251009.mbx

251009.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 9, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 202 Headlines 7 CUPS OF TEA: Slavitt Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bid to Junk Suit Over Microsoft Merger Denied ALCLEAR LLC: Go Class Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ga. AMERIMED EMERGENCY: Grassie Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA AVERY TRITT: Rossewey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages BAPTIST HEALTH CARE: Bossert Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BAUSCH HEALTH: Monopolizes Prices of Rifaximin Drug, Suit Says BEAUTIFUL DISASTER: Towns Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BELK INC: Hampton Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Fla. BRYN MAWR: Court Allows Title III Claims to Proceed in "De Camara" CARTER FEDERAL: Faces Harris Personal Injury Suit in W.D. La. CHARLES RUTENBERG: Conspires to Raise Brokers' Commissions COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Faces Jefferson Class Suit in D.S.C. DAYTON FREIGHT: Zarnick Alleges FLMA, ADA Breach Over Termination DOCUSIGN INC: Watkins Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code EQUINIX INC: $41.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 18 EXXON MOBIL: Must Pay Fees in Climate Deception Suit GFB RESTAURANTS: Robinson Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages GOHLKE & COMPANY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Landrum Alleges HARVARD DRUG: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Claims in "Kouyate" HC PROPTECH: $775,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 21 HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Chadwell Says INSIGHT PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lagosz Suit Says JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Grant Suit Over Share Price Drop LEAD ELITE: Faces Salaiz Class Suit Over Telemarketing Phone Calls LG H&H: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges M.A.C. COSMETICS: Javid Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ill. MONSANTO COMPANY: Ricci Sues Over Dangerous Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide Caused Illness, Zurn Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Shawly Sues Over Dangerous Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Simpson Balks at Herbicide's Health Risks MONSANTO COMPANY: Spicer Sues Over Harmful Herbicide Exposure OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 25 ORKIN INC: Faces Santos Suit Over Property's Architectural Barriers OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Doe Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. PECO FOODS: Broiler Chicken Growers Sue Over No-Poach Agreement PORSCHE CARS: Face Herdtner Class Suit Over PHEV Charging Time SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Watson Says SAMUEL HUBBARD: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SENECA COUNTY, NY: Sullivan Sues Over Unlawful Taking of Property SPECIALTYCARE INC: Court OKs Partial Class Certification in "Fuchs" T.R.A. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Gordon Says TODD SNYDER: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED STATES: Bakken Files Suit Over Academic Engagement Policy UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Faces Horwitz Suit Over Retirement Plans WANDERING BEAR: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Davenport Sues Over Unprotected Info WESTERN MONTANA: Lewis Suit Removed from State Court to D. Mont. ********* 7 CUPS OF TEA: Slavitt Suit Transferred to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nadine H. Slavitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7 Cups of Tea, Co. doing business as: 7 Cups, Does 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-02284 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05378-RPK-CHK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Trademark for Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act). 7 Cups of Tea -- https://www.7cups.com/ -- is the world's largest mental health community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilan Rosenberg, Esq. FREIWALD LAW PC 1500 Walnut Street, 18th Floor, Ste. 1810 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 940-6282 Email: ir@freiwaldlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Collin J. Vierra, Esq. EIMER STAHL LLP 1999 South Basco Avenue, Suite 1025 Campbell, CA 95008 Phone: (408) 889-1668 Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com - and - Walter Stephen Zimolong, Esq. ZIMOLONG LLC P.O. Box 552 Villanova, PA 19085-0552 Phone: (215) 665-0842 Email: wally@zimolonglaw.com ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bid to Junk Suit Over Microsoft Merger Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ROBERT KOTICK, BRIAN KELLY, ROBERT MORGADO, ROBERT CORTI, HENDRIK HARTONG III, CASEY WASSERMAN, PETER NOLAN, DAWN OSTROFF, BARRY MEYER, REVETA BOWERS, KERRY CARR, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and ANCHORAGE MERGER SUB INC., Defendants, C.A. No. 2022-1001-KSJM, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss a Verified Third Amended Class Action Complaint in a Memorandum Opinion. This stockholder class action arises from Microsoft Corporation's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc., negotiated following widespread sexual harassment scandals at the company. In 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing began investigating the company for company-wide sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. After regulators made their findings public in mid-2021, the company's stock price plunged and senior leadership began leaving. On November 16, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled Activision CEO Bobby Kotick Knew for Years About Sexual-Misconduct Allegations at Videogame Giant. Following this article, employees staged a walkout demanding the CEO's resignation. Microsoft was one of the company's most important business partners, and the CEO had enjoyed a close relationship with numerous Microsoft executives for many years. Two days after the Wall Street Journal article ran, Microsoft publicly criticized the company and announced it was reconsidering the relationship. A few days later, Microsoft told the CEO that it was interested in acquiring the company. The CEO responded by immediately convening a small group of directors and a financial advisor with whom he had longstanding ties. By November 26, 2021, the small group had determined a price range for a potential deal. The board had approved a long-range plan on November 2, 2021, which included growth scenarios implying a price range of $113 to $128 per share. However, the self-appointed small group set a negotiating range of $90 to $105 per share, which the CEO relayed to Microsoft on November 28. The next day, Microsoft agreed to negotiate within that range. The CEO told the board what he had done during a meeting on December 3, 2021. It is unclear whether the board authorized further negotiations with Microsoft. Microsoft entered into a non-disclosure agreement and received a copy of the company's long-range plan on December 6. Microsoft sent a non-binding indication of interest on December 10, proposing to acquire the company at $90 per share. By December 20, Microsoft and the CEO had agreed to $95 per share with a thirty-day exclusivity period. That price was on the low end of the per-share price range that the small group had selected and below the range implied by growth scenarios in the board-approved long-range plan. Management lowered its projections, allegedly to justify the deal price. While engaging with Microsoft, the CEO spoke to other potential acquirors, but Microsoft had a major head start. Discussions with other potential acquirors did not go far and were ultimately cut off by Microsoft's exclusivity agreement. The board approved a draft merger agreement on January 16, 2022, a day before the exclusivity period expired, and the parties executed the merger agreement on January 18. The deal removed the CEO's head from the chopping block as the agreement included a key-man provision and broader liability protections than he enjoyed at the company. The draft merger agreement did not address the number or amount of dividends that the company could pay while the merger was pending. The CEO negotiated this issue after the board approved the draft. The final merger agreement limited the company to one regular cash dividend of not more than $0.47 per share. Although the parties did not expect the deal to close before 2023 at the earliest, the company scheduled a stockholder meeting to approve the merger for April 28, 2022. Approximately 68% of the voting power cast votes, with 98% voting in favor of the merger. As the regulatory approval process played out, the company's finances improved dramatically. The company announced exceptional quarterly results, with all three of its segments outperforming historical metrics, consensus estimates, and the wider industry. The merger agreement included a July 18, 2023 termination date. On that date, the board executed a letter agreement that the CEO had negotiated with Microsoft. The agreement extended the termination date to October 18, 2023, eliminated the company's right to collect a $3 billion termination fee, narrowed the company's right to terminate the merger agreement, and eliminated or waived various conditions to closing. The agreement also allowed the company to pay a one-time dividend for fiscal year 2023 of $0.99 per share. The company paid the dividend to certain shares of treasury stock. The merger closed on October 13, 2023.[1] The court held that the plaintiff had stated a claim against the CEO and the company's board for breaching their fiduciary duties under the enhanced-scrutiny standard of review. The plaintiff alleged that the CEO rushed the company into a transaction with Microsoft to keep his job, secure his change-of-control payments, and insulate himself from liability, and that he tainted the sale process to secure these outcomes. According to the court, all of these allegations are reasonably conceivable. As to the small group of directors who the CEO brought into the process before informing the board, the court held it is reasonably conceivable that each knew of the Wall Street Journal article and the employee protests, and that the company's stock was depressed as a result, each knew that the timing of the deal with Microsoft was bad for the company and good for the CEO, and each knew that the board-approved plan contemplated a value of $113 to $128 per share. Yet none paused to question the wisdom of rushing into a deal with Microsoft. The court stated this makes it reasonably conceivable that the small group members placed the CEO's interests ahead of value maximization, and the plaintiff has stated a non-exculpated claim against each of them. The court also found the plaintiff stated a claim against the other directors who let the CEO run the process. Only twelve days after first learning of Microsoft's overture, the board authorized the company's sale at $95 per share. Given the board's awareness of the CEO's conflicts and the company's higher standalone value, the court found it reasonable to infer that they too approved a hasty sale at $95 per share to serve the CEO's interests rather than the best interests of the stockholders. According to the court, that would constitute bad faith, thus stating a non-exculpated claim. The court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties when entering into the letter agreement. The defendants effectively doubled down on their prior breaches, and it is reasonably conceivable that their decision at that point in the process was worse because they had concrete evidence of the company's strong performance. The court found some statutory claims viable. The plaintiff adequately alleged that allowing the CEO to negotiate the dividend provisions of the merger agreement after the board approved the agreement's form violated Section 141(c) and 251(b) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. It is also reasonably conceivable that the defendants converted the stockholders' shares by consummating a merger in violation of Sections 103 and 251 of the DGCL. However, the court dismissed other DGCL claims. The claim that the company violated Section 262 solely as a result of violating Section 251 does not work. The plaintiff's theory that merely signing the merger agreement constituted an act of conversion fails as a matter of law. The court stated there is one statutory claim that it cannot adjudicate on the pleadings. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants violated the DGCL by paying dividends on treasury stock. To defeat the claim, the defendants relied on many documents outside the pleadings. That decision warranted converting their motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. The plaintiffs can obtain discovery in opposition to the converted motion. Although the plaintiff adequately alleged a handful of statutory violations, those alleged violations do not support a freestanding claim for breach of fiduciary duty. There is no reasonable inference that the director defendants knowingly violated the DGCL in connection with the merger, even if it is reasonably conceivable that they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger in other ways. The plaintiff failed to state a claim for aiding and abetting against Microsoft. The Delaware Supreme Court recently recalibrated the elements of a claim for aiding and abetting in Mindbody and Columbia. Those decisions emphasize that a claim of aiding and abetting requires multiple forms of scienter and passage through a gauntlet of Restatement factors governing the element of substantial assistance. Those decisions also emphasize that a claim for aiding and abetting is particularly difficult to assert against a third-party acquiror like Microsoft, which enjoys some level of protection in negotiations with a potential target. The plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to meet this high bar. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss as to the Appraisal Claim under Section 262, the Conversion-by-Merger Agreement Claim, the DGCL-Fiduciary Claims, the Merger Claims against Microsoft for aiding and abetting, and the Letter Agreement Claims against Microsoft for aiding and abetting. The defendants' motion to dismiss the Treasury-Dividend Claims was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The motions to dismiss were otherwise denied. Litigation on the merits of a trimmed-down version of the plaintiff's complaint can now proceed. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VEUFGe from PacerMonitor.com ALCLEAR LLC: Go Class Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ga. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA M. GO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALCLEAR, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV06195 (Filed Aug. 15, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento to the United States District Court Northern District of California on Sept. 26, 2025. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08216 to the proceeding. The suit asserts the following eight causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Meal Period Violations; (4) Rest Period Violations; (5) Failure to Indemnify; (6) Failure to Pay Sick Leave; (7) Waiting Time Penalties; and (8) Unfair Competition. ALCLEAR is the parent company that owns and operates CLEAR, a biometric secure identity platform founded by Ken Cornick. CLEAR uses fingerprints and/or iris scans to allow members to bypass security checkpoints at airports and other venues.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gabriel N. Rubin, Esq. Liam N. Gaarder-Feingold, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California St., 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 E-mail: gabriel.rubin@jacksonlewis.com liam.gaarderfeingold@jacksonlewis.com AMERIMED EMERGENCY: Grassie Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH GRASSIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERIMED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-02057 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 26, 2025) seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs hourly workers to provide various emergency medical response transportation services. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were hourly employees who worked for Defendant within the last three years. At no time was Plaintiff or other similarly situated employees paid on a salary basis. The Plaintiff works for Defendant as an EMT-B and is paid approximately $22.74 per hour, with a $2.00 per hour night shift differential. The Plaintiff was also provided a weekly bonus equal to $10 per run, which Defendant referred to as a TIP Profit Share Bonus. Neither the night shift differential nor the TIP Profit Share Bonus were included when calculating Plaintiff's overtime rate. Rather, such overtime rate was calculated based only on her $22.74 base rate, says the suit. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant from October 2, 2023, to the present. The FLSA Collective members who are "similarly situated" to Plaintiff with respect to Defendant's FLSA violations is defined as follows: "All current and former hourly employees of Defendant, including temporary employees as applicable, who received additional non-discretionary compensation, including but not necessarily limited to, shift differential payments or TIP Profit Share Bonuses, and who worked more than 40 hours during any such workweeks at any time from three years preceding the filing of this Complaint through final disposition of this matter." The Defendant owns and operates an emergency medical and transport services business in Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Indiana, and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. 1360 E 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com AVERY TRITT: Rossewey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- PEI PEI ROSSEWEY and APRIL DRUGASH, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVERY TRITT HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a HYGEIA HOME HEALTH, AVERY PARTNERS, INC., ALLISON BRICKER, and JEFF MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02555 (M.D. Fla., September 22, 2025) is an action brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were not paid the minimum wages for all hours worked and were not paid overtime for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have suffered damages by being denied wages in accordance with the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiffs Rossewey and Drugash worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately January 17, 2022 through approximately April 22, 2025 and from approximately March 31, 2020 through approximately June 23, 2025, respectively. Avery Tritt Holdings, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with its principal address in Pinellas County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mandi B. Clay, Esq. THREE THIRTEEN LAW, PLLC 5408 Bruton Rd. Plant City, FL 33565 Telephone: (813) 530-9849 E-mail: mandi@threethirteenlaw.com BAPTIST HEALTH CARE: Bossert Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baptist Health Care, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jerry Bossert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Baptist Health Care, Inc., Pensacola Hospitalist Physicians, LLC, Case No. 2025 CA 001448 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Escambia Cty., Sept. 25, 2025), The case type is stated as "Contract & Indebtedness." Baptist Health Care -- https://www.ebaptisthealthcare.org/ -- is a not-for-profit health care organization based in Northwest Florida that is committed to helping people throughout life's journey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com BAUSCH HEALTH: Monopolizes Prices of Rifaximin Drug, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RHODE ISLAND LABORERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, individually on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC.., BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD, SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00479 (D.R.I., September 22, 2025) is an action seeking to recover treble damages, interest, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and members of the class resulting from Bausch's monopolization and from all of Defendants' conspiracy to restrain trade in the United States market for Xifaxan and its generic equivalents in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Bausch markets rifaximin, a broad-spectrum antibiotic that has been used across the globe since 1987 for treating various gastrointestinal ailments, under the brand name Xifaxan. Bausch's Xifaxan 550 mg is the only rifaximin product available on the market to treat Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea. It is also indicated for the treatment of overt hepatic encephalopathy recurrence in adults and (in a 200 mg dosage) for travelers diarrhea in children. In 2024, Bausch's annual sales of Xifaxan in the U.S. were roughly $1.9 billion, with the overwhelming majority of those sales being in the 550mg dosage. According to the complaint, those revenues are attained by Bausch as it faces no Xifaxan competition. Fair competition would have limited the price of a 14-day supply of Xifaxan to less than $200. Instead, Bausch today is charging more than $2,000 for a 14-day regimen. And it is only able to do so because it violated the law. When generic drug manufacturer Teva's predecessor developed a generic Xifaxan product and filed the first Abbreviated New Brug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to launch a competing generic product, Bausch sued them for infringing its patents to prevent and/or delay Teva's timely market entry. While Bausch and Teva settled the lawsuit, they did so through an unlawful agreement and improper allocation of the market. Bausch agreed to pay Teva to delay entering the market with 550 mg generic Xifaxan. In exchange for the payment, Teva agreed not to further pursue its ANDA litigation and patent challenge and to stay out of the market for as much as nine years, until January 2028. And with a guaranteed, exclusive entry date, Teva's incentive to pursue its own ANDA approval was also significantly diminished. Bausch and Teva also built additional anticompetitive provisions into their settlement as a means of deterring other generic manufacturers from entering the market, the suit asserts. As a result of Bausch's and Teva's unlawful conduct, a generic version of Xifaxan 550 mg is still not available seven years after the unlawful agreement with Teva, and more than three years after the Federal Circuit confirmed that key Bausch patents are invalid. End payors, like Plaintiff Rhode Island Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, are last in the chain of distribution and continue to pay monopoly prices rather than competitive prices for rifaximin and are likely to do so until sometime after January 2028, alleges the suit. Bausch Health Companies Inc. operates as a diversified specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick C. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH & PINE ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC One Park Row, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-3306 Facsimile: (401) 274-3326 E-mail: plynch@lynchpine.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5" Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com - and - John Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com BEAUTIFUL DISASTER: Towns Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TOWNS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUTIFUL DISASTER CLOTHING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07839 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.bdrocks.com, is not equally accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired consumers 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 State Civil Rights Law. On multiple occasions in July and August 2025, Plaintiff Towns attempted to access Defendant's website to research clothing products, sizing guides, promotional offers, and checkout functionality. Despite Beautiful Disaster's public branding around empowerment and inclusivity, the Plaintiff was repeatedly denied access due to widespread accessibility barriers. These barriers included unlabeled form fields, missing alt text on product images, and broken navigation links that rendered the site unusable with her assistive technology, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a 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 consumers. Beautiful Disaster Clothing, LLC is a retail apparel company headquartered in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com BELK INC: Hampton Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025-CA-001104, was removed from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division on Sept. 5, 2025. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01547-MCR-HTC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act involving Consumer Credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane , Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S HINDI 1515 Ne 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John Michael Marees, II, Esq. Lauren Marshall Burnette, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE LTD 1400 Marsh Landing Parkway, Suite 109 Jacksonville, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 901-6369 Facsimile: (904) 298-8350 E-mail: jmarees@messerstrickler.com lburnette@messerstrickler.com BRYN MAWR: Court Allows Title III Claims to Proceed in "De Camara" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as LAUREN DE CAMARA, SASHA KACHRU, and ESENIA BANUELOS, Plaintiffs, v. BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-2287 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew Kearney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss in a Memorandum dated September 26, 2025. Three former students along with three current students of the college sued to compel the college to change policies and practices relating to accommodations for varied disabilities. They also sought damages for breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The college and its Board of Trustees moved to dismiss all claims. The court agreed many claims cannot proceed as presently pleaded but allowed three students to continue on limited Title III claims. The six students claimed the college discriminated against them by understaffing the Access Services Department, responding to their needs arbitrarily and capriciously, and disregarding their emotional health and well-being. Lauren De Camara alleged she will return to the college if granted her requested accommodations. Hope Richards-Cordell claimed the college did not provide adequate gluten-free food options. Saule Aoki claimed the college did not provide housing or on-campus psychiatrists. Sasha Kachru claimed the college did not provide a reduced courseload and deadline flexibility. Kyra Kuelgen claimed the college denied housing and transportation requests after hip surgeries. Esenia Banuelos claimed the college denied extra time on exams and building access after twisting her ankle. The court held that a person requesting injunctive relief must show she is likely to suffer future injury from the defendant's illegal conduct. Past exposure to illegal conduct alone does not establish standing if unaccompanied by continuing adverse effects. The court found former student De Camara has standing because she alleged an intent to return if she receives relief. But former students Richards-Cordell and Aoki lack standing because they no longer attend and do not allege an intent to return. The court dismissed their Title III claims with leave to amend. Current students Kuelgen and Banuelos also lack standing for their transportation and accessibility claims because they did not plead facts showing a likelihood of future injury. They pleaded facts based on past temporary injuries: recoveries from surgery and a twisted ankle. The court dismissed their Title III claim for lack of standing without prejudice. Former student De Camara and current student Banuelos asked the court to order the college to provide them with an iPad and Apple Pencil. The court held whether a proposed aid qualifies as an auxiliary aid under Title III is a question of law. The statutory and regulatory definitions suggest auxiliary aids are meant to assist individuals with hearing impairments, vision impairments, or communication disorders rather than individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The students do not allege they have impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills and have not pleaded how an iPad and Apple Pencil would allow them to access courses. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend. The students brought a standalone claim for deliberate indifference under Title III. The court held Title II requires deliberate indifference for compensatory damages, but Title II only applies to public entities. Congress intended Title III apply to private universities and does not allow money damages. The court dismissed this claim with prejudice. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Title III claims as shotgun pleadings. The students identified which allegations apply to which students and which conduct forms the basis for each claim. The students provided adequate notice. The court dismissed the breach of contract claims with leave to amend because the students do not cite specific provisions in the Student Handbook or other materials giving rise to a contract. The court dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress claims without prejudice because the relationship between a private college and its students is not the type holding the potential of deep emotional harm necessary for such claims. The students may proceed on former student De Camara's Title III claim for virtual attendance accommodations, former student De Camara and current students Kachru and Banuelos's Title III claims for testing and course assignment accommodations, and former student De Camara and current student Kachru's Title III claims for priority registration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ilI0Tl from PacerMonitor.com CARTER FEDERAL: Faces Harris Personal Injury Suit in W.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carter Federal Credit Union. The suit is captioned as Belinda Harris, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carter Federal Credit Union, Case No. 5:25-cv-01308-SMH-KDM (W.D. La., Filed Sept. 5, 2025). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr. The nature of suit states Diversity-Personal Injury. Carter Federal Credit Union is a financial cooperative providing loans, investment, deposit accounts, insurance, and online banking services in Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tom Kherkher, Esq. Ellzey, Kherkher, Sanford & Montgomery LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 244-6363 E-mail: tkherkher@eksm.com CHARLES RUTENBERG: Conspires to Raise Brokers' Commissions ---------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY KEEL, JEROD BREIT, HOLLEE ELLIS, FRANCES HARVEY, RHONDA BURNETT, DON GIBSON, LAUREN CRISS, JOHN MEINERS, DANIEL UMPA, CHRISTOPHER MOEHRL, MICHAEL COLE, STEVE DARNELL, JACK RAMEY and JANE RUH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES RUTENBERG REALTY, INC., TIERRA ANTIGUA REALTY, LLC, WEST USA REALTY, INC., MY HOME GROUP REAL ESTATE, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00759-RK (W.D. Mo., Sept. 26, 2025) is a class action against several large real estate brokerages for agreeing, combining, and conspiring to impose, implement, follow, and enforce anticompetitive National Association of REALTORS (NAR) restraints that caused home sellers to pay inflated commissions on the sale of their homes, in violation of federal antitrust law. According to the complaint, the Defendants and their co-conspirators collectively possess market power in local markets for real estate brokerage services through their control of the local Multiple Listing Services (MLSs). An MLS is a database of properties listed for sale in a particular geographic region and the marketplace on which the vast majority of homes in the United States are sold. Brokers must list a property for sale to effectively market that property to prospective buyers. The vast majority of MLSs are formally controlled by local NAR associations, and access to such MLSs is conditioned on brokers' agreement to follow all mandatory rules set forth in NAR's Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy, including the rules at issue here. Pursuant to the conspiracy, and until recent pressure from litigation and an adverse jury verdict, NAR allowed brokers representing or otherwise working with home sellers and home buyers to use NAR's MLSs only if those brokers agreed to adhere to and implement terms that significantly restrained competition, says the suit. Specifically, NAR and its co-conspirators allegedly required every listing broker (i.e., the broker representing the seller) when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service, to make a "blanket unilateral offer of compensation" to any broker who may have worked with a buyer in purchasing that property. The Plaintiffs are home sellers who listed homes on Multiple Listing Services in the United States (the MLS). The Defendants are real estate brokerage companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Robert A. Braun, Esq. Sabrina Merold, Esq. Daniel Silverman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com rbraun@cohenmilstein.com smerold@cohenmilstein.com dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945 7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Michael Ketchmark, Esq. Scott McCreight, Esq. KETCHMARK AND MCCREIGHT P.C. 11161 Overbrook Rd. Suite 210 Leawood, Kansas 66211 Telephone: (913) 266-4500 E-mail: mike@ketchmclaw.com smccreight@ketchmclaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. Nathan Emmons, Esq. Jeannie Evans, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com nathane@hbsslaw.com jeannie@hbsslaw.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq. Matthew R. Berry, Esq. Floyd G. Short, Esq. Alexander W. Aiken, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com mberry@susmangodfrey.com fshort@susmangodfrey.com aaiken@susmangodfrey.com - and - Ryan Ellersick, Esq. Hart Robinovitch, Esq. David Cialkowski, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com - and - Daniel Hedlund, Esq. Daniel Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Bobby Pouya, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: bpouya@pwfirm.com - and - Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. Andrew J. Ascher, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 760 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 Facsimile: (816) 492-2826 E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com andrew@boulware-law.com COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Faces Jefferson Class Suit in D.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Connections, Inc. The suit is captioned as Paul Jefferson Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02998-SLS (D.S.C., Sept. 3, 2025). The case is assigned to the Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. The suit demands $5MM in damages from the Defendant. Founded in 1985, Community Connections is a non-profit organization dedicated to connecting people with disabilities, developmental delays, and complex needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Kevin Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com DAYTON FREIGHT: Zarnick Alleges FLMA, ADA Breach Over Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCOT ZARNICK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. DAYTON FREIGHT LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01458 (W.D. Pa., September 22, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiff initiated employment with Defendant on May 12, 2012, as a pickup and delivery driver. He has been married to Heather Zarnick for 21 years. Beginning in 2023, Ms. Zarnick suffered from a chronic stomach condition and was treated for the Condition at UPMC Mercy Hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Due to Ms. Zarnick's Condition and need for care, Plaintiff first contacted Defendant's Human Resources FMLA Specialist, Jakia Hudson, in order to invoke his right to intermittent FMLA leave in September 2024. The Plaintiff invoked his FMLA rights in September 2024 to care for his spouse, and then again in February 2025 to attend to his disability relating to anxiety with the major symptom of insomnia. The Plaintiff invoked his right for FMLA leave in February 2025, Defendant approved the FMLA leave on February 13, 2025. However, the Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on March 19, 2025. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the rights afforded to him under the FMLA and his right to not be retaliated against for invoking his FMLA rights. Dayton Freight Lines, Inc. is registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a foreign business corporation formed in the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Carothers, Esq. THE WORKERS' RIGHTS LAW GROUP, LLP Foster Plaza 10 680 Andersen Drive, Suite 230 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Telephone: (412) 910-8057 Facsimile: (412) 910-7510 E-mail: patrick@workersrightslawgroup.com DOCUSIGN INC: Watkins Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles D. Watkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Docusign, Inc.; Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 25141112 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Sept. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. Accordingly, the Defendants had a consistent policy of violating state wage and hour laws by: -- failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; -- failing to pay overtime wages for all hours worked; -- failing to timely pay all earned wages; -- failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; -- failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; -- failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; -- failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and -- failure to produce all employment records. The Plaintiff's proposed classes consist of and are defined as follows: "All current or former employees of Defendants who were classified as non-exempt or earned commissions, bonuses or performance-based pay in the State of California from four years preceding the filing of this action to the date of trial." The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following Waiting Time Subclass: "All members of the Class who separated their employment from Defendants within three years prior to the filing of this action to the date of trial." Docusign is an American software company headquartered in San Francisco, California that provides products for organizations to manage electronic agreements with electronic signature on different devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Anthony J. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda Avenue, Fifteenth Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Tony@lebelaw.com EQUINIX INC: $41.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Equinix Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNIFORMED SANITATIONMEN'S ASSOCIATION COMPENSATION ACCRUAL FUND, Plaintiff, vs. EQUINIX, INC., et al., Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED EQUINIX INC. ("EQUINIX") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 3, 2019, AND MARCH 24, 2024, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that hearing will be held on December 18, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Vince Chhabria, via Zoom. Class Members and members of the public may attend the Settlement Hearing remotely by accessing the following link: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc. At the hearing, the Court will consider whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $41,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below), and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.1 IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than December 24, 2025) or electronically via the website (no later than December 24, 2025). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by December 24, 2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you purchased or acquired Equinix common stock between May 3, 2019, and March 24, 2024, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. You may review the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), access the Proof of Claim, and find the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.EquinixSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Equinix Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301133 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1133 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY DECEMBER 1, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $300,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT BY DECEMBER 1, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: September 4, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EXXON MOBIL: Must Pay Fees in Climate Deception Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL COMPANY; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA INC.; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Defendants-Appellants, Docket No. 24-1568-cv, Circuit Judge Denny Chin of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs in an opinion decided October 3, 2025. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs dissented. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in New York state court, alleging deceptive advertising practices under New York state law. The defendants removed the case to federal court, and the plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. The proceedings were stayed pending a decision in a similar case in this court. After the appeals court ruled in the other case, addressing issues similar to those raised here, the district court lifted the stay and denied the motion to remand without prejudice to allow the parties to re-brief the issues with the benefit of this court's decision. The plaintiff refiled the motion to remand and also requested attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The defendants opposed both the motion to remand and the request for fees and costs. The district court granted the motion to remand and awarded the plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs to cover a portion of the proceedings. The defendants appealed the award of attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff sued the defendants in New York state court in April 2021 for violations of New York City's Consumer Protection Law. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the law by misleading consumers in New York City about the role of the defendants' products in contributing to climate change. On May 28, 2021, the defendants removed the case to the district court below asserting seven grounds for federal jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction based on federal common law governing transboundary pollution and foreign affairs; the federal officer removal statute; the OCSLA; federal enclave jurisdiction; diversity jurisdiction; CAFA; and federal constitutional issues, specifically, the First Amendment. On June 25, 2021, the plaintiff moved to remand. The defendants opposed. On November 12, 2021, the district court stayed the case pending a decision by the appeals court in Connecticut. On September 27, 2023, the appeals court issued its opinion in Connecticut, affirming the district court's order remanding the case to the Connecticut state court. In light of that decision, on October 2, 2023, the plaintiff asked the district court to lift the stay in this case and decide its motion to remand. On October 4, 2023, the district court lifted the stay but denied the motion to remand, without prejudice, to allow the parties to re-brief the issues with the benefit of this court's decision in Connecticut. On October 20, 2023, the plaintiff refiled its motion to remand and also sought attorneys' fees and costs under Section 1447(c). On November 11, 2023, the defendants opposed the motion. The defendants dropped the OCSLA argument, but pressed two arguments that the appeals court had specifically rejected in Connecticut: federal question jurisdiction based on federal common law governing transboundary pollution and foreign affairs, and the federal officer removal statute. The defendants also reiterated four arguments that they had raised in their initial opposition to remand in this case, which had not been addressed at least not explicitly in Connecticut: federal enclave jurisdiction; diversity jurisdiction; class action jurisdiction; and federal constitutional claims. On May 8, 2024, the district court issued an opinion granting the plaintiff's motion to remand and granting in part the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs. First, the district court reviewed and rejected the six grounds asserted by the defendants for federal jurisdiction. The district court rejected the defendants' argument that federal common law governing transboundary pollution and foreign affairs dominated the field such that any claims involving those areas necessarily arose under federal law, noting that the defendants had made the same argument in many if not all of the similar consumer protection cases filed by other state and local governments and none has succeeded. The district court rejected the defendants' reliance on the federal officer removal statute, noting that it had been rejected in Connecticut. The district court rejected the defendants' reliance on federal enclave jurisdiction, calling it the silliest of all of its arguments. The district court rejected the defendants' argument that diversity jurisdiction existed because the one non-diverse defendant had been fraudulently joined, concluding that the complaint asserted a colorable claim against that party. The district court rejected the defendants' reliance on class action jurisdiction, characterizing it as second in absurdity to the federal enclave argument. Finally, the district court rejected the defendants' reliance on the First Amendment as a basis for jurisdiction. Second, the district court granted in part the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs. It awarded fees and costs in connection with arguments that it was not reasonable for the defendants to press when the plaintiff renewed its motion for remand: arguments that had largely been decided by the circuit in Connecticut, federal common law, federal officer removal, and First Amendment defenses, and those that were objectively absurd, federal enclaves and CAFA. The court further noted that although the defendants' diversity jurisdiction argument was not a winner, the court cannot say that it was unreasonable for the defendants to press that argument. Hence, the district court awarded fees only for five of the six bases asserted by the defendants for removal and only for work performed and costs incurred on those five bases after the appeals court's ruling in Connecticut. The appeals court held that Section 1447(c) provides that an order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. According to the appeals court, absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under Section 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied. On appeal, the defendants did not challenge the district court's order to remand the case; they challenged only the district court's award of fees and costs. They argued that the district court abused its discretion in awarding fees and costs because the district court made two legal errors: first, it awarded fees and costs despite finding one of the defendants' six grounds for removal to be objectively reasonable; and, second, the district court assessed the reasonableness of the grounds for removal based on the law and circumstances at the time of its renewed motion to remand rather than at the time the case was initially removed. The appeals court held that the defendants' argument ignores the words absent unusual circumstances. The court made clear that, in unusual circumstances, fees could be assessed under Section 1447(c) even if there was a reasonable basis for removal. This case, in the appeals court's view, clearly presented unusual circumstances. The defendants' renewed opposition to remand in this case was not made in a vacuum, but after efforts to remove similar state cases to federal court had been rejected all around the country. On November 11, 2023, when the defendants renewed their opposition to the plaintiff's motion to remand below, their arguments opposing remand had been rejected by eight circuits, the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth as well as by this court in Connecticut, and by at least eleven district courts including the district court in Connecticut. The appeals court stated that although the defendants may have removed this case in good faith in 2021, their opposition to the plaintiff's renewed motion to remand, which was briefed in October 2023, made multiple arguments that had previously been made to and universally rejected by federal courts across the country. The defendants conceded that Connecticut controlled one of its grounds for removal, but conceded nothing else, despite the string of cases in district and circuit courts that have rejected the very arguments they were pursuing. Whatever may have been the state of play in 2021, this can no longer be considered a good faith litigation strategy. The appeals court held that this case presented unusual circumstances such that the district court had the discretion to award fees and costs pursuant to Section 1447(c) even though, as the district court found, the defendants had one objectively reasonable though meritless basis for removing the case in 2021 and for renewing their opposition to remand in November 2023. The appeals court concluded that the district court did not err in evaluating the soundness of the defendants' jurisdictional arguments in 2023, when the defendants renewed their jurisdictional arguments for removal, rather than when the case was first removed in 2021. The appeals court stated that while it might have been problematic if the district court had awarded the plaintiff fees and costs from the point of removal in 2021, it awarded fees and costs only in connection with arguments that it was not reasonable for defendants to press when the plaintiff renewed its motion to remand. The appeals court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs to the extent that it did, that is, for work done after the court issued its decision in Connecticut and only with respect to five of the six grounds asserted by the defendants. Indeed, the final award is only $68,262.46, a nominal sum in the context of the overall, nation-wide litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wc5nub6 from PacerMonitor.com GFB RESTAURANTS: Robinson Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAYLA ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GFB RESTAURANTS LLC; HEMINGWAYS HOSPITALITY LLC; LOUISE GOETZ; BRUNILDA XHOKA; FLORENCA XHOKA; and GERTI XHOKA, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02556 (M.D. Fla., September 22, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages for Plaintiff and her similarly situated employees who were not paid any wages for the hours they worked between May 6, 2025 and May 31, 2025 pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida's Minimum Wage Act. Pursuant to Defendants' policies and practices, the Defendants repeatedly violated the state and federals laws by failing to compensate Plaintiff, other tipped employees, and other similarly situated employees at the minimum rate for tipped employees, says the suit. Plaintiff Robinson was employed by the Defendants as a server in Pinellas County, Florida from July 7, 2024 to May 31,2025. GFB Restaurants LLC owns and operates Bogota Kitchen + Bar, a Latin-themed bar in downtown Palm Harbor, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brien V. Squires, Esq. SQUIRES LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 922-2803 Email: brien@squires-legal.com GOHLKE & COMPANY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Landrum Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA LANDRUM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GOHLKE & COMPANY, P.C., Case No. 4:25-cv-04597 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 26, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and Protected Health Information about its current and former clients and their employees and/or customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On April 17, 2025, the Defendant "observed unusual activity on [its] computer network." The Defendant's investigation revealed that the Data Breach occurred between April 10 and April 17, 2025. The Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals roam undetected for an entire week and steal its current and former clients' and their employees' and/or customers' Private Information, asserts the suit. The cybersecurity incident compromised the Private Information of Defendant's current and former clients and their employees and/or customers, including but not limited to names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or State ID numbers, payment card numbers (and PINs and expiration dates), and health insurance information, the suit adds. Gohlke is an accounting firm based in Texas that provides services including professional tax, accounting, bookkeeping, and business consulting services for businesses and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com HARVARD DRUG: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Claims in "Kouyate" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Moussa Kouyate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Harvard Drug Group LLC d/b/a Rugby Laboratories, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-6223-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. The Harvard Drug Group LLC is a Michigan limited liability company that manufactures, markets, and sells acne medication products formulated with the chemical compound benzoyl peroxide. The Defendant sells its products under the brand name Rugby Laboratories. One of the Defendant's products is its Rugby Laboratories Benzoyl Peroxide Wash USP 10% (the BPO Product). An active ingredient in the BPO Product is benzoyl peroxide, which is used to treat acne. In approximately 2024, Moussa Kouyate, a resident and citizen of The Bronx, in New York City, was prescribed the BPO Product by his physician. He filled that prescription at a pharmacy in the Bronx. The Plaintiff reviewed the accompanying labels and disclosures on the product before purchasing it. After purchasing the BPO Product, the Plaintiff subjected the BPO Product to testing by an independent laboratory. The laboratory tested the BPO Product at room temperature, the temperature at which the label recommends storing the BPO Product. The test detected benzene—a known carcinogen—in the BPO Product. The specific BPO Product that the Plaintiff purchased was shown to contain benzene at levels that vastly exceed 2 parts per million . The Plaintiff alleged that collectively, all lots of the Defendant's BPO Products contain and/or systematically degrade to form benzene. However, nowhere on the BPO Product's labeling or anywhere in its marketing disclosed that the BPO Product contains benzene or can degrade to form benzene. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration expressly approves of the use of benzoyl peroxide in over-the-counter acne products. On August 16, 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this putative class action lawsuit. The Plaintiff asserted three claims against the Defendant: a claim for violations of Section 350 of the New York General Business Law (Section 350), which prohibits false advertising; a claim for common law fraud based on the Defendant's alleged failure to disclose that the acne wash contains benzene or that the benzoyl peroxide in the product could degrade to form benzene; and a claim for negligence per se based on the Defendant's alleged violation of a state criminal law that bans the sale of misbranded and adulterated drugs. The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The Defendant argued that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq. (the FDCA)—which regulates the sale and labeling of over-the-counter acne products made with benzoyl peroxide—preempts the Plaintiff's state law claims. According to the Defendant, it cannot be sued under state law for conduct that does not violate the FDCA, including for the omission of a warning about benzene that the federal law does not require. Nothing about its acne wash, the Defendant contended, violates the FDCA. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Because the FDCA does not require the Defendant to disclose that its acne wash contains or could degrade to form benzene, the Plaintiff's Section 350 and fraud claims based on those omitted warnings are preempted. The Plaintiff's negligence per se claim is also preempted because the Defendant's alleged sale of an acne product made with benzoyl peroxide—an FDA approved ingredient—that degrades to form benzene does not violate federal law. The FDCA contains an express preemption provision for conflicting state laws governing over-the-counter drugs. The FDCA states: no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect any requirement (1) that relates to the regulation of a drug and (2) that is different from or in addition to, or that is otherwise not identical with, a requirement under this chapter. In other words, the FDCA preempts not only those state laws that are in conflict with it (i.e., any law that is different from the FDCA), but also any state law that provides for requirements that are not exactly the same as those set forth in the FDCA and its regulations (i.e., any law that is in addition to the FDCA). The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims based on the alleged omission of warnings about benzene are expressly preempted. The FDA has promulgated rules regulating what must be included on labels of over-the-counter acne products made with benzoyl peroxide. The regulations have therefore stated, with specificity, what information is necessary to avoid misleading consumers. The FDA's regulations do not require a warning that benzoyl peroxide may degrade into benzene. Because the FDA's regulations have already stated, with specificity, what information is necessary to avoid misleading consumers, the Plaintiff's claims based on the alleged omission of a warning that was not required by the FDCA and the FDA are expressly preempted. As pleaded, the Acne Monograph does not require the Defendant to disclose that the BPO Product contains benzene because the Complaint does not allege that the Defendant intentionally used benzene in its products. The benzene the Plaintiff allegedly found in the Defendant's BPO Product does not fit the definition of an active or inactive ingredient that needs to be disclosed on its label. The Plaintiff does not allege that benzene was a component intended to contribute to the treatment of acne such that it was an active ingredient, nor does the Plaintiff allege that benzene was an inactive ingredient that the Defendant intended for use in its manufacturing. Rather, the Plaintiff expressly alleges that the Defendant's BPO Products are not designed to contain benzene. Instead, the very thrust of the Plaintiff's theory is that benzoyl peroxide systematically degrades to form benzene. The Plaintiff's negligence per se claim is preempted because federal law does not prohibit the sale of the Defendant's BPO Product under the circumstances pleaded. As pleaded, the BPO Product is not adulterated or misbranded under the FDCA. The central premise of the Plaintiff's case is that benzoyl peroxide degrades into benzene. The Acne Monograph expressly permits benzoyl peroxide to be used as an active ingredient in a concentration of 2.5 to 10 percent. If a particular over-the-counter acne drug product complies with the conditions of the Acne Monograph and each of the general conditions required for all over-the-counter drugs, it is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded. Notwithstanding this federal law, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's use of benzoyl peroxide makes the product unsafe because it resulted in benzene contamination. The Plaintiff's allegations boil down to a claim that all acne drugs containing benzoyl peroxide are unsafe because they contain benzene, or will degrade into benzene under normal conditions, and benzene is unsafe in any amount. The claim is, therefore, essentially an attack on the FDA's determination that over-the-counter acne drugs containing benzoyl peroxide are generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded if they comply with the monograph. Contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the FDA has not imposed a 2 ppm benzene limit that cabins the Acne Monograph's approval of benzoyl peroxide as a safe and effective active ingredient for use in acne products. The Plaintiff cites only non-binding FDA guidance that does not stand for the proposition that an acne product is adulterated because it contains greater than 2 ppm of benzene. The FDA guidance expressly states: This guidance represents the current thinking of the FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. Neither guidance has the force of law. The Plaintiff's backstop argument that the BPO Product is adulterated because the Defendant failed to test the products in violation of the current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs), or that the benzene contamination was allowed to occur because of the Defendant's failure to comply with cGMPs, is not supported by the pleadings. The allegations of cGMPs violations on which the Plaintiff relies are wholly conclusory. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. The Plaintiff's conclusory allegation alone is insufficient to establish that the Defendant violated the cGMPs. The Plaintiff does not plausibly state a claim for a violation of Section 350 based on any affirmative misstatement. The Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law because he does not plausibly plead the existence of any misrepresentation, let alone one that would mislead a reasonable consumer. The Plaintiff's non-preempted Section 350 claim rests on his contention that—based on no particular statement, symbol, or any other identifiable reason—he reviewed the BPO Product's labels and disclosures and understood them to be false representations and warranties by the manufacturer that the BPO Product was properly manufactured, free from defects, safe for its intended use, and not adulterated or misbranded. Because the Complaint does not allege that the BPO Product's label allegedly contained any such representations, the Plaintiff's claim fails. The Plaintiff concedes that he has not asserted any actionable misrepresentation. The Defendant expressly argues that the Plaintiff has not stated an actionable affirmative misrepresentation because he has not alleged a specific, non-generalized statement by the Defendant in its labeling or advertising. The Complaint does not point to one concrete example of such misrepresentations. Faced with this argument, the Plaintiff failed to identify any representations on the label, or otherwise explain why he understood the label as making certain representations. The Plaintiff does not state a claim for common law fraud, either. His claim is preempted to the extent it rests on a failure to disclose the benzene omissions, and he has not otherwise adequately pleaded a material misrepresentation or scienter. As with its Section 350 claim, the Plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded that the Defendant made any material misrepresentation. Even if he had identified a misstatement, as an additional basis to dismiss, the Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent. The Plaintiff's argument in support of scienter is entirely conclusory. Such bare allegations are inadequate. The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. It is the usual practice upon dismissing a complaint to allow leave to replead. The Court cannot conclude that further amendment would not cure these deficiencies. The Court therefore grants the Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint solely to cure the deficiencies identified with respect to these claims no later than thirty days from the date of this order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C9LQe7 from PacerMonitor.com HC PROPTECH: $775,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MARK J. WUCHTER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders of Appreciate Holdings, Inc. f/k/a PropTech II Investment Corp., PLAINTIFF, VS. THOMAS HENNESSY, M. JOSEPH BECK, DANIEL HENNESSY, JACK LEENEY, COURTNEY ROBINSON, GLORIA FU, MARGARET WHELAN, ADAM BLAKE, AND HC PROPTECH PARTNERS II, LLC, DEFENDANTS. CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 2024-0596-MTZ SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record and beneficial holders of PropTech II's common stock who held such stock during the time period from October 4, 2022, through November 29, 2022 (the "Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at www.PropTechIIStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice or in the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement dated February 3, 2025 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at www.PropTechIIStockholdersLitigation.com. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned putative consolidated stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Plaintiff Mark J. Wuchter ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all the other members of the Settlement Class; and (ii) Defendants Thomas Hennessy, M. Joseph Beck, Daniel Hennessy, Jack Leeney, Courtney Robinson, Gloria Fu, Margaret Whelan, Adam Blake and HC PropTech Partners II, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") (Plaintiff and Defendants together, the "Parties") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement") for $775,000.00 (United States Dollars) in cash (the "Settlement Amount"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on November 21, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Morgan T. Zurn, Vice Chancellor, at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class, and whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel should be finally appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiff and the other members of the Settlement Class and in their best interests; (iv) determine whether the proposed Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether and in what amount any award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to Plaintiff's Counsel ("Fee and Expense Award") should be paid out of the Settlement Fund, including any incentive award to Plaintiff ("Incentive Award") to be paid solely from any Fee and Expense Award; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, including any Incentive Award to Plaintiff (the "Fee and Expense Application"); and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date, time, or format of the hearing or updates regarding remote or in-person appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.PropTechIIStockholdersLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator by mail at PropTech II Stockholders Litigation, c/o Analytics Consulting LLC, PO Box 2002, Chanhassen, MN 55377-2002; by telephone at 833-699-5692; or by email at info@ PropTechIIStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.PropTechIIStockholdersLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of shares of PropTech II common stock Shares held at the close of business on November 29, 2022 ("Eligible Shares") and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail in the Notice, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, including Plaintiff's application for Incentive Award, must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than November 6, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: PropTech II Stockholders Litigation c/o Analytics Consulting LLC PO Box 2002 Eden Prairie, MN 55317-2002 Toll-free: 833-699-5692 info@PropTechIIStockholdersLitigation.com www.PropTechIIStockholdersLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Long-Form Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel: Eric Lechtzin Edelson Lechtzin LLP 411 South State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 215-867‑2399 Ext. 1 elechtzin@edelson-law.com Russell Paul Berger Montague PC 800 N. West Street, 2nd floor Wilmington, DE 19801 302-691-9545 rpaul@bm.net DATED: September 29, 2025 HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Chadwell Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN CHADWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05046-JDW (E.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information who were impacted in a data breach Defendant experienced on or around October 7, 2024. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant provides housekeeping, laundry, dining, and nutritional services to the healthcare industry. Defendant partners with healthcare facilities nationwide to deliver specialized support services to patients and residents, while employing thousands of individuals across the United States. Defendant is headquartered in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On Oct. 7, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a security incident on its IT Network. The Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party gained access and copied certain files from Defendant’s computer network between September 27, 2024, and October 3, 2024. The Defendant then launched a comprehensive review of the incident to identify the exact type of information compromised as well as identify the individuals affected in the data breach. Plaintiff Chadwell is a natural person and citizen of Gray, Kentucky, where she intends to remain. The Defendant provides housekeeping, laundry, dinning, and nutritional services to the healthcare industry and is headquartered in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, having its principal place of business located at 3220 Tillman Drive, Bensalem, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 E. Butler Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Facsimile: (877) 600-2112 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com INSIGHT PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lagosz Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LAGOSZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INSIGHT PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08007 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Insight, arising from its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information and protected health information of 12,657 of its current and former employees, resulting in Defendant’s network systems being unauthorizedly accessed on or around October 25, 2024. According to the Defendant's Breach Notice, on January 16, 2025, "Insight's information technology team detected that an unauthorized third-party had gained access to information systems used by the Insight Partners human resources and finance teams." Worse, an internal investigation revealed that "on or around October 25, 2024, a threat actor successfully used a sophisticated social engineering attack to gain access to the affected servers. Once inside, the threat actor began exfiltrating data from these servers, and beginning at or around 10:00 a.m. EST on January 16, 2025, began encrypting these servers," says the suit. On information and belief, the cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. On or around September 2, 2025 -- more than seven months after the Data Breach first occurred -- Insight finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. INSIGHT PARTNERS, LLC is a business advisory firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 861-1398 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Grant Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA LYNN GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JASPER THERAPEUTICS, INC., RONALD A. MARTELL, HERBERT C. CROSS, and EDWIN TUCKER, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-08010 (N.D. Cal., September 19, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Jasper securities between November 30, 2023 and July 3, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Jasper lacked the controls and procedures necessary to ensure that the third-party manufacturers on which it relied were manufacturing products in full accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices regulations and otherwise suitable for use in clinical trials; (ii) the foregoing failure increased the risk that results of ongoing studies would be confounded, thereby negatively impacting the regulatory and commercial prospects of the Company's products, including briquilimab; (iii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of disruptive cost-reduction measures; (iv) accordingly, the Company's business and/or financial prospects, as well as briquilimab's clinical and/or commercial prospects, were overstated; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, Jasper's stock price fell $3.73 per share, or 55.1%, to close at $3.04 per share on July 7, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company with focus on developing therapeutics targeting mast cell driven diseases such as Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com LEAD ELITE: Faces Salaiz Class Suit Over Telemarketing Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIK SALAIZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEAD ELITE L.L.C. and REALTY ONE GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00365-LS (W.D. Tex., Sept. 3, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged illegal practice of placing unsolicited telemarketing phone calls to people on the Do Not Call list, and to redress injuries suffered by the Class pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On April 3, 2025, the Plaintiff received three unsolicited calls from Defendant. The calls marketed Realty One's residential real estate agents. The Plaintiff did not give his prior express written consent to receive any of the alleged calls. None of the alleged calls were made to Plaintiff for emergency purposes, asserts the suit. Realty One is a residential real estate company. Lead Elite is its marketing vendor. [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) 300-0343 LG H&H: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. LG H&H USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08004 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://lgbeauty.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 offers the commercial website, https://lgbeauty.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[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 M.A.C. COSMETICS: Javid Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action Lawsuit captioned as FIZA JAVID, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., Case No. 2025CH08774 (Filed Aug. 25, 2025) was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for The Northern District Of Illinois Eastern on Sept. 26, 2025. The Northern District of Illinois Eastern Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11693 to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that every time Plaintiff and the putative class members used M.A.C.'s "try on" tool in a M.A.C. store or on M.A.C.'s website to virtually apply makeup to their faces, "M.A.C. scanned captured, collected, and/or obtained, stored, accessed, and used" their "biometric identifiers and biometric information." The Plaintiff alleges that M.A.C. violated BIPA each time its virtual "try on" tool was used. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC. is a cosmetics manufacturer.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 360 North Green Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ricci Sues Over Dangerous Roundup Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD RICCI, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01429 (E.D. Mo., September 22, 2025) seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the alleged wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff's decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide Caused Illness, Zurn Says ------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK ZURN, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of CLARENCE ZURN, deceased, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01436 (E.D. Mo., September 22, 2025) seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the alleged wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff's decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Shawly Sues Over Dangerous Roundup Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- NABILA SHAWLY, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01430 (E.D. Mo., September 22, 2025) seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the alleged wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff's decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Simpson Balks at Herbicide's Health Risks ----------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA SIMPSON, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-0143 (E.D. Mo., September 22, 2025) seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the alleged wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff's decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Spicer Sues Over Harmful Herbicide Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- DOLORES SPICER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-0135 (E.D. Mo., September 22, 2025) seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the alleged wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff's decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Samhita Gera, derivatively on behalf of Opendoor Technologies Inc. (f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II), Plaintiff, v. Chamath Palihapitiya, Steven Trieu, Ian Osborne, David Spillane, Adam Bain, Eric Wu, Carrie Wheeler, Cipora Herman, Pueo Keffer, Glen Solomon, Jason Kilar, Jonathan Jaffe, John Rice, and SCH Sponsor II LLC, Defendants and Opendoor Technologies Inc. (f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II) Nominal Defendant. Case No. 2:23-cv-02164-MTL NOTICE TO CURRENT OPENDOOR STOCKHOLDERS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES INC. COMMON STOCK (TICKER SYMBOL: OPEN) AS OF JUNE 27, 2025. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. On June 27, 2025, Opendoor, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into the Stipulation to resolve the Derivative Actions. The Derivative Actions were filed on behalf of Opendoor in this Court, the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company, SCH Sponsor II LLC ("Sponsor"), and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The Stipulation and the settlement contemplated therein (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of the Court, are intended by the Settling Parties to fully, finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge, dismiss, and settle the Released Claims and to result in the complete dismissal of the Derivative Actions with prejudice, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The proposed Settlement requires the Company to adopt certain corporate governance reforms and procedures, as outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation. In light of the substantial benefits conferred upon Opendoor by Plaintiffs' Counsel's efforts, the Company and Plaintiffs' Counsel have participated in negotiations regarding the attorneys' fee and expenses to be paid by Defendants' insurers to Plaintiffs' Counsel, and have agreed that Defendants' insurers shall pay to Plaintiffs' Counsel $1.95 million in attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to Court approval. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall also apply to the Court for service awards to be paid to each of the Plaintiffs and Ingrao in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) each (the "Service Awards"), to be paid out of any attorneys' fees and expense award. This Notice does not describe all of the details of the Stipulation. For full details of the matters discussed herein, please see the full Stipulation and its exhibits posted on the Company's website, https://investor.opendoor.com/ir-resources/shareholder-derivativesettlement-information, contact Plaintiff Gera's counsel at the address listed below, or inspect the full Stipulation and its exhibits filed with the Clerk of the Court. On September 11, 2025, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated therein (the "Preliminary Approval Order") and providing for notice of the Settlement to be made to Current Opendoor Stockholders. The Preliminary Approval Order further provides that the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on November 25, 2025 at 10:00a.m. before the Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Suite 524, Phoenix, AZ 85003 to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders; (ii) consider any objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with this Notice; (iii) determine whether a judgment should be entered dismissing all claims in the Gera Action with prejudice, and releasing the Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iv) [determine whether the Court should approve the Fee and Expense Amount agreed upon by the Settling Parties]; (v) determine whether the Court should approve the Service Awards, to be paid out of any attorneys' fees and expense award; and (vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any Current Opendoor Stockholder who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, or to the attorneys' fees and expense request by Plaintiffs' Counsel, may file with the Court a written objection no later than November 4, 2025. CURRENT OPENDOOR STOCKHOLDERS AS OF JUNE 27, 2025 WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION. You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiff's Counsel at: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY, 10017, Telephone: (516) 922-5427, E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net. PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ORKIN INC: Faces Santos Suit Over Property's Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTEBAN SANTOS, Plaintiff v. ORKIN, INC.; MULTI-SITE MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02480-JO-DEB (S.D. Cal., September 20, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons with disabilities against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff went to the gas station on August 24, 2025, and purchased a drink at a property owned by the Defendants located in Santee, California. During Plaintiff's visit, the Defendants did not offer persons with disabilities equivalent facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered to other persons. The Plaintiff, instead, encountered architectural barriers that interfered with and denied him the ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered by Defendants at the subject property, says the suit. Specifically, there is no accessible parking for disabled persons at the subject property because there are insufficient accessible parking spaces designated for disabled persons and/or the existing ostensibly designated space or spaces are significantly noncompliant with the applicable ADA and the California Building Codes standards, the suit alleges. The Defendants operate and operated a gas station doing business as CHEVRON located at the subject property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Valenti, Esq. VALENTI LAW APC 10174 Austin Drive #1116 Spring Valley, CA 91979 Telephone: (619) 540-2189 E-mail: mattvalenti@valentilawapc.com OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Doe Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Overlake Hospital Medical Center (Case No. 25-00002-22669-7 SEA), was removed from King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) on Sept. 5, 2025. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01711-RAJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones. The nature of suit states Personal Injury.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Rebecca Luise Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave. Ste. 1700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander Vitruk, Esq. Logan Frison Peppin, Esq. Paul Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 3rd Ave. Ste. 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 332-1380 E-mail: avitruk@bakerlaw.com lpeppin@bakerlaw.com pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com PECO FOODS: Broiler Chicken Growers Sue 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. PECO FOODS, INC.; CASE FOODS, INC.; CASE FARMS PROCESSING, INC.; FIELDALE FARMS CORP.; MAR-JAC POULTRY, INC.; MAR-JAC POULTRY MS, LLC; MAR-JAC POULTRY AL, LLC; MAR-JAC POULTRY, LLC; MAR-JAC HOLDINGS, INC.; SIMMONS FOODS, INC.; HARRISON POULTRY, INC.; CLAXTON POULTRY FARMS D/B/A FRIES FARMS; and NORMAN W. FRIES, INC., D/B/A CLAXTON POULTRY FARMS, INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11348 (N.D. Ill., September 19, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of a proposed class of broiler chicken growers against the Defendants, which operate Broiler processing plants. The case arises 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, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that 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. Plaintiff Haff Poultry, Inc. is owned by Steve Haff, his wife, and his father-in-law. Haff Poultry, Inc. began providing Broiler Grow-Out Services for Hudson, a major poultry producer, in Oklahoma in 1996. Peco Foods, Inc. is a privately owned poultry processor founded in 1937 and is headquartered in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Schwartz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 257-0255 Email: rschwartz@bergermontague.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 PORSCHE CARS: Face Herdtner Class Suit Over PHEV Charging Time -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL HERDTNER and JOHN HOLBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05522-ELR (N.D. Ga., Sept. 26, 2025) is a case about Porsche electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles that allegedly take twice as long to charge as when sold. According to the complaint, PCNA distributes devices for sale and lease that charge the vehicles' batteries. But the devices often failed to do so at the advertised speed. A post-sale software change meant to counteract the devices' dangerous overheating only compounded the problem, rather than resolving it, by systematically limiting the devices' charging rate to half of what was advertised. As a result, consumers who purchased or leased the charging devices have paid for functionality that PCNA advertises but that the devices cannot safely provide. PCNA knew that its software change would not solve this issue but has not provided its customers with a true remedy for this problem. Its conduct is illegal, alleges the suit. PCNA offers two devices for home charging Porsche electric and plug-in hybrid cars: the Porsche Mobile Charger Plus (PMC+) and the Porsche Mobile Charger Connect (PMCC). Both require an industrial electrical feed outlet, capable of providing 40 amperes of current, to reach a full charge at the advertised speed of 9.5 to 10.5 hours. The charging devices come with an industrial supply cable to connect the charger to the feed outlet. Consumers began to notice that the devices were overheating and alerted PCNA. At its worst, the overheating caused damage to the outlet and created a potential fire hazard. At best, it prevented the vehicles from charging at the advertised speed. PCNA deployed what it called an update: it asked consumers to bring their PMC+ and PMCC charging devices to dealerships. What PCNA failed to explain is that its technicians would simply change the charging device settings to cut the maximum output current in half, which had the practical impact of doubling charging time. PCNA also released a software update for the chargers with the same effect (both measures will be referred to as the Charger Restriction), the suit further asserts. The Defendant's line of business includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: G. Franklin Lemond, Jr. E. Adam Webb G. Franklin Lemond, Jr. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Franklin@WebbLLC.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1434 Spruce Street, Suite 301 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 Facsimile: (866) 912-8897 E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com - and - Simon Wiener Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 33 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (202) 921-4567 Facsimile: (866) 912-8897 E-mail: swiener@hfajustice.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com - and - Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Watson Says ---------------------------------------------------------- AMBERLY WATSON, SHAQUITA HOUSTON, and LISA CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALESFORCE, INC., and TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-08051 (N.D. Cal., September 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information, such as names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, billing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, provided by and belonging to their customers, including Plaintiffs. On August 26, 2025, TransUnion reported that the PII of 4,461,511 had been accessed in a data breach "involving a third party application" that TransUnion discovered on or about July 30, 2025. As a result of Defendants' actions, the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members was compromised through access to and exfiltration by an unknown and unauthorized third party, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class members; (ii) warn Plaintiffs and Class members of their inadequate information security practices; and (iii) contract with responsible contractors. Defendants' conduct amounts to at least negligence and violates federal statutes designed to prevent or mitigate this very harm. Salesforce is a software company that provides cloud-based software platforms for use in sales, marketing, e-commerce, analytics, customer service, and other uses to companies such as Defendant TransUnion. TransUnion is an American credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230–0800 Facsimile: (619) 230–1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Andrew J. Heo, Esq. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite #3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 E-mail: aheo@barrack.com SAMUEL HUBBARD: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Samuel Hubbard Shoe Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11432 (N.D. Ill., September 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. While attempting to use the Defendant's website on July 1, 2025, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the transaction. Specifically, the size selection buttons could not be activated or selected using the Enter or Space keys, and therefore could only be selected with a mouse. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Samuel Hubbard Shoe Company's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Samuel Hubbard Shoe Company, LLC operates the website that offers various type of shoes, such as sneakers, loafers and slip-ons, dress and casual styles, and boots, as well as related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SENECA COUNTY, NY: Sullivan Sues Over Unlawful Taking of Property ----------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY SULLIVAN and SANDRA SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SENECA COUNTY, New York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06483-EAW (W.D.N.Y., September 13, 2025) seeks relief from New York governmental taxing entities' practice of unconstitutionally taking Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff Class members' property for public use without providing just compensation. According to the complaint, after Defendants foreclosed a property for taxes owed, they sold, retained, or transferred Plaintiffs' property. But rather than keeping the amount owed in taxes and reimbursing the taxpayer the remaining balance, Seneca County and the Defendant Class members unconstitutionally took all the property including the "Surplus Proceeds," meaning the full amount of the sale proceeds or the full equity of the property above and beyond what was owed in taxes and associated fees. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this class action seeking to compensate them for the taking of their Surplus Proceeds and to ensure they receive just compensation. In addition, Plaintiffs also assert claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the New York Constitution and New York's Real Property Tax Law. Seneca County is a political subdivision in the state of New York. Its government oversees the law enforcement, public safety (via sheriff's departments), and road maintenance. It also manages elections, collects taxes, and provides health and social services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George F. Carpinello, Esq. Jenna Smith, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 12th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434-0600 Facsimile: (518) 434-0665 E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com jsmith@bsfllp.com - and - Jack Wilson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 E-mail: jwilson@bsfllp.com - and - David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Jonathan D. Pincus, Esq. JONATHAN D. PINCUS, ESQ. 10 Whitestone Ln Rochester, NY 14618-4118 Telephone: (585) 732-8515 E-mail: jdp@jdpincus.com - and - Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Patrick J. Brickman, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 Fax E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com pbrickman@dworkenlaw.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Shana M. Solomon, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. Michael D. Hanify, Esq. Kat Mail, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, CHARTERED, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207)791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com ssolomon@preti.com equinby@preti.com mhanify@preti.com kmail@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Zahra R. Dean KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com zdean@kohnswift.com - and - Ronald P. Friedberg, Esq. MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS 28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 831-0042 Facsimile: (216) 831-0542 E-mail: rfriedberg@meyersroman.com SPECIALTYCARE INC: Court OKs Partial Class Certification in "Fuchs" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Nathan Fuchs et al., Plaintiffs, v. SpecialtyCare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00892 (M.D. Tenn.), Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class for declaratory relief and two Rule 23(b)(3) subclasses for monetary damages, while denying certification for TILA actual damages and rejecting the proposed class notice. The Plaintiffs, Nathan Fuchs and Caitlin Bailey, are surgical neurophysiologists formerly employed by SpecialtyCare. They seek to certify two classes in connection with claims arising from a Repayment Agreement, which provides that surgical neurophysiologists must pay SpecialtyCare $15,000 to $30,000 if they resign from their jobs within three years. More than 300 surgical neurophysiologists have been subject to SpecialtyCare's Repayment Agreement during the proposed class period. The remaining claims after the Court's prior dismissal order are a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (Count III), unlawful restraint of trade (Count IV), and unlawful liquidated damages provision (Count V). The proposed definition for both classes is identical: all surgical neurophysiologists employed by SpecialtyCare and subject to its training repayment agreement at any point from August 23, 2017, to the present. The Court found that the proposed classes satisfy all four requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Regarding numerosity, the Court stated that more than 300 surgical neurophysiologists have been subject to SpecialtyCare's Repayment Agreement during the proposed class period. Generally, the number of members of the proposed class, if more than several hundred, easily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1). SpecialtyCare does not contest numerosity. As to commonality, the Court noted that all of the Plaintiffs' claims revolve around the Repayment Agreement. Whether the Repayment Agreement is unreasonable is a common question for the proposed class. Another common question is whether the Repayment Agreement is a private education loan subject to TILA. The Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim also presents common questions such as whether the liquidated-damages provision in the Repayment Agreement rises to the level of being an unlawful penalty. All the putative class members were subject to nearly identical terms and training. SpecialtyCare does not contest commonality. For typicality, the Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims stem from SpecialtyCare's use of the Repayment Agreement, which it applied uniformly to the proposed classes. These claims arise from common factual elements, specifically the terms of the Repayment Agreement and related practices by SpecialtyCare, and rely on the same legal theories. As for the TILA claim, the Court agreed that detrimental reliance is not required for statutory damages and attorneys' fees under TILA. Concerning adequacy, the Court addressed SpecialtyCare's arguments that mirrored its typicality arguments and rejected them for the same reasons. However, the Court found that Fuchs does not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment claim or seek injunctive relief because he is not subject to the Release Agreement anymore. Therefore, Fuchs is not an adequate Rule 23(b)(2) class representative. The Court found that the Plaintiffs are adequate representatives for the Rule 23(b)(3) class and that Bailey is an adequate representative for the Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class for declaratory and injunctive relief. To certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs must show the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. SpecialtyCare argued that the putative class members' claims are not cohesive because surgical neurophysiologists signed various repayment agreements and experienced different costs associated with their training. However, the Court stated that SpecialtyCare does not provide sufficient elements to support that any differences in terms would render the class incohesive. SpecialtyCare only points to one different agreement with minimal differences, which are immaterial to the relief Plaintiffs seek. SpecialtyCare also contended that Nathan Fuchs and several putative class members do not have a reimbursement obligation under the Repayment Agreement and thus lack standing and would not benefit from the proposed relief. The Court found this reasoning persuasive, noting that the absence of injury as to some members of a Rule 23(b)(2) class is not problematic because the relief available is declaratory and injunctive in nature. Class members who were not harmed would not accrue any benefits as a result of the issuance of a declaratory judgment or injunction, nor presumably would they care that they had been included in such a class. Rule 23(b)(3) Certification The Court certified two Rule 23(b)(3) subclasses with modifications to the class definition. Rule 23(b)(3) classes must meet predominance and superiority requirements, meaning questions of law or fact common to class members must predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and class treatment must be superior to other available methods. The Court found it necessary to refine the proposed class definition. The Court excluded from the Rule 23(b)(3) class definition putative class members who signed general releases and split the class into two subclasses: one unlawful-restraint-of-trade subclass and one TILA subclass. As to the unlawful-restraint-of-trade subclass, the Court excluded surgical neurophysiologists who resigned within 30 days and those who qualified for a contractual exception to the repayment obligation. For the unlawful restraint of trade claim, the Court found that most factors pertaining to the reasonableness of the Repayment Agreement are amenable to general and common proof. The consideration supporting the Repayment Agreement, the threatened danger to SpecialtyCare, and whether the Repayment Agreement is against public interest are questions that can be disposed of on a common basis because each class member was subject to the same or substantially same agreement. The Plaintiffs have shown that the same is true for sub-factors pertaining to SpecialtyCare's legitimate business interests given the uniformity of training, job duties, and structure of the Repayment Agreement. SpecialtyCare argued that individualized issues would predominate as to economic hardship. The Court found that inquiries based on personal circumstances will not predominate over common issues, especially because the reasonableness analysis will likely boil down to whether SpecialtyCare's interest in enforcing the Repayment Agreement outweighs any impact on surgical neurophysiologists' mobility and wages. The examples of personal circumstances that SpecialtyCare provides are a better measure of post facto mitigation than any underlying impact on mobility or wages. The Court concluded that whether individualized issues of damages will predominate depends on the Plaintiffs' ability to calculate any wage-suppression damages on a class-wide basis. For purposes of the pending Motion, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' expert report meets this burden. For the TILA claim, the Court found that whether SpecialtyCare has failed to make required disclosures can be resolved through generalized proof. However, SpecialtyCare argued that individualized inquiries would predominate as to actual damages because the core question is whether each putative class member relied upon the purported lack of disclosures. The Court noted that TILA Section 1640(a) provides for two types of damage awards: statutory damages and actual damages, and actual damages require a showing of detrimental reliance. To establish detrimental reliance, the debtor must demonstrate that he or she would either have received a better interest rate for the loans elsewhere or would have elected not to take the loan had the required information been available. In order to establish these actual damages, courts have required the plaintiff to show the TILA violation was the proximate cause of any actual damages. The Court found that the portion of the TILA claim based on actual damages does not meet the predominance requirement because each plaintiff must prove, in addition to the amount of damages, causation in fact and reliance, meaning that proof at trial must necessarily focus on whether each individual plaintiff read, understood, and relied upon the TILA disclosures. Conversely, the Court found that the portion of the TILA claim based on statutory damages meets the predominance requirement. The Court found that the superiority and ascertainability requirements are satisfied. The similarity of claims diminishes the class members' interest in controlling separate actions. Concentration of the claims in this Court and their common resolution is desirable, as it will streamline the resolution of the claims and conserve judicial and litigation resources. Given that the Court mitigated any individualized inquiries by narrowing the definition of and splitting the Rule 23(b)(3) class into two subclasses, the Court is not persuaded that substantial difficulties will arise in managing the class. The Court found that the class definition, as reshaped, is both definite and relies upon objective criteria to determine class membership. The record in this case contains sufficient information to determine membership in the exclusionary categories. The Plaintiffs seek approval and distribution of their proposed notice. SpecialtyCare opposes this request. The Court found it premature to approve and distribute a class notice for the Rule 23(b)(2) class because of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Motion to Dismiss, which is potentially dispositive of this entire case. As for the Rule 23(b)(3) class, the Plaintiffs' request is moot because their proposed notice is based on a now-obsolete class definition. Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification was granted in part and denied in part. The Motion was granted as to the Rule 23(b)(2) class, granted as to the Rule 23(b)(3) class as redefined, and denied as to the notice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3gsVtB from PacerMonitor.com T.R.A. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Gordon Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GORDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T.R.A. INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A HUNTWOOD INDUSTRIES, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00371-TOR (E.D. Wash., September 19, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Data Breach Disclosure Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former employees, including Plaintiff's. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII, says the suit. T.R.A. Industries, Inc. d/b/a Huntwood Industries is a Washington profit corporation that supplies custom residential cabinetry and commercial cabinetry for various institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com TODD SNYDER: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TODD SNYDER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07615 (S.D.N.Y., September 13, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Todd Snyder, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.toddsnyder.com, which offers clothing and footwear for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal UNITED STATES: Bakken Files Suit Over Academic Engagement Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIM BAKKEN, individually and on behalf of a putative class of all those similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY; LT. GENERAL STEVEN W. GILLAND, in his Official Capacity; BRIGADIER GENERAL SHANE R. REEVES, in his Official Capacity; COL. KRISTA WATTS, in her Official Capacity; COL. WINSTON WILLIAMS, in his Official Capacity; COL. JOSHUA BERRY, in his Official Capacity; and LT. COL. CAITLIN CHIARAMONTE, in her Official Capacity, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-07826 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 2025) is an action that seeks to redress Defendants' alleged violations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiff is a civilian Professor of Law within the Department of Law and Philosophy at the United States Military Academy. On February 13, 2025, the Office of the Dean (headed by Defendant Reeves) promulgated and implemented Dean's Policy and Operating Memorandum No. 03-24, entitled Academic Engagement Policy ("DPOM 03-24" or the "Academic Engagement Policy". According to the complaint, DPOM 03-24 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class he represents because: (a) it imposes an unconstitutional and content-based prior restraint on Plaintiff's official and on-duty speech, censoring and suppressing speech on the basis of its content and viewpoint; and (b) it delegates overly broad discretion to a government official, without narrow, objective and definite standards, allowing for arbitrary application, viewpoint discrimination, and the suppression of protected speech. The Plaintiff is directly harmed by DPOM 03-24 because it imposes a prior restraint on his ability to speak and write when doing so on duty and/or as a condition of his employment at USMA, such as when attending and speaking at conferences and/or publishing journal articles or essays in satisfaction of his evaluation criteria. United States Military Academy is a four-year, federally-established undergraduate institution located at West Point, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Goldman, Esq. GOLDMAN LAW, PLLC 372 South Plank Road, Ste. 2 Newburgh, NY 12550 Telephone: (845) 534-6472 Ext. 1001 Facsimile: (845) 579-3064 E-mail: jgoldman@jrgoldmanlaw.com - and - Stephen Bergstein, Esq. BERGSTEIN & ULLRICH 5 Paradies Lane New Paltz, NY 12561 Telephone: (845) 419-2250 Facsimile: (845) 469-1277 E-mail: steve@tbulaw.com UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Faces Horwitz Suit Over Retirement Plans ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARSHALL HORWITZ, DAVID LAYTON, RICHARD JOHNSON, and a class of similarly situated individuals v. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, an agency of the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Case No. 25-2-28532-4 SEA (Wash. State., King Cty., Sept. 26, 2025) arises from UW's ongoing violations of two related retirement plans that the University of Washington provides to its employees. The University of Washington provides retirement benefits to faculty members through the University of Washington Retirement Plan and the University of Washington Voluntary Investment Program (UWVIP or simply VIP). The UWRP is a mandatory plan that provides for mandatory employee contributions and mandatory employer matching contributions. The VIP is a voluntary plan that does not involve any employer matching contributions, only voluntary employee contributions. Both VIP and UWRP contributions apply to overlapping IRS contribution limits. While historically, UW ensured that the voluntary VIP contributions did not crowd out the mandatory UWRP employer matching contributions, it no longer does so, says the suit. The Plaintiffs brought this failure to UW's attention. In response, UW promised to conduct an audit and make any appropriate corrections. UW completed, its audit process in 2023-24. UW's audit found that, in addition to the crowding out issue, that UW had failed to make VIP contributions that had been elected by plan participants and that UW had failed to correctly apply tax law contribution limit rules. UW refused to make any corrections as a result of the crowding out issue, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs are faculty and staff at the University of Washington who are enrolled in the University of Washington Retirement Plan. The Defendant is an agency of the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander F. Strong, Esq. STOBAUGH & STRONG, P.C. 126 NW Canal Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98107 Telephone: (206) 622-3536 WANDERING BEAR: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wandering Bear, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11436 (N.D. Ill., September 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, wanderingbearcoffee.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. On May 28, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website after searching on Google to find an organic brewed coffee. However, as she navigated the website, she had difficulties moving through the navigation menu, forcing her to go through all the elements of it, making her navigation overwhelming. Additionally, when she selected a product and added it to the cart, the focus of her navigation shifted away to the cart dialog interface. These access barriers have caused Wanderingbearcoffee.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Wandering Bear's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Wandering Bear, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of organic cold brew coffee products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Davenport Sues Over Unprotected Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD M. DAVENPORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY, PLLC, Case No. 25-2-11334-1 (Wash. Super., Pierce Cty., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information. On or about March 10, 2025, the Defendant discovered that certain data was accessed and exposed by an unknown third party. The Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant initiated a review of the data to determine what information was included and to whom this information belongs. On May 23, 2025, the Defendant began sending notices to impacted individuals, but Defendant's investigation was still ongoing at that time. The Defendant recently identified additional individuals whose information may have been impacted in this Data Breach and began working to identify contact information for those individuals. Upon information and belief, the Personal Information that was impacted as a result of the Data Breach includes name, Social Security number, and medical information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant. As a condition of receiving their services, Defendant required that its patients, including Plaintiff and Class Members, entrust them with highly sensitive Personal Information. The Plaintiff and Class Members, as patients of Defendant, entrusted to them, including, without limitation their names and medical information. WAGI is a healthcare and research organization based in Washington that provides gastroenterology services for patients, including upper endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures, chronic care management, capsule endoscopy, colon cancer screening, and 24-hour esophageal pH study. The Defendant is part of GI Alliance, a national network of gastroenterology practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com WESTERN MONTANA: Lewis Suit Removed from State Court to D. Mont. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JERRI LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE WESTERN MONTANA CLINIC, P.C., Case No. DV-32-2025-0000725-OC (File Aug. 8, 2025), was removed from the Fourth Judicial District Court of Montana, Missoula County, to the United States District Court for the District of Montana on Sept. 26, 2025. The District of Montana Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-00156-KLD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 15, 2025, WMC "observed unusual activity in certain employee email accounts," and determined that between "March 11, 2025, and April 15, 2025" it was the victim of a "phishing email incident," which resulted in unauthorized access to "Plaintiff and Class Member's" "Private Information." According to the Complaint, the impacted private information included "contact information, date of birth, treating physician, internal identification number(s), dates of service, medication information, and treatment and/or diagnostic information." The Plaintiff purports to bring these four causes of action on behalf of herself and a class defined as "all persons whose Private Information was compromised because of the Data Breach discovered in April 2025." THE WESTERN MONTANA CLINIC, P.C. is a medical group practice located in Missoula, Montana. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Keeley O. Cronin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202-2662 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 E-mail: kcronin@bakerlaw.com ********* 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 ***