit Complaint with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD SATISH EMRIT, v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-01847-WBV-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Wendy B. Vitter entered an order dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court further entered an order that the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana shall continue to refuse any filing of a petition or complaint, motion, or other pleading that is accompanied by an application for leave to file or proceed in forma pauperis by Ronald Satish Emrit, except for pleadings that contain allegations of constitutional deprivation by reason of physical harm or threats to Satish’s person, without Emrit seeking, and being granted, leave of court. The Complaint is incoherent, at best, and more appropriately considered "entirely fanciful" or delusional. The Plaintiff simply fails to state any constitutional violation whatsoever, nor allege any facts to support a constitutional violation. On Aug. 21, 2025, plaintiff, "Presidential Candidate Number P 60005535 aka Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America" filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On Sept. 8, 2025, that court transferred the matter to this Court based upon Plaintiff's allegation that, "the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana (as an Article III court) has jurisdiction over this matter." The Defendant is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=soEbsI at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Mercado Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barco Mercado v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, etc., DEPARTMENT OF HOME LAND SECURITY, TODD LYONS, etc., IMMIGRA TION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MARCOS CHARLES, etc., LADEON FRANCIS, etc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06568-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kaplan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. 1. The Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted to the extent set forth in the preliminary injunction filed today. It is otherwise denied. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, filed on Aug. 8, 2025 is granted to the extent that the class defined herein is provisionally certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The plaintiff was -- and members of the putative class are or will be -- detained in the 26 Fed Hold Rooms. The Plaintiff claims that detainees there have been subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement and deprived of meaningful and reliable access to legal counsel, presumably because the 26 Fed Hold Rooms were not designed to detain people for extended periods, let alone in large numbers. On Aug. 8, 2025, the plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary injunction. On Aug. 12, 2025, the Court granted a TRO that barred ICE from using the 26 Fed Hold Rooms unless it made substantial improvements in conditions. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ZLf8Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Gregorio, Esq. Mariann Meier Wang, Esq. Alice Reiter, Esq. Daniel Mullkoff, Esq. WANG HECKER LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1406 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 620-2600 E-mail: hgregorio@wanghecker.com mwang@wanghecker.com areiter@wanghecker.com dmullkoff@wanghecker.com - and - Harold A. Solis, Esq. Paige Austin, Esq. MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK 301 Grove Street Brooklyn, NY 11237 Telephone: (718) 418-7690 Facsimile: (866) 420-9169 E-mail: harold.solis@maketheroadny.org paige.austin@maketheroadny.org - and - Eunice Cho, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6616 E-mail: echo@aclu.org - and - Amy Belsher, Esq. Robert Hodgson, Esq. Molly K. Biklen, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 E-mail: abelsher@nyclu.org rhodgson@nyclu.org mbiklen@nyclu.org The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey Oestericher Jay Clayton UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES: Parties Seek Class Cert. Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al. Case No. 1:25-cv-00802-RBW (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to stay answer deadline and set class certification briefing schedule. The parties request to brief the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the same schedule set forth in the Court's scheduling order for the motion for a preliminary injunction—that is, the Defendants would file their response on or before Oct. 10, 2025, and the Plaintiffs would file their reply on or before Oct. 17, 2025. The parties further request that the Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint ("FAC") be stayed pending resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The parties will file a joint status report reflecting their proposal (or separate proposals, if they cannot reach agreement) for next steps in the case, including the Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the FAC, within 14 days after the Court decides Plaintiffs' motion for a pre liminary injunction. The Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on Sept. 9, 2025, and a motion for a preliminary injunction on Sept. 16, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Sept. 16, 2025. US Department of Education is a cabinet-level department of the United States government. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ad1tzo 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 The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Michelle R. Bennett, Esq. Stephen M. Pezzi, Esq. Winston Shi, Esq. United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 880-0387 E-mail: winston.g.shi@usdoj.gov UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ainsworth Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Janice Ainsworth, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., Change Healthcare, Inc., Optum Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00989 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Sept. 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-03714-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Personal Injury. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55401-2179 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Robert B. Keaty, II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 150 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 928-9901 Email: bkeaty@forthepeople.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Braunstein Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as The Estate Of Millard M. Braunstein, by and through its executor, Elliot Braunstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 002810-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on Sept. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15991. The Plaintiff contends that, after the policyholder's death on December 2, 2024, Plaintiff sought to terminate the policyholder's health insurance and requested a pro rata refund of the insurance premium pursuant to New Jersey law, but Defendants refused. The Plaintiff alleges it has a right to recover the unearned health insurance premiums from the plan upon the death of the policyholder. But, according to Plaintiff, Defendants have a purported "no refund policy for the month of the death" of policyholders, in violation of N.J. Stat.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert Norcia, Esq. Ethan Scapellati, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-8587 Fax: (215) 564-8120 Email: rnorcia@stradley.com escapellati@stradley.com - and - Meaghan VerGow, Esq. Meredith Garagiola, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 Email: mvergow@omm.com mgaragiola@omm.com - and - Victoria C. Hargis, Esq. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 Email: vhargis@omm.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Rosenblit Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as The Estate Of Donald L. Rosenblit, by and through its executor, Elliot Braunstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 250802640 was removed from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05532. The Plaintiff contends that, after the policyholder's death on September 13, 2024, Plaintiff sought to terminate the policyholder's health insurance and requested a pro rata refund of the insurance premium, but Defendants refused. The Plaintiff alleges it has a right to recover the unearned health insurance premiums from the plan upon the death of the policyholder. But, according to Plaintiff, Defendants have a purported policy that they do not refund any premium for the month of the policyholder's death, in violation of Pennsylvania law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert Norcia, Esq. Ethan Scapellati, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-8587 Fax: (215) 564-8120 Email: rnorcia@stradley.com escapellati@stradley.com - and - Meaghan VerGow, Esq. Meredith Garagiola, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 Email: mvergow@omm.com mgaragiola@omm.com - and - Victoria C. Hargis, Esq. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 Email: vhargis@omm.com UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Wins Dismissal of Sales Tax Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sue DeLara, Plaintiff, v. Universal Underwriters Service Corporation and Zurich Holding Company of America, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7410-ST (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 22, 2024, Plaintiff purchased a car from Ford of Port Jeff, LLC. In addition, Plaintiff purchased a vehicle service contract from Universal. The vehicle service contract cost $3,996.00 plus New York sales tax of roughly $344.65. The purchase agreement provided that Plaintiff was entitled to a refund if she cancelled within 30 days of purchase. Five days later, on June 27, Plaintiff cancelled the vehicle service contract. Per the terms of the agreement, Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the full purchase price. Plaintiff was refunded $3,996.00 but not the $344.65 sales tax. Plaintiff filed a putative class action with one cause of action: breach of contract for the failure to refund the sales tax. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court noted that New York Tax Law requires vendors, like Universal, to collect sales tax from customers and remit the sum to the New York Tax Commission. Vendors collect sales tax as trustee for and on account of the state. Section 1140 provides the Commission with exclusive jurisdiction over grievances of sales taxes that are illegally or unconstitutionally collected or paid. Indeed, Section 1140 grants the Commission exclusive authority to adjudicate disputes over taxes that have been collected or paid erroneously, illegally or unconstitutionally. The Court observed that Plaintiff brought a putative class action in federal District Court, alleging Defendants failed to refund her sales tax when she cancelled her vehicle service contract. The thrust of Defendants' argument is that Plaintiff's claim falls within the exclusive purview of the Commission, thus obviating this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Conversely, Plaintiff alleged that the Commission's exclusivity pertains only to unlawful tax collection and payment, not retention. Consequently, the novel issue before this Court is whether a party seeking remission of a tax improperly withheld by a vendor falls within the exclusive administrative purview of the New York Tax Commission. The Court cited Guterman v. Costco Wholesale Corp., where the Second Circuit held the application-and-refund process contained in Section 1139 is the exclusive remedy for claims of unlawful collection of sales tax. The Court also referenced Estler v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc., where plaintiffs argued their claim fell outside the Commission's exclusive purview because they sought only the return of an unlawful surcharge, and not a sales tax refund. The Second Circuit disagreed, stating plaintiffs offer nothing more than the bare and unsupported conclusion that defendants' allegedly erroneous charges were intended to represent anything other than sales tax. This is insufficient to avoid the exclusive administrative remedy mandated by N.Y. Tax Law Section 1140. The Court stated that at bottom, Plaintiff seeks a refund of New York state sales tax, and her attempt to color it otherwise falls short. The Court noted that once a vendor has collected the taxes, their responsibility has ended. A dissatisfied taxpayer's recourse is then against the taxing body. Plaintiff does not allege Defendants were incorrect in collecting the tax or that the amount of tax collected was incorrect. Accordingly, Defendants' obligation has ended. Whether Defendants unlawfully charged excess sales tax, or unlawfully retained a sales tax, Plaintiff's course of redress is before the Commission. The Court added that at a minimum, Plaintiff must first exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to commencing an action. Where, like here, a party fails to exhaust mandatory state law administrative remedies, the action must be dismissed. Further, the Court found dismissal is appropriate as a matter of comity. The Court stated that where a novel and unresolved question of state law presents before a federal court, principles of federalism and comity may dictate that these questions be left for decision by the state courts. New York state courts have not decided whether N.Y. Tax Law Section 1140 gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over claims that a vendor unlawfully retained sales tax upon issuing a refund. It is thus inappropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over a novel question of state law. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is granted in full. The case is dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal is on 12(b)(1) grounds, as failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and a dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies should be without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H7ppBk from PacerMonitor.com UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 14, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA d/b/a UCSF MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 3:23-cv-00598-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order extending the case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Fact discovery deadline: Mar. 17, 2026 Motion for class certification: May 14, 2026 Class certification opposition: Aug. 18, 2026 Expert discovery deadline: Oct. 1, 2026 Class Certification Reply: Oct. 1, 2026 Class Certification Hearing: Oct. 21, 2026 UCSF is a research and teaching hospital in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rrNTE2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Rachel Kesten, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com rkesten@lowey.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP 6633 Bay Laurel Place. Avila Beach, CA 93424 The Defendant is represented by: Dyanne J. Cho, Esq. Alexander Vitruk, Esq. Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. Teresa C. Chow, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114-1214 VENEZUELA: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mazzaccone v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of the deadlines for: (1) Defendant's opposition brief and (2) Plaintiff's reply brief. The parties propose that the deadline for filing any opposition to class certification be extended to at least Nov. 17, 2025, and the deadline for filing any reply in support of class certification be extended to at least Dec. 8, 2025. The parties believe an expanded briefing schedule is needed not only to enable the parties to complete fact discovery related to issues relevant to class certification, but also to conduct expert depositions and to prepare rebuttal reports and other materials following the Plaintiff's submission of its opening brief and the Defendant's submission of its opposition brief. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IS09Jg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Jillian Marie Dreusike, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 692-1032 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com jdreusike@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com The Defendant is represented by: Marisa F. Antonelli, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 E-mail: mantonelli@velaw.com ccardozo@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com WALMART ASSOCIATES: Court Vacates $312K Fee Award in Alvarado Labor ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Claudia Alvarado, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sam's West Inc., an Arkansas corporation, Defendants-Appellants, No. 23-3927, Circuit Judge Roopali H. Desai of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting Alvarado $312,429 in attorneys' fees and costs on her individual, putative class, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims against Walmart for violations of California's Labor Code, and remanded for further proceedings. Claudia Alvarado began working for Sam's Club, a chain grocery store operated by Walmart, in 2008. In 2019, Alvarado worked at the Sam's Club in Glendora, California, for six weeks. During that time, Alvarado alleged that she was denied meal and rest breaks, was not paid for overtime hours, did not receive itemized wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work purposes without reimbursement. Alvarado retained Matern Law Group, PC, and filed a complaint against Walmart in Los Angeles Superior Court for violations of California's Labor Code. Alvarado brought the action in her individual capacity, as a member of a putative class, and in a representative capacity under PAGA. Walmart removed the action to the Central District of California. Walmart moved to dismiss Alvarado's Complaint, asserting that she failed to allege sufficient facts to support a class action lawsuit. Alvarado amended her Complaint four times. The district court dismissed Alvarado's class-wide claims for meal break, rest break, and overtime violations, as well as her unfair business practices claim. She was left with her class-wide claim for business expense reimbursement, her individual claims, and her claim for civil penalties under PAGA. After discovery, Alvarado moved to certify a class for the business expense reimbursement claim. The district court denied certification because Alvarado failed to meet the commonality and predominance requirements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Alvarado proceeded to litigate her individual and PAGA claims, and Walmart defended the claims. The parties eventually held settlement discussions but were unable to reach an agreement. Roughly one month before trial, Walmart served an offer of settlement to Alvarado under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, in full and complete settlement of the claims asserted by Alvarado in her individual capacity. According to the Settlement, Defendants offer to pay to Plaintiff the amount of $22,000, exclusive of all attorneys' fees and costs incurred up to the date of this offer. Plaintiff's counsel may seek an award of reasonable fees and costs actually incurred as of the date of this Offer in pursuit of Plaintiff's individual claims in this action and recoverable by law. The amount of fees to be awarded to Plaintiff's counsel, if unable to be agreed upon by the parties, will be determined by the Court consistent with the terms of this Offer. Defendants' counsel reserves the right to challenge or otherwise oppose any motion or application for fees brought by Plaintiff's counsel, including without limitation, the right to oppose any request for fees and costs not incurred in the prosecution of Plaintiff's remaining individual claims. In exchange for the offer, Plaintiff releases all of her individual claims in this action and will file a dismissal of those claims with prejudice. Plaintiff releases her representative claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, and will file a dismissal of that claim without prejudice. Alvarado accepted Walmart's offer, and the district court entered judgment in accordance with its terms, retaining jurisdiction to decide any motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Because the parties could not agree on the fee amount, Alvarado filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $591,044.25 in fees and $44,879.34 in costs. In her motion, Alvarado argued that she was entitled to recover fees and costs arising from her class and PAGA claims because they were inextricably intertwined with her individual claims, making an apportionment of fees unnecessary under Hensley v. Eckerhart. Walmart objected to Alvarado's fee request. Citing Hensley, it argued that because of Alvarado's limited success, she was not entitled to any fees or, in the alternative, should be awarded at most $22,000. In her reply, Alvarado maintained that her class claims were so intertwined with her individual claims that apportionment was unnecessary. But in the spirit of compromise she reduced her fee request by attorney time spent on class certification proceedings and all legal assistants' time. This resulted in a revised request of $297,799, a near 50 percent reduction. The district court granted Alvarado's motion. After noting that an analysis of whether Alvarado is the prevailing party is unnecessary because the parties do not dispute that an attorney award is due, the court turned to apportionment: while the initial motion and its opposition called on the Court to determine whether attorney fees for any labor related to the class action were warranted, Plaintiff has since filed a reply with an offer to deduct attorney time spent on the class certification proceedings, including work on any potential appeal, and to forego the entirety of the legal assistants' time. Thus, an analysis regarding apportionment is moot. Now the question before the Court is whether the new lodestar figure, $297,799, is reasonable. This Court concludes that it is. The court then determined that the hourly rates requested for Alvarado's attorneys and legal assistants are within the prevailing rate for attorneys and legal assistants of similar background, skill and experience conducting noncontingent litigation of the same type. Ultimately, the district court awarded Alvarado $297,799 in fees and $14,630 in costs. On appeal, Walmart argued that the parties' Section 998 agreement, by its terms, allows Alvarado to seek fees only for work performed exclusively on her individual claims. The Court of Appeals held that the parties' Section 998 agreement allowed Alvarado to seek fees under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), which allows a plaintiff who experiences limited success to recover fees for work performed on related items. The panel held that Section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure encourages parties to settle their disputes before trial by shifting the costs of litigation to a party that declines a pre-trial offer of settlement but does not ultimately obtain a more favorable result at trial. When parties settle under Section 998, they may limit or expand recoverable costs and fees by the express terms of their agreement. But when a Section 998 offer is silent on costs and fees, the prevailing party is entitled to costs and, if authorized by statute or contract, fees. Section 998 itself does not expressly authorize an award of attorney fees. Instead, attorney fees are recoverable as costs only if there is some other statutory or contractual right to such fees. The Court of Appeals stated that just as Section 998 does not grant greater rights to attorney's fees than those provided by the underlying statute, it also does not grant lesser rights to fees available under California law. At bottom, Section 998 is a cost-shifting statute: it determines who bears the burden of costs and, when authorized by statute or contract, who is entitled to attorneys' fees. It does not, however, determine the availability or extent of fees. Thus, absent explicit language in the parties' Section 998 agreement to the contrary, Alvarado is entitled to seek precisely those fees authorized by California law, no more, no less. The panel concluded that the parties' Section 998 agreement permits Alvarado to seek reasonable fees and costs actually incurred in pursuit of Plaintiff's individual claims in this action and recoverable by law. A plain reading of this language permits Alvarado to seek and obtain any fees, recoverable by law, for her individual claims if, under California law, they are reasonable. That is no more and no less than she is otherwise entitled to under California law. However, the district court abused its discretion when it failed to provide a concise but clear explanation for its fee award. The Court of Appeals stated that although Alvarado may seek, and the district court may award, fees for interrelated claims under Hensley, the district court must explain how it came up with the amount. The district court's explanation need not be elaborate; it may be concise. But if it is concise, it must be clear. When the district court's reasoning is indiscernible from the record, contradictory, or non-existent, the award cannot stand. The Court of Appeals found that the district court's decision is concise, but it is not clear. Alvarado's fee award is defensible only if the district court made two conclusions: First, that under Hensley, her class and PAGA claims are related to her individual claims and need not be apportioned. And second, that her limited success, the $22,000 she received for her individual claims, justified her $297,799 fee request in light of the scope of the original litigation. Based on the record, it is unclear if the district court properly made these determinations. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded Alvarado's fee award for reconsideration by the district court. The panel took no position on the propriety of Alvarado's fee award and left for the district court to determine an appropriate fee award consistent with the principles outlined here, and to provide a concise but clear explanation for the award. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. Class Action Status: This case was filed as a putative class action. The district court denied class certification because Alvarado failed to meet the commonality and predominance requirements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Therefore, this is not a certified class action. A copy of the Court' Settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XsYe2A from PacerMonitor.com WILSON'S TEXAS PROPERTIES: Mackey Sues Over Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Kirk Mackey, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WILSON'S TEXAS PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-04583 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Pinkerton's and to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase and/or receive food and services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is currently deterred from returning to the Property until the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 1801 WYNKOOP, LLC is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Colorado and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com WNS GLOBAL: Iams Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Remote Senior Advisors ----------------------------------------------------------------- AUTUMN IAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07942 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a remote senior advisor from approximately August 2024 to February 2025. WNS Global Services, LLC is a provider of business process management services, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Bernstein, Esq. ISAACS BERNSTEIN, PC 2108 Yardley Road Yardley, PA 19067 Telephone: (917) 693-7245 Email: jb@lijblaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com WYETH INC: Class Cert Hearing Adjourned to Feb. 2026 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. v. WYETH, INC., Case No. 3:11-cv-05479 (D.N.J., Filed Sept 22, 2011), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order adjourning the Class Certification hearing scheduled for Jan. 13, 2026, to Feb. 4, 2026. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Wyeth produces, develops, and researches pharmaceutical products.[CC] WYNN LAS VEGAS: Elias Second Amended Complaint Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IKE ELIAS, v. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-02111-ART-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Anne Traum entered an order dismissing the Plaintiff's second amended complaint in its entirety for failure to sufficiently allege any viable claims. Because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims for racial discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII, amendment of those claims would be futile and they are dismissed with prejudice, the Court says. The Plaintiff's defamation claim is dismissed with prejudice because it is time-barred. The Plaintiff will have until Oct. 18, 2025, to file an amended complaint. The Court also ordered that the Plaintiff's claims for racial discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII and defamation under Nevada state law are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated several provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), discriminated against him for his race in violation of Title VII, wrongfully terminated him under Nevada state law, and defamed him under Nevada state law. Wynn owns and operates a casino resort. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P9o9Op at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***