251010.mbx

251010.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 203 Headlines ALLIANCE PHARMA: Richardson Balks at False Supplement Labels AMP CALIFORNIA: Fedai Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court ARLOZOROV9 INC: Warner Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists AZAIVA CORP: Ixcoy Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Masons, Drivers BATTLE BARS: Dixson Sues Over Protein Bars' Misleading Sodium Label BEST BUY CO. INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOYD GAMING: Levy Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info BUILT BRANDS: Wins Dismissal of Equitable Claims in "Sullivan" CALIFORNIA: Must Pay $1.55MM in "Hinkle" Blind Access Case CARNIVAL CORP: Class Actions in Australia, Italy Remain Pending CHECKR INC: Faces Trimble Suit Over Illegal Background Check CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Great Outdoors Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. DAHIYA DEVELOPMENT: Lara Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages DICKS SPORTING: Myers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DPL TRADING: Faces Willis-Albrigo Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif. ELMOR ASSOCIATES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property FCA US: Third Circuit Rejects NJCFA Consumer Fraud Claims FORTUNA ECOMMERCE: Moreno Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Engine Defect Caused Aircraft Accident, Suit Says GOAUTO INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Williams" Upheld GT'S LIVING FOODS: Ovando Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GUCCI AMERICA: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination HAVCO WOOD PRODUCTS: Beasley Files Suit in E.D. Missouri IDT CORPORATION: Still Defends Securities Suit vs. Straight Path IMPERIAL WOODPECKER: Simms Suit Removed to C.D. California INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fails to Control Facility Odors, McCain Claims KAHALA FRANCHISING: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Orders More Settlement Information LOVESAC COMPANY: Faces Hill Personal Injury Suit in D. Connecticut LUNAI BIOWORKS: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim OK MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Records Phone Calls Without Notice, Suit Says MEDCO23 LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Suit Says MEME COMPANY: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination MITO MANAGEMENT: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store MOINIAN DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Tanilli Says MOJANGLES HOSPITALITY: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Stone Suit Over Harmful Herbicide MUSA INDUSTRIES: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PARAGON SYSTEMS: "Robertson" Remanded to State Court PARENTS ANONYMOUS INC: Collins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PEDIATRIC OTOLARYNGOLOGY: Williams Files Contract Suit in Florida PREFERENCE LM INC: Cortes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend MOVEit MDL REGENERATIVE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Juarez TCPA Suit in C.D. Cal. RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Wolfe Suit Removed to N.D. California RIVIAN LLC: Lawrence Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court SCRAPPY THOMAS: Underpays Recycling Facility Staff, Jenkins Says SELENE FINANCE: Quinn Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SENECA COUNTY, NY: Unlawfully Takes Property, Sullivan Suit Claims SKYWEST AIRLINES: Petelo Suit Removed to C.D. California SLICK NETWORKS: Court Orders Dismissal of "Kharsa" Class Action SOUTHWIND FOODS LLC: Young Files Suit in C.D. California STAPLES INC: Faces Leven Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plans STEVEN MADDEN LTD: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STRATEGIX MANAGEMENT: Ihrig Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation TMCM LLC: Faces Battle Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TOMMY JOHN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Houston Says UNITED FOOD: Hancock Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info UNITED STATES: Molina Sues Over Illegal Mass Immigration Arrests VOCODIA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend TCPA Suit WEATHERFORD MOTORS: Fails to Properly Pay Detailers, Edmiston Says XTO ENERGY: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Kriley Suit to 3rd Circuit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Okays $9MM Settlement with Chubb ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ********* ALLIANCE PHARMA: Richardson Balks at False Supplement Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ KIERSTEN RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE PHARMA INC. Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02507 (C.D. Cal., September 23, 2025) is an action seeking to redress the false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and packaging claims that Alliance has asserted in connection with the sale of its allegedly "clinically proven" menopause supplement marketed under the name Amberen. According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged in deceptive practices by making unfounded claims and misleading consumers into purchasing Amberen menopause supplements at a premium price, under the belief that they have been clinically proven to address the root cause of menopause symptoms and restore hormonal balance, thereby alleviating specific menopause symptoms. Amberen does not possess such ability, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and members of the class were misled by the Defendant's fraudulent marketing of Amberen, resulting in financial gain for the Defendant at the expense of the Plaintiff and other class members, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Amberen Menopause Relief Capsules from Walmart between December 2023 and early 2024 to alleviate her hot flashes due to menopause. Alliance Pharma Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Cary, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nisha Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 393-3677 E-mail: nisha@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED APC 4225 Executive Square Suite 600-6051 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 550-4005 Facsimile: (619) 550-4006 E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com AMP CALIFORNIA: Fedai Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMP California, PC. The case is captioned as ZORA FEDAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMP CALIFORNIA, PC, Case No. 25CV022034 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., September 16, 2025). A case management conference is set for November 20, 2026, before Judge Lauri A. Damrell. The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. AMP California, PC is a company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 482-3300 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com ARLOZOROV9 INC: Warner Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists ------------------------------------------------------------- SHEREE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARLOZOROV9, INC. D/B/A ALMA, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2025-01512640-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., September 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a therapist from approximately March 2024 until November 2024. Arlozorov9, Inc., doing business as Alma, is mental healthcare company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arash Sadat, Esq. Camron Dowlatshahi, Esq. MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP 333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 628-3856 Email: arash@msdlawyers.com camron@msdlawyers.com AZAIVA CORP: Ixcoy Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Masons, Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- REGINALDO IXCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZAIVA CORP and AZAEL AVILA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07983 (S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a mason and driver from approximately July 2019 until July 23, 2025. Azaiva Corp is a company based in Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 - and - Kevin Shehan, Esq. SHEHAN LEGAL, PLLC 845 Third Avenue, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (917) 740-7805 BATTLE BARS: Dixson Sues Over Protein Bars' Misleading Sodium Label ------------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD DIXSON, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BATTLE BARS LLC (IL), BATTLE BARS LLC (FL), 10.40.10 FITNESS LLC F/K/A BATTLE BARS HQ LLC, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV27401 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Civil Code, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Battle Bars S'mores Crispy Protein Bar and Battle Bars Banana Cream Crispy Protein Bar. The Defendants labeled the products to contain 40 mg of sodium. In reality, the products actually contained sodium far in excess of that amount, with the sodium content contained in the both products being more than 20 percent higher than what was listed in the nutritional information of the products, and that consequently, the products were misbranded, and not fit for sale, suit says. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers paid a premium for the Defendants' products. Battle Bars LLC is a seller of food, supplements, and other products, with its principal place of business in Illinois and Florida. 10.40.10 Fitness LLC, formerly known as Battle Bars HQ LLC, is a seller of food, supplements, and other products, with its principal place of business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Ryan P. Cardona, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com rcardona@brodskysmith.com BEST BUY CO. INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03764 (D. Minn., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.bestbuy.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers electronics and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, televisions, home theatre equipment, appliances, computers, tablets, video games, cell phones, home audio equipment, cameras, music and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BOYD GAMING: Levy Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT LEVY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01814 (D. Nev., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Nevada Consumer Fraud Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on September 23, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Boyd Gaming Corporation is a casino entertainment company in Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - 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 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com BUILT BRANDS: Wins Dismissal of Equitable Claims in "Sullivan" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sean Sullivan, Plaintiff, v. Built Brands LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-04565-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court addressed a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Sean Sullivan against Built Brands LLC, alleging that the Defendant misrepresents the amount of protein contained in its Built Protein Bars and Puffs by labeling them as containing 15 to 19 grams of protein per serving. Sullivan claimed that this labeling is false and misleading, based on third-party laboratory testing that allegedly showed lower actual protein content than represented. Sullivan asserted claims for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. Built Brands argued that Sullivan must demonstrate that he lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable relief. The Court noted that in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit held that a federal court must apply traditional equitable principles before awarding restitution under the UCL and CLRA. However, the Court found that this Court, together with the majority of courts in this district, understands Sonner to require far less at the pleading stage. The Court stated that "Sullivan pleaded that he is entitled to disgorgement of Defendant's ill-gotten gains and restitution of Defendant's wrongful profits, revenue, and benefits that Built Brands received from the sale of its product. However, Sullivan failed to allege that he lacks an adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, Sullivan's claims for equitable relief were dismissed with leave to amend." The Court ordered that within 21 days of the order, Sullivan may file an amended complaint solely to correct the deficiencies outlined. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=54oWfU from PacerMonitor.com CALIFORNIA: Must Pay $1.55MM in "Hinkle" Blind Access Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Wylene Lena Hinkle and Dennis Gassaway, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and The California Council of the Blind (a California nonprofit corporation), Plaintiffs, v. Michelle Baass, in her capacity as Director of California Department of Health Care Services; California Department of Health Care Services; Contra Costa County; County of Alameda; County of San Diego, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06430-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted final approval of the class action settlement and certified the settlement class on October 3, 2025. The Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Plaintiffs filed this action against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants were violating federal and state laws by failing to provide effective communication to Plaintiffs and similarly situated Blind Medi-Cal consumers. Following extensive negotiations that took place over several years, the parties reached a proposed Class Settlement Agreement. The Agreement establishes system-wide processes for: (1) identifying people who request written materials in an alternative format and maintaining this information in a centralized database; (2) exchanging this data among DHCS, counties, managed care plans, and other partners and contractors that provide written materials as part of the Medi-Cal program; (3) sending timely and accessible notices in the requested alternative format within a reasonable timeframe; (4) providing information and instructions to counties and managed care plans regarding their obligations to provide effective communication to Blind and visually-impaired individuals; and (5) collecting and reviewing information sufficient to assure DHCS that counties and managed care plans are furnishing effective communications to Blind and visually-impaired individuals. On December 20, 2024, the Court (a) conditionally certified the Settlement Class, appointed Plaintiffs as Settlement Class representatives, and appointed Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Advocates, and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund as Class Counsel; (b) granted preliminary approval of the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement; (c) found that the proposed Agreement appeared to be fair and warranted the dissemination of notice to the Settlement Class; (d) approved the proposed Class Notice, revised as directed by the Court; (e) approved the plan for providing notice to the Settlement Class; and (f) scheduled a Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel created and maintained Class Notice websites where the Class Notice was posted from at least April 1, 2025, to the present. Class Counsel responded to Settlement Class Members' requests for information and clarification. The California Council of the Blind posted the Class Notice on its website from at least March 30, 2025, to the present. Starting in late March 2025, DHCS mailed the short form of the Class Notice in English and Spanish to all households receiving Medi-Cal services. DHCS also posted the Class Notice on its website from at least April 1, 2025, through the present. The Court found that the parties distributed notice to the Settlement Class in a manner sufficient to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard, and in a manner and form that meets the requirements of due process and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e). Every household receiving Medi-Cal services was mailed the short form of the Class Notice and all had access to Class Counsel's and DHCS's webpages regarding the settlement. The Court confirmed that each of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for class certification is satisfied for the purposes of the proposed Agreement and Settlement Class. The conditionally certified Settlement Class, as stipulated by the parties, is defined as: Individuals in the State of California who are applicants or beneficiaries of Medi-Cal and who need written materials regarding Medi-Cal in an Alternative Format due to a vision-related disability. The Court found that the Settlement Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) and certified the class. Available data indicates that at least 44,700 individuals meet the class definition. Joinder of all 44,700 members in a single proceeding would be impracticable, and the Court confirmed that the Settlement Class is sufficiently numerous. The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' alleged system-wide policies and practices that apply to every member of the proposed Settlement Class, namely failing to ensure Effective Communication is provided to Blind and visually-impaired participants in the Medi-Cal program. The Court confirmed that there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class. The Plaintiffs assert injuries attributable to the same alleged course of conduct: the Defendants' failure to ensure that Blind and visually-impaired Medi-Cal consumers are provided effective communication. The Court confirmed that the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class that they seek to represent for the purpose of settlement. No conflict appears to exist between the Plaintiffs and other Settlement Class Members. The Agreement provides the same injunctive relief for the Plaintiffs and every member of the proposed Settlement Class. The Court found that the Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interest of the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. The Court appointed the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Settlement Class and appointed Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel. The Agreement will benefit all Settlement Class Members. Every Settlement Class Member will be able to request and receive Written Materials in their preferred Alternative Format across all components of the Medi-Cal system. The Defendants will have new systems and policies to identify people who have requested Alternative Formats, will maintain this information in a centralized database, will ensure the exchange of this data among different components of the Medi-Cal system, will send timely and accessible notices in an individual's requested Alternative Format, will provide guidance to counties and managed care plans, and will monitor these entities to ensure that Blind Medi-Cal consumers are provided effective communication. The Agreement does not release Settlement Class Members' potential claims for monetary damages. The Court found that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Agreement is the product of over five years of arms' length negotiations, including multiple settlement conferences before a private mediator and Judge Jacqueline Corley, numerous settlement meetings between the parties, and many written proposals exchanged. The Plaintiffs' counsel did not negotiate attorneys' fees and costs until agreement was reached on the remainder of the settlement. Subject to the Court's approval, the Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs' counsel $1,550,000 to cover all attorneys' fees and costs, including those incurred for monitoring implementation of the Agreement. This term was negotiated after all substantive settlement terms pertaining to injunctive relief had been resolved. The Court found that all Settlement Class Members, both named and unnamed, will be treated equitably and will receive the same benefits in the form of injunctive relief. The Court found that any objections to the Settlement Agreement from any Settlement Class Members were either not substantive, did not state grounds for objection with sufficient specificity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5)(A), or are unfounded. The Court overruled all objections to the settlement. Accordingly, the Court certified the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Court appointed Plaintiff Wylene Lena Hinkle, Plaintiff Dennis Gassaway, and the California Council of the Blind as Settlement Class representatives. The Court appointed Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights California, and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund as Class Counsel. The Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Agreement. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Defendants are directed to pay Plaintiffs' counsel the amount of $1,550,000 within sixty (60) days of the date of the order. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter during the term of the Agreement for the purpose of enforcement thereof. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Kn1Py from PacerMonitor.com CARNIVAL CORP: Class Actions in Australia, Italy Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Carnival Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the purported class actions in the Federal Court in Australia and in Italy remain pending. "As of August 31, 2025, two purported class actions brought against us by former guests in the Federal Court in Australia and in Italy remain pending. These actions include claims based on a variety of theories, including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn, physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard our ships. "On October 24, 2023, the court in the Australian matter held that we were liable for negligence and for breach of consumer protection warranties as it relates to the lead plaintiff. The court ruled that the lead plaintiff was not entitled to any pain and suffering or emotional distress damages on the negligence claim and awarded medical costs. In relation to the consumer protection warranties claim, the court found that distress and disappointment damages amounted to no more than the refund already provided to guests and therefore made no further award. Further proceedings will determine the applicability of this ruling to the remaining class participants. "On March 31, 2025, the court in the Italian matter returned a ruling rejecting most of the plaintiffs’ claims and awarding a half-price fare reduction for certain passengers. Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling. "We continue to take actions to defend against the above claims. We believe the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements," the Company states. CHECKR INC: Faces Trimble Suit Over Illegal Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE TRIMBLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHECKR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01817 (S.D. Ill., September 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant produces background screening reports to third-party entities for employment purposes for a fee. The information produced in reports by the Defendant to third parties for employment purposes are defined as consumer reports. These reports produced by the Defendant, concerning the Plaintiff and other Putative Class members, contained items which were matters of public record and were likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain and maintain employment. The Plaintiff applied for employment with Benchmark in or about January of 2025. The complaint alleges that Benchmark used Plaintiff's consumer report produced by Defendant in whole or in part to take an adverse action against the Plaintiff on January 30, 2025. The Defendant's production of misleading consumer reports results in an inaccurate report, says the suit. Checkr Inc. is a software company that provides background screening and workforce monitoring services for businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Great Outdoors Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GREAT OUTDOORS GROUP, LLC and BPS DIRECT LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2531-CC01011, was removed from the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on September 25, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-03275-WBG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that Continental failed to indemnify them for defense costs incurred in connection with, and the settlement reached in, the lawsuit styled Nora Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Bass Pro Group LLC and BPS Direct LLC, d/b/a Bass Pro Shops, Case No. 6:24-cv-03122-MDH. Great Outdoors Group, LLC is an outdoor recreation and retail company with its principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. BPS Direct LLC is an outdoor recreation and retail company with its principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Continental Casualty Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Katrina L. Smeltzer, Esq. Jared M. Cluck, Esq. SANDBERG PHOENIX & von GONTARD P.C. 4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 627-5332 Facsimile: (816) 627-5532 Email: ksmeltzer@sandbergphoenix.com jcluck@sandbergphoenix.com - and - Gaby Richeimer, Esq. Stacey E. Rufe, Esq. Oliver M. Sherman, Esq. WERNER AHARI MANGEL LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 599-1030 Email: gricheimer@wam.law srufe@wam.law osherman@wam.law DAHIYA DEVELOPMENT: Lara Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- REGULO SANAI OCAMPO LARA, TERESA SANTOS PEREZ, and EDITH PRIETO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAHIYA DEVELOPMENT LLC (D/B/A DAHIYA DEVELOPMENT), and DAHIYA RAJVIR, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05338 (E.D.N.Y., September 23, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide with a written wage notice, failure to furnish with accurate wage statement, and failure to reimburse the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers and construction cleaners in a construction project located in Bronx, New York. Dahiya Development LLC is a construction company headquartered in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DICKS SPORTING: Myers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc. The case is styled as Jackie Myers, Anthony Marquez, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 25CV023075 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach Of Contract)." Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. -- https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/ -- is an American chain of sporting goods stores founded in 1948 by Richard "Dick" Stack.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Treglio, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com DPL TRADING: Faces Willis-Albrigo Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DPL Trading, Inc. The case is captioned as LAURA WILLIS-ALBRIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DPL TRADING, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-02579-JGB-E (C.D. Cal., September 19, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud allegations. DPL Trading, Inc. is a business consultancy firm doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel H. Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Ste., Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nsari@gr-firm.com ELMOR ASSOCIATES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ELMOR ASSOCIATES, LTD., and BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-24434-MD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. ELMOR ASSOCIATES, LTD., owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com FCA US: Third Circuit Rejects NJCFA Consumer Fraud Claims --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as BCR Carpentry LLC, Kimberly Enright, William DeMola, Michael Bent, and Amy Arroyo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. FCA US, LLC, Appellee, No. 24-3202 (3d Cir.), Circuit Judge Gregory Matey of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal with prejudice of a putative class action alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 (AIDA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1231-1233, states that prior to the delivery of any new automobile to any dealer, a manufacturer is required to securely affix to the vehicle a label that includes the amount charged, if any, to such dealer for the transportation of such automobile to the location at which it is delivered to such dealer. This is known as a destination charge. FCA US, LLC (FCA), a vehicle manufacturer, presents the destination charge to car buyers and lessees on the window stickers in accordance with AIDA. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against FCA for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-1 to -229, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. They alleged FCA misleads customers about what is included in the destination charge by injecting profit. The District Court granted FCA's motion to dismiss with prejudice. To state a claim under the NJCFA, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant engaged in an unlawful practice that caused an ascertainable loss to the plaintiff. There are three general types of unlawful practices: affirmative acts, knowing omissions, and regulation violations. The Plaintiffs claimed FCA engaged in unlawful practices through affirmative acts of deception and unconscionable practices, as well as omissions. Liability for an affirmative act arises even in the absence of knowledge of the falsity of the misrepresentation, negligence, or the intent to deceive. For liability to attach to an omission or failure to disclose, however, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with knowledge. The Court found that the Plaintiffs could not show that FCA affirmatively acted unlawfully. The NJCFA is only violated by an affirmative misrepresentation so misleading as to a fact material to the consumer's decision that the consumer is effectively deprived of the ability to make an intelligent decision. The Court stated that no reasonable consumer would be surprised to learn that a charge includes profit. While the Plaintiffs alleged FCA acted deceptively because consumers are told explicitly that destination charges do not include profit, none of those statements were made by FCA. The closest the Plaintiffs came was a 2013 statement from a representative of Chrysler, FCA's predecessor, explaining that the destination charge is set for each nameplate based on our costs to deliver a new vehicle from the assembly plant to the dealership. Our costs include shipments by rail and truck. However, the Court noted that the inclusion of costs does not speak to the absence of profit from a charge. The Court also found that the Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that FCA engaged in unconscionable practices. Including profit in a charge is not indicative of a lack of good faith, fair dealing, and honesty. The District Court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs' NJCFA claims based on affirmative acts. The Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim based on omissions fared no better. To conclude a defendant knowingly concealed a material fact with the intent that plaintiff rely on the concealment, he must have had a duty to disclose. Such a duty does not arise unless a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, unless the transaction itself is fiduciary in nature, or unless one party expressly reposes a trust and confidence in the other. Those circumstances were not present here, where the parties never formed a direct relationship because FCA only charges its dealerships for vehicle delivery, rendering the destination charge a pass-through charge a consumer pays to the dealership and not FCA. Nor is such disclosure necessary to make a previous statement true, because, as discussed above, a reasonable consumer would not assume that a charge omitted profit. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim based on omissions. The Plaintiffs' common law claims were similarly flawed. The elements of a claim for money had and received parallel those for unjust enrichment, which requires a showing that defendant received a benefit and that retention of that benefit without payment would be unjust. Under this quasi-contract doctrine, the plaintiff must show that it expected remuneration from the defendant at the time it performed or conferred a benefit on defendant and that the failure of remuneration enriched defendant beyond its contractual rights. However, any such expectation was absent from the complaint. Nor could the Plaintiffs demonstrate some direct relationship between the parties or a mistake on the part of the person conferring the benefit, for the reasons discussed above. The District Court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' common law claims. Circuit Judge Krause, in dissent, argued that when reviewing claims brought under New Jersey law, the Court must predict how the New Jersey Supreme Court would rule if faced with the issue. The New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that the NJCFA confers liability when conduct has merely the capacity to mislead, and that the statute should be construed liberally in favor of consumers and consistent with the legislature's intention to give New Jersey one of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation. The capacity to mislead is the prime ingredient in the Court's analysis. The NJCFA does not require that the defendant made a false statement of fact or had intent to deceive. Nor does it require that consumers were in fact misled or deceived. It also does not require reliance. According to the dissent, the Plaintiffs had plausibly pleaded that FCA's practice of including profit in its destination charge violates the NJCFA. The Complaint alleged a plausible basis to believe that reasonable consumers do not expect a delivery surcharge like FCA's destination charge, to be marked up to include profit. The dissent noted that the Complaint included numerous, concrete allegations showing it is likely that a reasonable consumer in the market for a car would believe the manufacturer's destination charge, passed on to him by the dealer, reflects actual cost and excludes profit as a matter of longstanding industry practice. Samantha I. Braver at Handley Farah & Anderson; Sara D. Brooks, Spencer S. Hughes [ARGUED], David Stein, and Gibbs Mura; Joseph J. DePalma at Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, Counsel for Appellants. Stephen A. D'Aunoy [ARGUED] at Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, Counsel for Appellee. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kFmUAt from PacerMonitor.com FORTUNA ECOMMERCE: Moreno Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortuna Ecommerce LLC. The case is captioned as LORENA MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORTUNA ECOMMERCE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-09079-JFW-PD (C.D. Cal., September 17, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fortuna Ecommerce LLC is an e-commerce company, doing business in California. [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 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: Engine Defect Caused Aircraft Accident, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HOP-A-JET WORLDWIDE JET CHARTER INC., ACE AVIATION SERVICES CORP., and EAST SHORE AVIATION, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE AEROSPACE, BOMBARDIER, INC., BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CORP., LEARJET, INC., TURBINE ENGINE SPECIALISTS, INC., and DUNCAN AVIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61846-RS (S.D. Fla., September 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence in design and manufacture, declaratory and injunctive relief, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, and negligence. This class action is brought against the Defendants (1) to help organize and consolidate all actions resulting from Hop-A-Jet's plane incident on Feb. 9, 2024, (2) provide an avenue for Hop-A-Jet (and Plaintiffs) to recover any and all of their direct damages (that are now in the hundreds of millions of dollars) from those responsible, and (3) finally require General Electric Company (GE) to provide adequate Notice to all purchasers of these specific family of GE engines, so another tragedy can be avoided. On Feb. 9, 2024, Hop-A-Jet's plane with GE CF34-3B engines suffered a catastrophic "dual engine failure" that claimed the lives of its two expert pilots, Edward Daniel Murphy and Ian Frederick Hofmann and resulted in a total loss of the aircraft when the pilots made an emergency landing on I-75. Hop-A-Jet Worldwide Jet Charter Inc. is a business aviation aircraft company with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Ace Aviation Services Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hop-A-Jet, with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. East Shore Aviation, LLC is an aviation company, with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate, with its principal place of business in Ohio. GE Aerospace is a manufacturer of aircraft engines, with its principal place of business in Ohio. Bombardier, Inc. is an aviation company, with its principal place of business in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Bombardier Aerospace Corp. is an aviation company, with its principal place of business in Kansas. Learjet, Inc. is a manufacturer of business jets, with its principal place of business in Kansas. Turbine Engine Specialists, Inc. is a business aviation field service organization, with its principal place of business in Texas. Duncan Aviation, Inc. is a business jet service provider, with its principal place of business in Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Scherer, Esq. CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP 614 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 738-8335 Facsimile: (954) 463-9244 Email: wscherer@conradscherer.com EKreiling@conradscherer.com JLira@conradscherer.com eservice@conradscherer.com - and - John (Jack) Scarola, Esq. Mariano Garcia, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 Email: jsx@searcylaw.com mxg@searcylaw.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Leo A. Wiesinger, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 653409 Miami, FL 33175 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 Facsimile: (786) 298-5737 Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com leo@moskowitz-law.com - and - Michael Rudd, Esq. RUDD LAW, LLC 200 South Andrews Ave., Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 961-5059 Email: mrudd@ruddlawyers.com GOAUTO INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Williams" Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kimberly Williams, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Nicholas Jenkins, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Felita Wright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GoAuto Insurance Company; GoAuto Management Services, LLC; GoAuto, LLC; Auto Premium Assistance Company, LLC; Go Card, LLC; Health Reform Insurance, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, No. 24-30646 (5th Cir.), Circuit Judge Leslie H. Southwick of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Court held that the Defendants' cancellation procedures complied with Louisiana law, resulting in dismissal of all claims with prejudice. This appeal required the Court to analyze a Louisiana statute governing the cancellation of insurance policies because of nonpayment to the company that financed the premiums. Former insureds claimed that the insurance company's cancellation procedures did not comply with the statute, resulting in misrepresentations and breach of good faith and fair dealing. The district court held there was no statutory violation and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs Kimberly Williams and Felita Wright are former insureds of GoAuto Insurance Company. A third GoAuto insured, not a party to this case, was involved in an accident with Plaintiff Nicholas Jenkins. Williams, Wright, and the driver involved in Jenkins's accident each financed their GoAuto insurance policy through an agreement with American Premium Assistance Company, LLC (APAC). APAC would pay GoAuto the entire premium in return for monthly installment payments from the insureds. Each financing agreement granted APAC a power of attorney authorizing it to cancel the insurance policies upon a failure to pay the premiums. Each policy was cancelled as a result of nonpayment. Williams and Jenkins filed a class action lawsuit against GoAuto and APAC in a Louisiana state court, alleging GoAuto had not effectively cancelled their policies and had failed to act in good faith. Wright became an additional plaintiff when an amended complaint was filed. GoAuto removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The parties filed motions for summary judgment related solely to whether GoAuto's procedure for cancelling the financed insurance policies satisfied Louisiana law. The district court granted GoAuto's motion for summary judgment, holding that GoAuto's procedures complied with state law. As a result, the district court dismissed all claims against GoAuto with prejudice. Williams, Jenkins, and Wright appealed. The Plaintiffs contended the district court erred by finding that the statutory procedures for delivery of the notice of cancellation were followed, finding GoAuto properly received the cancellation requests, and denying their motion for partial summary judgment. Under Louisiana law, an insurance-premium finance company may request cancellation of an insurance policy upon an uncured default by sending to the insurer, by depositing in the mail or with a private carrier, or via electronic mail a copy of the notice of cancellation together with a statement certifying the following: (i) The premium finance agreement contains a valid power of attorney; (ii) The premium finance agreement is in default and the default has not been timely cured; (iii) Upon default, a notice of cancellation was sent to the insured; (iv) Copies of the notice of cancellation were sent to all persons shown by the premium finance agreement to have an interest in any loss which may occur thereunder. Louisiana courts require strict adherence to these statutory requirements when a finance company exercises its power of attorney to cancel an insurance policy. Any defect in this process results in an ineffective cancellation of the policy. GoAuto followed the following procedures in order to cancel a policy. When an insured failed to make timely payment, APAC sent notice to the insured that their policy would be cancelled if no payment was submitted within ten days. If no payment was submitted by midnight on the tenth day, APAC's computer system automatically sent GoAuto an e-mail with a copy of the notice of cancellation along with a request for cancellation. Upon receipt of that notice, GoAuto's computer system cancelled the policy. Later in the morning after cancellation, an APAC employee affixed a signature stamp to the printed cancellation documents. Key to the Plaintiffs' argument was that no signature was on APAC's certification until soon after, but clearly after, the policy was canceled automatically. The Plaintiffs interpreted the statutory requirement of certifying by the premium insurer as requiring a signature before there could be a cancellation. The Court noted that the statute made no explicit reference to a signature. With an exception discussed by the Court, no Louisiana judicial opinion considering insurance-premium finance companies' procedures under the statute had addressed the need for a signature. The Court stated: Without clearer Louisiana authority, we see no reason that a company cannot certify information without a named employee being identified. The statutory section itself states it is the insurance premium finance company who effects cancellation by certifying certain information in a notice. Strict adherence to the procedures for cancellation is not an invitation for courts to add to the procedures. The Court concluded that Louisiana law does not require a signature on the notice sent by the premium finance company to the insurer. The Plaintiffs also contended GoAuto's procedures did not strictly adhere to the statute because GoAuto never received a cancellation request. The statute provided that upon receipt of such notice of cancellation and statement from the premium finance company, the insurer shall consider that cancellation has been requested and the insurer may proceed to cancel such contract. The Court concluded that GoAuto may cancel a policy once it takes possession, delivery, or custody of a request for cancellation. Once the e-mailed notice was received in early morning hours by GoAuto's computer system, that computer system cancelled the policy. The Court stated: This is a modern statute set in current times, and company computers do much that individuals once did. GoAuto's method of receiving the notice and reacting to it satisfies the statute. The Plaintiffs requested the Court certify these issues of statutory interpretation to the Louisiana Supreme Court. They contended the proper interpretation of the statutory terms was important to Louisiana's insurance industry and statutory scheme. The Court declined, stating: As a general proposition we are chary about certifying questions of law absent a compelling reason to do so. the availability of certification is such an important resource to this court that we will not risk its continued availability by going to that well too often That a term has not yet been defined by a state supreme court is not sufficient to warrant certification. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pcGfRs from PacerMonitor.com GT'S LIVING FOODS: Ovando Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GT's Living Foods LLC. The case is styled as Xochitl Ovando, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. GT's Living Foods LLC, Case No. 25STCV28467 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." GT's Living Foods LLC -- https://gtslivingfoods.com/ -- have created living foods that are authentically and expertly fueled by plants, raw fermentation, naturally occurring probiotics, and ancient wisdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com GUCCI AMERICA: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. GUCCI AMERICA, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-81193-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.gucci.com/us/en (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise also sold in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a visually and physically disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis ("RRMS"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of 529 retail stores selling clothing, footwear, jewelry, bags, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com HAVCO WOOD PRODUCTS: Beasley Files Suit in E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Havco Wood Products, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel L. Beasley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Havco Wood Products, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00155-ACL (E.D. Mo., Sept. 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Havco Wood Products LLC -- https://www.havco.com/ -- manufactures the finest oak hardwood flooring for trailers, truck bodies and containers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com IDT CORPORATION: Still Defends Securities Suit vs. Straight Path ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuit against Straight Path Communications Inc. The Company (as well as other defendants) was named in a class action on behalf of the stockholders of the Company's former subsidiary, Straight Path Communications Inc. The Company incurred legal fees and recorded offsetting gains from insurance claims related to this action. In fiscal 2024, the Company received the final payment from its insurance policy for these claims. On October 3, 2023, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed all claims against the Company, and found that, contrary to the plaintiffs' allegations, the class suffered no damages. On January 14, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Final Order and Judgment to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware to appeal the Final Order and Judgment. On April 22, 2025, the Company filed its answering brief to the appeal. Oral argument is scheduled for October 2025. IMPERIAL WOODPECKER: Simms Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Arthuer L. Simms, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMPERIAL WOODPECKER, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company; DOUGH HALBERT, an individual, SHELLEY DOWDY WALTER, an individual; STEPHANE HODGE, an individual, and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 25STCV20318 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09198. The Plaintiff's First Claim alleges that Defendants failed to pay final wages owed to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants improperly paid Plaintiff and alleged Class Members overtime, because Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members a flat rate of pay for 10-hour shifts. The Plaintiff seeks to recover penalties for rest period violations pursuant to a theory that no Class Member was ever provided compliant rest breaks, because Defendants never provided an off-duty rest break. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover penalties for meal period violations pursuant to a theory that no Class Member was ever provided compliant meal breaks, because Defendants never provided an off-duty meal break. Presuming Plaintiff can successfully demonstrate no class members were provided compliant meal or rest breaks, as Plaintiff alleges, then each Class member is entitled to they an additional thirty minutes of wages for each faux meal break and an additional 20 minutes of wages or each faux rest break.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Witlin, Esq. Michael P. Witczak, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com michael.witczak@btlaw.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fails to Control Facility Odors, McCain Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA MCCAIN, JESSICA MARTINEZ MANZO and MATTHEW THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02003-EEF-MBN (E.D. La., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for nuisance and negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to install, use, and/or maintain feasible air pollution control systems, thus failing to control air contaminants emitted by its paper mill located at 401 Ave U, Bogalusa, Washington Parish, Louisiana. As a result of the Defendant's failure to control fugitive emissions from its facility, the homes and properties of the Plaintiffs and the Class have been physically invaded. The noxious odors have caused property damage and substantially interfered with the abilities of the Plaintiffs and Class Members to reasonably use and enjoy their homes and properties. International Paper Company is a paper manufacturing company based in Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Lawrence J. Centola, Esq. Neil F. Nazareth, Esq. Jason Z. Landry, Esq. Spencer R. Doody, Esq. Megan L. LeBlanc, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Email: srb@mbfirm.com lcentola@mbfirm.com nnazareth@mbfirm.com jzl@mbfirm.com srd@mbfirm.com mll@mbfirm.com - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Email: sliddle@lsclassaction.com lsheets@lsclassaction.com rsolt@lsclassaction.com KAHALA FRANCHISING: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. KAHALA FRANCHISING, L.L.C., d/b/a COLD STONE CREAMERY, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 9:25-cv-81196-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.coldstonecreamery.com/index.php (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical ice cream based restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a visually and physically disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis ("RRMS"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, a chain of ice cream-based restaurants nationwide selling food and beverage products to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Orders More Settlement Information ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JOHN DOES 1-5, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02865-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the parties and/or Objectors to file supplemental briefing and/or evidence addressing multiple issues related to the settlement class. The Court reviewed the papers submitted in conjunction with Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval. The settlement class is estimated to be about 13.1 million individuals. The parties and/or Kaiser shall provide a rough estimate of how many individuals live in each Operating state, including but not limited to California. The parties shall address why the class period of November 2017 to May 2024 was chosen. The parties shall explain why a perfected arbitration claim includes the requirement that the arbitration filing fee be paid. The settlement class could be defined simply to exclude those who have demanded arbitration or filed an arbitration complaint. The parties shall clarify whether, assuming arbitrating individuals are excluded from the settlement class definition, the parties would like to give notice of the settlement to the arbitrating individuals and give them an opportunity to be a part of the settlement. The Labaton and Milberg firms (representing, inter alia, Objectors) shall clarify whether they have informed any of their clients (other than Objectors) about the terms of the settlement. Given the deductions from the gross settlement fund, the parties shall confirm whether the net settlement fund is expected to be about $27.48 million. Given that the settlement administrator expects a claims rate of about 5-10%, the estimated payout will be about $20.98-$41.95 per class member. The parties have referred to a confidential settlement agreement related to the number of opt-outs. A copy of that agreement shall be promptly provided to the Courtroom Deputy for in camera review at emccrd@cand.uscourts.gov. The parties shall explain why that term should be kept confidential and provide legal authorities supporting their position. The parties shall address whether the settlement administrator can determine not only whether an email is undeliverable (e.g., bounceback) but also whether an email is not opened. The parties shall comment on several changes to the Long-Form Notice (Exhibit B). The notice states at the beginning: IF YOU WERE A KAISER PERMANENTE MEMBER WHO ACCESSED THE AUTHENTICATED PAGES OF THE KAISER PERMANENTE WEBSITES OR MOBILE APPLICATIONS FROM NOVEMBER 2017 TO MAY 2024, YOU COULD GET A PAYMENT FROM THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. The notice could include language about an estimated payment (even a range). In the section titled Statement of the Settlement Class's Recovery, dollar amounts should be included for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and service awards. In the section titled Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Sought, dollar amounts should be included for attorneys' fees. The column that states EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS should also state SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSON to be parallel to the option of staying in the class and submitting a claim form. The column describing the option of objecting should clarify that an objector must still submit a claim form if they want a payment. In Question 8, the word signature appears to be missing at the end of a sentence (iv) include a wet ink signature (i.e., no /s/ signature by permission) or electronically imaged written (e.g. 'DocuSign'). In Question 10, there should be a clarification that an objector must still submit a claim form if they want any monetary relief. In Question 12, a dollar amount for attorneys' fees should be included. The parties shall comment on changes to the Short-Form Notice . The top of the postcard could include a statement about a potential payment under the settlement and/or a statement about the amount of the gross settlement fund. The first paragraph uses the term inadvertently and the Court inquired whether that term should be omitted. The Court was under the impression that Plaintiffs had suggested that Kaiser acted intentionally or, alternatively, inadvertently. The fourth paragraph should clarify that an objector must still submit a claim form in order to get a payment. The fifth paragraph should include the dollar amount for attorneys' fees. The parties shall address whether the default means of payment should be a physical check rather than an electronic form of payment in the Claim Form (Exhibit F). If a claim is submitted electronically, the parties shall clarify when it is deemed actually received by the settlement administrator. The cy pres beneficiaries are Institute for Public Health Innovation and National Council for Behavioral Health dba National Council for Mental Wellbeing. The parties shall confirm whether either of these organizations conduct activity related to protection of personal health information. Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide an estimate of the number of hours they have spent on each major litigation task. They shall also provide their hourly rates. The parties shall address what changes there have been to Kaiser's privacy notification practices. Plaintiffs have identified several non-California jurisdictions that provide for statutory damages, citing D.C., Maryland, and Washington. Kaiser and Objectors shall confirm whether they agree, or whether they know of other relevant jurisdictions that provide for statutory damages. The Court ordered the parties and/or Objectors to file supplemental briefing and/or evidence within one week of the date of this order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VbqOD7 from PacerMonitor.com LOVESAC COMPANY: Faces Hill Personal Injury Suit in D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovesac Company. The case is captioned as JACK HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOVESAC COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-01556-VDO (D. Conn., September 18, 2025). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Lovesac Company is a modern furniture company headquartered in Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael John Reilly, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (860) 296-3457 Facsimile: (860) 296-0676 Email: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com LUNAI BIOWORKS: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim OK ----------------------------------------------------------- Lunai Bioworks Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the securities class action lawsuit has preliminary court approval. On July 26, 2022 and July 28, 2022, securities class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with the Company's relationship with Serhat Gumrukcu and its commercial prospects. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On November 22, 2022, the Manici Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The Chow Action (also referred to as the "Securities Class Action Litigation") remains pending. On October 22, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the Chow Action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2023. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 15, 2024. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss on June 28, 2024. A mediation was held on September 17, 2024, after which the parties signed a stipulation of settlement. The court granted the lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on August 18, 2025. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Records Phone Calls Without Notice, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE NOVAK and ANN THERESA JURKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2579CV657 (Comm. Mass., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Massachusetts General Law. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of recording its calls conducted with both customers and non-employees without notice or consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant's conduct invaded the rights of the Plaintiffs and the Class to be free from interception and recording of their oral conversations. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company is an insurance company based in Springfield, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan P. McLane, Esq. MCLANE & MCLANE 269 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Telephone: (413) 789-7771 Facsimile: (413) 789-7731 Email: ryan@mclanelaw.com MEDCO23 LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDCO23, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07873 (S.D.N.Y., September 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons 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 General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on September 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Rugiet Supplement from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. MEDCO23, LLC operates the website that offers health supplements.[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 MEME COMPANY: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. MEME COMPANY LLC, d/b/a ARGENTINIAN GRILL, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 9:25-cv-81192-DMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://argentiniangrill.us (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical restaurant. In addition, the Website allows the public to make online reservations to dine in the physical restaurant. The Website also services Defendant's physical restaurant by providing information on available food and beverages, services, tips and advice, editorials, sales campaigns, events, and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a visually and physically disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis ("RRMS"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a restaurant selling food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com MITO MANAGEMENT: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITO MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05387 (E.D.N.Y., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.themito.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Mito Management, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MOINIAN DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Tanilli Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA TANILLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOINIAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC d/b/a THE MOINIAN GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07898 (S.D.N.Y., September 23, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach involving Defendant that compromised Plaintiff and Class Members' personally identifiable information. On September 11, 2025, the notorious ransomware cybercriminal group Abyss added Defendant as a victim to its Tor-based leak site. Abyss claims that it gained unauthorized access to Defendant's IT Network and exfiltrated 4.7 TB of sensitive data. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Moinian Development Group LLC is a privately held real estate investment company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com MOJANGLES HOSPITALITY: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. MOJANGLES HOSPITALITY LLC, d/b/a BAR BUCCE, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-24430-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://barbucce.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical restaurant. The Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products made in and also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurant. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a restaurant selling food and beverage products located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Stone Suit Over Harmful Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA STONE, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01437 (E.D. Mo., September 23, 2025) is an action seeking to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(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. The Defendant's failure to adequately warn Plaintiff resulted in (1) Plaintiff using and being exposed to glyphosate instead of using another acceptable and safe method of controlling unwanted weeds and pests; and (2) scientists and physicians failing to warn and instruct consumers about the risk of cancer, including NHL, and other injuries associated with Roundup, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 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 MUSA INDUSTRIES: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Musa Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11482 (N.D. Ill., September 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://theduabrand.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 February 26, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to complete a purchase of The Dua Brand fragrances on the Defendant's website. As she tried to navigate the website and complete her purchase, she encountered significant accessibility barriers that prevented her from moving forward. 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, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Musa Industries' 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. Musa Industries, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of fragrances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com PARAGON SYSTEMS: "Robertson" Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Cyphreno Robertson, Plaintiff, v. Paragon Systems, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-01012-NW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Noel Wise of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the wage and hour class action to state court. On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff Cyphreno Robertson filed his complaint, on behalf of himself and a putative class, in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Defendants Paragon Systems, Inc. (doing business in California as Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc., and Parasys, Inc.), as well as ten Doe Defendants. The Defendants answered the complaint and removed the case to federal court. On May 16, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. The Defendants opposed and the Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court considered the parties' briefs and the relevant legal authority and concluded oral argument was not required. Robertson is a resident of Rancho Cardova, California. He was employed by the Defendants in Napa County, California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately April 2022 to approximately April 2023. Paragon was formed under the laws of Alabama, and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. Paragon is a national company which provides private security services, cybersecurity, and general protective services to a wide range of Federal Government agencies in defense, intelligence, homeland security, and civil sectors. Robertson filed this wage and hour class action on behalf of a putative class of all persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning four years before the filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to the Class is sent. The complaint asserts eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods, (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination, (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (7) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, and (8) unfair business practices pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. The Plaintiff brings each cause of action on behalf of himself and the putative class. On January 31, 2025, Paragon removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) and 1441(a) and (b), asserting that the minimum diversity exists, the number of proposed class members is more than 100, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. In support of removal to federal court, Paragon submitted a declaration from the Vice President of Labor Relations and General Counsel, Laura Hagan. The declaration contains information about Paragon's non-exempt hourly employees. Robertson moved to remand this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court explained that a defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court only if the federal court would have originally had subject matter jurisdiction. If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over class actions where there are at least 100 class members, at least one plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. The removing party bears the burden of establishing that CAFA's jurisdictional requirements have been met. The Court found that there is no dispute that the first two requirements are satisfied. There is diversity of citizenship as Robertson is domiciled in California, and Paragon is formed under the laws of Alabama and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. As to class size, Paragon contends that it currently employs approximately 1,031 individuals on an hourly basis in California and that there are approximately 625 hourly, nonexempt California employees who separated from employment from 2022 through March 23, 2025. Robertson does not contest that the class size exceeds 100 members. However, the Court found a dispute about the third factor, whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. The Plaintiff's complaint does not specify an amount in controversy. In their notice of removal, the Defendants estimate that the Plaintiff's meal period claim alone amounts to $38,798,592. In their opposition, the Defendants provide additional estimates for the Plaintiff's other claims: $6,888,960 for overtime, $4,288,960 for rest break violations, $6,000,000 for waiting time penalties, and $6,624,000 for the wage statement violations. Collectively, the Defendants' estimates amount to $62,600,512, plus an additional 25% for attorney's fees. The Court determined that the Defendants' calculations are based on unreasonable and unsupported assumptions, including violation rates. For example, in calculating the amount in controversy for the meal period claim, the Defendants assume a 100% violation rate, a violation for every employee, twice a week, every week during the class period. Although the Defendants made reasonable estimates in terms of the hourly pay, they ignored the Plaintiff's allegation that the violations occurred at times and instead calculated more than 2,000 violations a week. Further, the Plaintiff does not allege that 100% of former employees experienced those violations. At best the Plaintiff indicates that the Defendants had a pattern of behavior that effected some employees at varying frequency, which does not support the Defendants' assumption of a 100% violation rate. Additionally, the Defendants did not account for the Plaintiff's allegation that some, but not necessarily all of the class members would be eligible to recover when calculating the amount based on all 1,031 employees. The Court found that the Defendants have similarly failed to explain their assumption of a 100% violation rate for the Plaintiff's overtime claim. The Defendants have not shown that it is more likely than not that every putative class member suffered at least one underlying overtime violation per week for every week of the statute of limitations period. For the Plaintiff's rest break claim calculation, the Defendants assume a substantially more conservative violation rate of 10%. However, the Defendants still do not share their reasoning for choosing that rate, or how that rate reflects the Plaintiff's allegations that the rest break violations occurred at times for some, but not necessarily all class members. The Court also found that the Defendants' calculations on the Plaintiff's waiting time penalties and wage statement claims are unreasonable. These claims are derivative of the Plaintiffs' other claims. For these calculations, the Defendants again assumed a 100% violation rate for every former employee, despite the Plaintiff's allegations that the violations occurred at times for some of, but not necessarily all of the class. For their waiting time penalties calculation, the Defendants also failed to explain the basis for their assumption of an eight-hour shift for every former employee. Finally, the Court concluded that the Defendants provide no reasonable basis for their attorneys' fees calculation. When assessing the amount in controversy requirement, courts consider the future attorneys' fees recoverable by statute or contract. Calculation of future attorneys' fees is limited by the applicable contractual or statutory requirements that allow fee-shifting in the first place. Here, the Defendants calculate attorneys' fees as equal to 25 percent of the amount in controversy on the Plaintiff's substantive claims. As an initial matter, it is not reasonable to assume a benchmark 25 percent attorneys' fee in this case. The Defendants' calculation of attorneys' fees ignores the applicable statutory requirements that allow fee-shifting in the first place. The Court explained that where a defendant's assumption is unreasonable on its face without comparison to a better alternative, a district court may be justified in simply rejecting that assumption and concluding that the defendant failed to meet its burden. Here, the Defendants' assumptions about the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's claims are unreasonable on their face. Thus, the Court rejects these assumptions and finds that the Defendants have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Accordingly, because the Defendants have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, they have not satisfied their burden of establishing jurisdiction under CAFA. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand and ordered that this case be remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bwxtm8 from PacerMonitor.com PARENTS ANONYMOUS INC: Collins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parents Anonymous, Inc. The case is styled as Lindsey Collins, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Parents Anonymous, Inc., Case No. 25STCV28452 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Parents Anonymous, Inc. -- https://parentsanonymous.org/ -- offers counselors 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from anywhere in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PEDIATRIC OTOLARYNGOLOGY: Williams Files Contract Suit in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pediatric Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Associates PA. The case is captioned as PATRICIA WILLIAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEDIATRIC OTOLARYNGOLOGY HEAD AND NECK SURGERY ASSOCIATES PA, Case No. 25-005225-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., September 18, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for contract violation. Pediatric Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Associates PA is a healthcare services provider in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com PREFERENCE LM INC: Cortes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Preference LM, Inc. The case is styled as Angel Martinez Cortes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Preference LM, Inc., Case No. 25STCV28488 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Preference LM Inc. -- https://preferencelminc.com/ -- is your premier janitorial service and commercial cleaning provider based in Norwalk, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend MOVEit MDL ------------------------------------------------- Progress Software Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the lawsuit relating to MOVEit Transfer. "On the evening of May 28, 2023, we learned that our MOVEit Transfer (the on-premise version) and MOVEit Cloud (a cloud-hosted version of MOVEit Transfer) products were attacked by a threat actor who compromised and exfiltrated personal data from various customer-controlled MOVEit Transfer environments (the "MOVEit Vulnerability"). As a result of the MOVEit Vulnerability, we are party to certain class action lawsuits filed by individuals who claim to have been impacted by the exfiltration of data from the environments of our MOVEit Transfer customers, which have been centralized in multi-district litigation in the District of Massachusetts (the "MDL"). "The MDL remains in a relatively early litigation stage in which motions to dismiss were filed and partially granted in July 2025, resulting in the dismissal of approximately half of the pending claims. Following the court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss, we filed a motion for reconsideration in which we asked the court to reconsider its ruling on some of the undismissed claims. The MDL is not expected to conclude within this fiscal year. We have also been cooperating with inquiries and investigations from various governmental authorities, none of which have, as of this filing, resulted in any prosecution or enforcement actions," the Company stated. REGENERATIVE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Juarez TCPA Suit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regenerative International Female Inc. The case is captioned as MANUEL JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REGENERATIVE INTERNATIONAL FEMALE INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-09080-WLH-AS (C.D. Cal., September 17, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Regenerative International Female Inc. is a manufacturer of sustainable, organic period products in California. [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 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Wolfe Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chadd Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C. (d/b/a THE RITZ-CARLTON SAN FRANCISCO), Case No. CGC-25-626272 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08182. On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Class Action Complaint in the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three claims for Violations of California Labor Code section 2810.8; Violation of the Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic (Ordinance No. 200830, Article 33K); and Violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Burns, Esq. Ryan McCoy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: mburns@seyfarth.com rmccoy@seyfarth.com - and - Yoon-Woo Nam, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: ynam@seyfarth.com RIVIAN LLC: Lawrence Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rivian, LLC. The case is captioned as ULYSSES LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RIVIAN, LLC, Case No. 25CV022023 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., September 16, 2025). A case management conference is set for November 20, 2026, before Judge Jill H. Talley. The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. Rivian, LLC is an American electric vehicle manufacturer based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com SCRAPPY THOMAS: Underpays Recycling Facility Staff, Jenkins Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCRAPPY THOMAS, INC., and BRIAN T. LEWIS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02590 (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a recycling facility employee from approximately December 15, 2020, to October 8, 2024. Scrappy Thomas Inc. is a recycling company in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SELENE FINANCE: Quinn Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Quinn, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No. 2025CH08124 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Illinois to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11660. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Selene violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in connection with the collection of Plaintiff's account.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kyle R. Gerlach, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 7456 Jager Court, Suite 7456-B Cincinnati, OH 45230 Phone: 513-875-6304 Email: kyle.gerlach@troutman.com - and - Nicholas D. O'Conner, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-443-0700 Email: nicholas.oconner@troutman.com SENECA COUNTY, NY: Unlawfully Takes Property, Sullivan Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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, Defendants, Case No.1:25-cv-00879 (W.D.N.Y., September 13, 2025), accuses the Defendants of violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits takings without just compensation. The Plaintiffs seek relief from New York governmental taxing entities practice of unconstitutionally taking Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff Class members' property for public use without providing just compensation. Rather than keeping the amount owed in taxes and reimbursing the taxpayer the remaining balance, Seneca County and the Defendant Class members allegedly took all the property including the "Surplus Proceeds" or 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, say the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs also assert claims unjust enrichment and for violations of 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 SKYWEST AIRLINES: Petelo Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Israel Petelo, individually on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01503943-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09193. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for: unpaid overtime, failure to pay all regular wages, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to pay commission wages, and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452 Phone: +1.213.489.3939 Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539 Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com - and - Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq. STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE 543 Country Club Drive, Suite B209 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Phone: +1.805.578.3474 Facsimile: +1.805.994.0199 Email: patricia@patriciastambelos.com SLICK NETWORKS: Court Orders Dismissal of "Kharsa" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ELIAS KHARSA V. SLICK NETWORKS INC, Case No. 25-cv-05184-AMO, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin Dismissed the case without prejudice. According to the Court "This putative class action was filed on June 19, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff had 90 days to complete service of the complaint and summons on Defendant, such that September 17, 2025 was the last day to complete service." Having received no proof of service of the summons and complaint, the Court, on September 18, 2025, issued an order, directing Plaintiff to show cause, by no later than October 2, 2025, why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the deadline to complete service on Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff filed no response to the order to show cause. Nor has Plaintiff filed a certificate of service demonstrating compliance with the 90-day deadline to serve the summons and complaint. A copy of the Court's decision Dated October 3, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zjkLKN from PacerMonitor.com SOUTHWIND FOODS LLC: Young Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwind Foods, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Derrick Young, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Southwind Foods, LLC, Beaver Street Fisheries, LLC, MR Walmart Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02538-KK-AJR (C.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Account Receivable. Southwind Foods, LLC -- https://www.southwindfoods.com/ -- is a US family owned & operated company supplying grocer, distributer, & food service the finest fresh & frozen responsibly harvested seafood.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU AND DEMAY PLLC 402 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW PC 1 Old Country Road Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com STAPLES INC: Faces Leven Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA LEVEN and HARRIS KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAPLES, INC., USR PARENT INC., THE STAPLES, INC. COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS, THE STAPLES, INC. 401(k) INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12764 (D. Mass., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence, failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries, and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). According to the complaint, the Defendants violated ERISA by failing to comply with the terms of the Staples, Inc. Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan and the Staples US Retail 401(k) Retirement Plan, breaching their fiduciary duties, and violating prohibited transaction rules. The Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plans, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plans by, inter alia, failing to pay reasonable fees for recordkeeping and administration (RKA) services with respect to the Plans, and failing to objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. As a result of the Defendants' action, the Plans suffered losses. Staples, Inc. is an American office supply retail company headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts. USR Parent Inc. is the parent company of Staples, with its principal place of business in Framingham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Hellman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC 195 Church Street, 10th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 691-8762 Facsimile: (203) 823-4401 Email: jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com STEVEN MADDEN LTD: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Steven Madden, Ltd., d/b/a Betsey Johnson, Case No. 0:25-cv-03772-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., Sept. 25, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.betseyjohnson.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jumpsuits, shoes, handbags, wallets and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com STRATEGIX MANAGEMENT: Ihrig Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE IHRIG, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIX MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11538 (N.D. Ill., September 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant under the Americans with Disabilities Act for discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his disability, denying her reasonable disability accommodations, and retaliating against her for requesting disability accommodations. The Plaintiff began employment with the Defendant on or around September 14, 2021, with her most recent position being Counselor. The Plaintiff has been diagnosed with the disabilities of dyslexia and impaired hearing. These disabilities substantially limit Plaintiff in numerous daily life activities including but not limited to the ability to hear, read, focus, and concentrate. According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disabilities when it terminated her employment without legitimate cause or justification. The Defendant denied Plaintiff a reasonable disability accommodation she requested, which resulted in the termination of her employment, says the suit. Strategix Management, LLC is a management consulting firm organized under the laws of Washington, DC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Smith, Esq. 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 450-42 Lisle, IL 60532 Telephone: (847) 450-1103 (847) 895-0626 E-mail: Msmith39950@aol.com Msmithlaw123@gmail.com TMCM LLC: Faces Battle Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMCM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11484 (N.D. Ill., September 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.thosmoser.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 March 5, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to complete a furniture purchase on the Defendant's website. As he tried to navigate the website and complete his purchase, he encountered significant accessibility barriers that prevented him from moving forward. 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, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in TMCM, LLC'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. TMCM, LLC operates the website that offers chairs, tables, stools, sofas, benches, desks and other furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com TOMMY JOHN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOMMY JOHN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07616 (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 unlawful 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. Tommy John, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.tommyjohn.com, which offers underwear, sleep & loungewear 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 TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Houston Says ----------------------------------------------------------- SHAWANDA MONIQUE HOUSTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11519 (N.D. Ill., September 23, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff and other customers' highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information (PII) and for its failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain and/or are utilized to transfer PII. According to a notification filed on August 26, 2025, with the Office of the Maine Attorney General, TransUnion became aware that an external unauthorized party gained access to a third-party application used by TransUnion on July 28, 2025. As a direct and proximate result of TransUnion's negligent failure to implement reasonable data security measures, Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, full names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth are in the hands of cyber criminals, says the suit. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their PII -- risks which may last for the rest of their lives. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking damages and injunctive relief. TransUnion LLC, is a credit reporting agency collecting and aggregating consumer credit information to produce credit reports and scores, and currently stores the financial details of more than 260 million people in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: arusi@scott-scott.com UNITED FOOD: Hancock Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- GERISUE HANCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 7R, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03013-TPO (D. Colo., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in December 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 7R is a local union headquartered in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com UNITED STATES: Molina Sues Over Illegal Mass Immigration Arrests ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ESCOBAR MOLINA, B.S.R., N.S., R.S.M., CASA, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; RODNEY S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. BORDER PATROL; MICHAEL W. BANKS, in his official capacity as Chief of U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; TERRANCE C. COLE, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03417 (D.D.C., September 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2), 8 C.F.R. Section 287.8(c)(2)(i), the Accardi doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The case arises from the Defendants' policy and practice of making mass civil immigration arrests in Washington, D.C., without a warrant and without the probable cause findings that are required by Congress under federal statute. The Defendants' actions have sown terror in Latino and other communities across the District and violate unequivocal statutory restrictions on warrantless arrests. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful policy and practice, the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Warrantless Arrests Class and Flight Risk Subclass are facing irreparable harm and seek declaratory relief to prevent continued and future irreparable injury. CASA, Inc. is a national nonprofit membership organization headquartered in Langley Park, Maryland. U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is a federal agency in the U.S. U.S. Department of Justice is a federal agency in the U.S. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a component agency of DHS. U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") is a component agency of DHS. U.S. Border Patrol is a component agency of CBP. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is a federal enforcement agency in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jehan A. Patterson, Esq. Chris Kimmel, Esq. Alexandra Widas, Esq. Hassan Ahmad, Esq. Sean Berman, Esq. Austin Riddick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Email: jpatterson@cov.com ckimmel@cov.com awidas@cov.com hahmad@cov.com sberman@cov.com ariddick@cov.com - and - Eva H. Lilienfeld, Esq. Graham Glusman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 Email: elilienfeld@cov.com gglusman@cov.com - and - Madeleine Gates, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street NW, #400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Email: madeleine_gates@washlaw.org - and - Ama Frimpong, Esq. CASA, INC. 8151 15th Avenue Hyattsville, MD 20783 Telephone: (240) 485-8844 Email: afrimpong@wearecasa.org - and - Adina Appelbaum, Esq. Ian Austin Rose, Esq. Samantha Hsieh, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 331-3320 Email: adina@amicacenter.org austin.rose@amicacenter.org sam@amicacenter.org - and - Aditi Shah, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 Email: ashah@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Email: khuddleston@aclu.org - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. Yulie Landan, Esq. Bridget Pranzatelli, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW, Suite 175 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (213) 430-5521 Email: sirine@niplg.org yulie@nipnlg.org bridget@nipnlg.org VOCODIA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------- Vocodia Holdings Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On December 20, 2023, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit against a customer of the Company that was using the Company's DISA's. Shortly thereafter, the individual filed a first amended complaint (FAC) adding the Company as a party. The FAC states that Plaintiff's phone number has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since 2009. Despite this, Plaintiff alleges he received two prerecorded calls from the Company on behalf of its Customer on October 10 and November 28, 2023. Based on these alleged violations, Plaintiff asserts that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) prerecorded call provision and the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act. In response to the FAC, both the Company and its Customer filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike the class allegations. The motions are fully briefed, but the Court has yet to issue a ruling. The parties each exchanged discovery responses. The parties agreed to attend mediation on October 15, 2024. The Company denies liability and intends to continue to vigorously defend any action, although the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome is difficult to estimate as of this date. The result or impact of such allegations are uncertain, including whether or not they could result in damages and/or awards of attorneys' fees or expenses. WEATHERFORD MOTORS: Fails to Properly Pay Detailers, Edmiston Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RICKY EDMISTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEATHERFORD MOTORS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV144036 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., September 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, wages not timely paid during employment, untimely final wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a detailer from approximately April 2021 through approximately June 2025. Weatherford Motors, Inc. is an automobile dealer in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. Joseph O. Marshall, Esq. Shelby L. Miner, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com jmarshall@blackstonepc.com sminor@blackstonepc.com XTO ENERGY: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Kriley Suit to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- XTO ENERGY INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Douglas Kriley, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. XTO Energy Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00416, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative class action was initiated by the Plaintiffs, a group of individuals who are leaseholders of oil and gas leases, against the Defendant for alleged breaches of their lease agreements when it deducted unreasonable and excessive post-production costs from their royalty payments. On Nov. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Jan. 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their motion to certify class. On Aug. 4, 2025, Judge Christopher B. Brown filed a report and recommendation to grant the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On Sept. 5, 2025, Judge William S. Stickman entered an Order adopting Judge Brown's report and recommendation. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted in part and denied in part. Class certification is granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), but it is denied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (23)(b)(2). The appellate case is entitled Douglas Kriley, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., Case No. 25-8035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 19, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David A. Borkovic, Esq. JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP 20 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 261-6400 Email: dab@jgcg.com Defendant-Petitioner XTO ENERGY INC. is represented by: Colin E. Wrabley, Esq. Justin H. Werner, Esq. Daniel P. Wolfe, Esq. Michael J. McCune, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3548 Email: cwrabley@reedsmith.com - and - Elizbeth L. Tiblets, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 347-5037 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Okays $9MM Settlement with Chubb ------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Keller of Law360 reports that a Connecticut federal judge has approved a $9 million settlement under which Chubb's Century Indemnity Co. and ACE American's Pacific Employers Insurance Co. will pay the Chapter 7 estate of a pump manufacturer, resolving claims that The Nash Engineering Co. fraudulently transferred insurance policies intended to cover asbestos liabilities. ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In February 2024, the named plaintiffs in Rouse et al. v. H.B. Fuller Company et al. filed a third amended complaint in their lawsuit against the Company and one of its subsidiaries, which was initiated in September 2022. The suit is pending in the federal District of Minnesota and seeks damages arising from property damage attributed to alleged defects in grout sold by the Company or its affiliates. The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class but have not yet moved for class certification. The court has ordered the parties and their insurers to attend a meditation session on or around October 21 and 22, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims outlined in this lawsuit. As of August 30, 2025, we are unable to estimate any possible loss or range of possible losses and have not recorded a loss contingency for this matter." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tw5dev7 ********* 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 ***