251201.mbx

251201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 1, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 239 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $50MM AAA COOPER: Constantine Seeks FLSA Collective Certification ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Allegheny County Class Suit ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Myers Shareholder Class Suit AETNA LIFE: Settlement in Prolow Gets Final OK ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Breaux FLSA Suit ALO LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action Suit Over Unsolicited SMS AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Modify Briefing Schedule Tossed in Shamman AMERIFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL: Machichi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Electrical Workers Suit BIOVENTUS INC: Discovery Ongoing in Ciarciello Securities Suit BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Duloxetine Suit BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL: Morris Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info C.A. CARRILLO: Da Silva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CAL-MAINE FOODS: Nineteenseventynine Balks at Egg Price-Fixing CAPITAL ONE: Ferrell Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit CAPRI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit CAREDX INC: Plumbers Securities Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 2 CARGILL INC: Sued Over Failure to Compensate All Hours Worked CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend California Consumer Suit CINTAS CORPORATION: Collins Wage Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. COHEN'S FASHION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sanchez Says COLETTE 4 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anjos Suit Says COLUMBIA BANKING: $55-Mil. Settlement Granted Final Approval CONDUENT BUSINESS: St. John Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit COUNTER CULTURE: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CRACKER BARREL: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court CUSTOM BUILDING: Garcia Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Chun Yao Chang Voluntarily Dismissed DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Noriega Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 11 DELTA FOOD MART: Moumouni Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bid to Junk Byte Suit Remains Pending DENTSPLY SIRONA: Continues to Defend SDNY Securities Suit DENTSPLY SIRONA: Settlement in EDNY Securities Suit Has Final OK DEXCOM INC: Oakland County Assoc. Sues Over Share Price Drop DRIFTER'S KITCHEN: Duran Seeks to Recover Workers' Unpaid Wages DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Nuclear Compensation Suit DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026 DUKE ENERGY: Mooresville Coal Ash Suit Remains Pending EAGLE FAMILY: Faces Most Suit Over Mislabeled Popcorn Products EAST JEFFERSON: Booth Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. La. EAST JEFFERSON: Parnell Data Breach Suit Removed to E.D. La. EMBER TECHNOLOGIES: Filing of Bid to Dismiss Gutman Suit Due Dec. 1 EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES: Shane Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ENCORE SENIOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 10, 2026 EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Delaware Securities Suit EVERGY INC: Faces Nuclear Antitrust Suit in Maryland EXICURE INC: "Colwell" Settlement Has Final Court Approval EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cross Appeals Keller Suit Order to 4th Cir. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Strikes Class Action Allegations FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California FEDERAL SAVINGS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Anthony TCPA Suit FEDEX GROUND: Sullivan-Blake Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT FIGS INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Remains Pending FIRSTKEY HOMES: Must Produce Emails in "Harper" Wage&Hour Suit FLAGSTAR BANK: Awaits Prelim OK of Settlement in Cyber Breach Suits FLAGSTAR BANK: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York FOREST RIVER: Court Certifies Class of Montana Owners of RVs FORTINET INC: Faces Securities Suit in California FOX FACTORY: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Remains Pending FUJI HANA: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge FULTON BANK: Fails to Provide Proper Repossession Notice, Suit Says GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit in Fla. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Oakland County Class Suit GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Walling Securities Class Suit GENERAC HOLDINGS: Settlement in Consumer Suit for Court Approval GEO GROUP: Awaits SCOTUS Ruling in Immigration Detainee Suit GEO GROUP: California Immigration Detainee Suit Remains Stayed GEO GROUP: Mesa Verde Immigration Detainee Suit Remains Stayed GOOGLE LLC: Rendon Sues Over Unsolicited Commercial E-Mails Ads GOTHAM COMEDY: Agrees to Settle Ticket Pricing Suit for $716,389 GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Ogdon Suit Ongoing in Arizona Court GRANT MONEY: Appeals Denied Motion to Stay in Revell Class Suit GREEN 70: Ruiz Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective HANDI-FOIL CORP: Court Denies Joint Motion to Seal Documents HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Doller Securities Class Suit HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Jiwani Data Breach Class Suit HONEST COMPANY: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit over IPO INGHAM COUNTY, MI: Joins Class Action Suit Over Unprotected Data INNODATA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Giraudon Securities Suit INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Mallozzi Securities Suit INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits Remain Pending in US, Canada INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Judge Remains Undecided in Foul Odors Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Containerboard Antitrust Suit IREN LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending JAYUD GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 20 KEURIG DR PEPPER: Bruno Mislabeling Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class LANE BRYANT: Smith Class Suit Removed to D. Md. LATOYA HUGHES: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Watts Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: Discovery in Clay Suit Due June 10, 2026 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Turner Seeks to Certify Class Action LIFEMD INC: Continues to Defend Johnston Shareholder Class Suit LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Heckman Antitrust Class Suit LRW TRAFFIC: Joint Motion for Settlement Approval, Denied in Part LULULEMON USA: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Berdugo Labor Suit MARA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Langer Securities Class Suit MARDEN-KANE INC: Class Settlement in Suski Suit Gets Final Nod MARQETA INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit MARTINEZ REFINING: Continues to Defend Piscitelli Class Suit MERCURY FINANCIAL: Settlement Class in Bailey Wins Certification MONARCH HEALTHCARE: Aguirre Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit MP2 ENTERPRISES: Utah Certifies "Brandi-Vanmeter" Class NATERA INC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Calif. Patient Suit NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Genetic Test Suit in California NATERA INC: Court Certifies Class in Texas Securities Suit NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $42MM NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE: Bagwa Suit Removed to W.D. Washington NAVY FEDERAL: Phlaum Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit NCR ATLEOS: Continues to Defend "Hoak" NCR VOYIX: Continues to Defend Plan Participants' Suit NCR VOYIX: Guirguis Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in New York NEW YORK: Mule Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division NEWELL BRANDS INC: Bertoletti Files Suit in N.D. Illinois NEWS CORP: Awaits Final Court OK of Deal in OPIS Suit NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit NORDSTROM INC: Osorio Suit Removed to C.D. California NORLITE LLC: Class Cert Bid in Hill Suit Due Dec. 15 NORTHWEST PIPE: Camarillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEIt Data Breach Suit NUSCALE POWER: Board Seeks Resolution of Delaware Suit NUSCALE POWER: Oregon Court Dismisses Securities Suit OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Securities Suit ONITY GROUP: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in PHH Suit ONITY GROUP: Notice Process Concludes in "Weiner" OPEN LENDING: Texas Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed OPPFI INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in "Alleman" ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Pryde" PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Producers PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Cupat Securities Suit PARTS AUTHORITY: Class Cert Briefing Sched Set for Jan. 13, 2026 PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in California PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Goldstein ESP Explosion Class Suit PINNACLE DIETARY: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages PLAINVILLE GAMING: $4.175MM Settlement OK Hearing Set December 17 RAISING CANE'S: Xatruch Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. RELAX & WAX: Perales Seeks to Recover Wax Specialists' Unpaid OT ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Another TCPA Class Action Lawsuit ROSE PAVING: Trivino Suit Removed to C.D. California SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 2, 2026 SHARECARE HEALTH: Walters Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. SMITH COUNTY, TX: $1.5MM Class Settlement in Hughes Gets Initial No SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Suit Seeks to Certify Class SONDER USA: Fails to Provide Advance Layoff Notice, Hosein Says SONDER USA: Herring Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice SR AUTOMOTIVE: Villa Sues Over Unpaid Compensation STATE ESCHEATOR: Schramm Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 3rd Cir. STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit STURGIS HOSPITAL: Minor Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Suit Says SUNRUN INC: Class Cert. Bid in Luckau Suit Due Feb. 25, 2027 SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Banks Due Sept. 28, 2026 SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Joo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TAYLOR COUNTY, KY: Abbott Appeals Court Order to Ky. Ct. of Appeals TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Morgan Files Class Suit in C.D. Cal. TRON FOUNDATION: Bid to Compel Production of SEC Docs Tossed TUFF SHED: Green Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit ULTA SALON: Mulanena Class Suit Removed to D. Md. UNITED PARKS & RESORTS: Mouzer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Employees' Unpaid Wages UNITED STATES: Doe Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. UNITED STATES: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Dec. 1 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Fails to Secure Private Info, Suit Says UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Ransom Sues Over Data Security Incident UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Sarmiento Sues Over Unprotected Info WERNER ENTERPRISES: Hike Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WINCO FOODS: Haskins Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. WINN WINN: Leonard Must Make Settlement Demand by June 15, 2026 XLPR INFRASTRUCTURE: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Suit ZYNEX INC: Continues to Defend Heid Class Suit in California ********* 23ANDME INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $50MM -------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that Individuals who were customers of 23andMe between May 1, 2023, and Oct. 1, 2023, and received a notice stating a data breach may have compromised their personal information could be eligible to claim up to $10,265 from a class action settlement. 23andMe Inc., now known as Chrome Holding Co. and ChromeCo Inc., agreed to pay up to $50 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the company failed to adequately protect customer data, resulting in a cyberattack that exposed the personal and genetic information of approximately 6.4 million U.S. residents. Who can file a claim? Individuals must meet all of the following criteria: -- They were a customer of 23andMe at any time between May 1, 2023, and Oct. 1, 2023. -- They lived in the United States during that period. -- They received a notice from 23andMe stating the October 2023 data breach compromised their personal information. There are additional subcategories within the class: -- Statutory subclass members: Individuals who resided in California, Illinois, Oregon or Alaska during the breach period and received notice that the breach compromised their information. -- Health information claimants: Individuals who received notice that the breach compromised their health information, such as raw genotype data, health reports or self-reported health condition information. How much can class members get? The settlement provides several types of awards, depending on the claimant's circumstances: -- Extraordinary claims: Up to $10,000 for documented, unreimbursed costs directly resulting from the breach, such as identity fraud, tax fraud, security system purchases or mental health treatment. The total cap for these claims is $8.3 million. -- Health information claims: Up to $165 for those whose health information the threat actors accessed. The total cap for these claims is $1.25 million. -- Statutory cash claims: An estimated $100 for residents of Alaska, California, Illinois or Oregon affected by the breach. The final amount may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims and the remaining funds. -- Privacy and medical shield plus genetic monitoring: Five years of comprehensive monitoring services (estimated retail value $1,875 per person) for all class members who enroll. How to claim a settlement payment Eligible class members must submit a claim form to receive compensation. There are two ways to file: -- File a claim online -- Download, print and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator Settlement administrator's mailing address: 23andMe c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 22539, New York, NY 10150-5391 What proof or documentation is required to submit a claim? -- To file a claim, class members must provide the class member ID located on their settlement notice. -- For extraordinary claims, class members must provide documentation, such as credit card statements, bank statements, receipts, invoices or other records showing unreimbursed losses directly related to the breach. -- For statutory cash claims and health information claims, class members must attest to their residency and/or receipt of a notice from 23andMe and provide the relevant address or payment information. -- Class members who wish to pre-enroll in the privacy, medical shield and genetic monitoring service should indicate this on the claim form. Even if a class member does not pre-enroll, they can still enroll at any time during the five-year service period. Payout options -- Electronic payment (online claims only) -- Paper check (mailed claims) $50 million settlement fund breakdown The $50,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: $918,000 (estimated) -- Attorneys' fees: $12,500,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $500,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $1,000 each ($34,000 total) -- Extraordinary claims: Up to $8,300,000 -- Health information claims: Up to $1,250,000 -- Statutory cash claims: Remaining funds after all other claims are paid -- Privacy, medical shield and genetic monitoring: Estimated retail value $1,875 per person Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Dec. 29, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Jan. 20, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Feb. 17, 2026 When is the 23andMe data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments and benefits after the court grants final approval, resolves the bankruptcy reconciliation process and concludes any appeals. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged a cyberattack in October 2023 exposed the personal and genetic information of about 6.4 million U.S. 23andMe customers. The plaintiffs claimed 23andMe failed to adequately protect customer data, leading to the breach. The company denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and cost of further litigation and provide compensation and monitoring services to affected customers. The parties reached the settlement after 23andMe filed for bankruptcy and sold its assets. The new entity Chrome Holding Co. assumed the obligations. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $10,265 Deadline: February 17, 2026 [GN] AAA COOPER: Constantine Seeks FLSA Collective Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER CONSTANTINE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION, an Alabama Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-02925-K (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a collective action for: "All Hostlers employed by the Defendant in the state of Texas at any time from Sept. 24, 2022 to present, who were classified as exempt under the FLSA under the Motor Carrier Exemption." To facilitate the purpose of the collective action provisions, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant this Motion, enter the Proposed Order attached as Exhibit 13 to the Brief, and grant the following relief to Plaintiff: (1) Certify a collective action and permit notice to issue; (2) Order the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel within 14 days of the granting of this Motion, in a computer-readable format, the contact information (including the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates of employment with corresponding locations of employment) for each Putative Collective Member; (3) Approve the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice; (4) Order that judicially-approved notice be sent to all Putative Collective Members via First Class Mail, e-mail, and text-message, and allow the hiring of a third-party administration company, for use at Plaintiff's discretion; (5) Authorize the Putative Collective Members to execute their consent forms electronically; (6) Authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Collective Members to join the case; (7) Authorize a 30-day reminder notice; and (8) Require the production of the last four digits of any Putative Collective Members' social security number whose notice comes back as undeliverable. The Plaintiff has affirmatively demonstrated that he and the Putative Collective Members are similarly situated. AAA is an American, non-union less than truckload freight carrier. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jJqUBi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Allegheny County Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Allegheny County class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2023, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, and certain underwriters in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 23, 2024, the court entered an order appointing Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, and City of Tallahassee Pension Plan as Lead Plaintiffs (the "Allegheny Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 14, 2024, Allegheny Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between August 4, 2020 and November 7, 2023 (as to the complaint the "Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint"; as to the action, the "Allegheny County Consolidated Class Action"). The Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material information regarding (i) the Company's billing practices with respect to its diabetes product category, and (ii) the Company's compliance programs and integration with respect to acquired companies. The Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On July 23, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint. The Allegheny Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on October 1, 2024, and defendants filed their reply brief on November 15, 2024. On May 28, 2025, the parties jointly filed a letter requesting that the Court hold the motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the outcome of a private mediation between the parties. On October 8, 2025, the parties attended a private mediation. On October 24, 2025, after subsequent settlement discussions, the parties jointly filed a letter informing the Court that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation and requesting until November 24, 2025 to negotiate the formal settlement agreement and file a preliminary approval motion. The settlement is expected to consist of a cash payment by the Company which will primarily be funded by the Company's insurance carriers, and is subject to preliminary and final Court approval and other customary closing conditions. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized and approved and, even if approved, whether the conditions to closing will be satisfied, and the actual outcome of this matter may differ materially from the terms of the settlement described herein. AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical equipment, medical supplies and related services. ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Myers Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Myers shareholder class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On June 24, 2025, a putative shareholder of the Company, Blake T. Myers, filed against the Company a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking to compel an inspection of books and records under 8 Del. C. § 220 ("Section 220") (as to the complaint, the "Myers Section 220 Complaint"; as to the action, the "Myers Section 220 Action"). The Myers Section 220 Complaint asserts the putative shareholder's right to inspect certain corporate books and records relevant to the issues in the Allegheny County Consolidated Class Action for the purported purposes of (i) investigating potential wrongdoing by the current and/or former members of the Board and the Company's current and/or former executive officers, (ii) supporting appropriate action in the event current and/or former directors or executive officers did not properly discharge their fiduciary duties, and (iii) evaluating whether members of the current Board have a conflict of interest such that making a demand upon the Board to bring a derivative action on behalf of the Company would be futile. On July 1, 2025, the parties to the Myers Section 220 Action met and conferred regarding a mutually agreeable resolution to obviate the need for litigation and agreed that a thirty-day window to continue negotiations was appropriate. On July 2, 2025, putative shareholder Myers filed a letter to the Court requesting upcoming deadlines to be extended through August 1, 2025. The Court granted the requested extension on July 8, 2025. On July 31, 2025, Myers filed a letter to the Court requesting upcoming deadlines be extended through August 31, 2025, which the Court granted on August 5, 2025. On September 3, 2025, Myers filed a letter to the Court requesting upcoming deadlines be extended through October 3, 2025. On September 26, 2025, the Company completed its production to Myers. On October 3, 2025, Myers filed a letter to the Court requesting additional time for the parties to confer about the Company's production and offering to provide a subsequent update to the Court on November 3, 2025. On October 6, 2025, the Court stayed the action pending any further requests of the parties. On November 3, 2025, Myers filed a letter informing the Court that the parties are continuing to confer and offering to provide a subsequent update to the Court on December 3, 2025. Should the Court lift the stay, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action, and there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical equipment, medical supplies and related services. AETNA LIFE: Settlement in Prolow Gets Final OK ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON PROLOW and MARK LEMMERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 9:20-cv-80545-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marra entered a final order approving class settlement and certifying settlement class: "All members, participants, and beneficiaries of ERISA- governed employee welfare benefit plans administered and/or insured by ALIC, diagnosed with Prostate Cancer (specific ICD-10 codes as identified in the Settlement Agreement) where (a) the individual was diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, and (b) with respect to proton beam therapy ("PET") precertification requests submitted after Oct. 9, 2020, had an intact prostate, and (c) received a denial from Jan. 1, 2015, to March 31, 2024, and (d) such denial cites "experimental," "investigational," "unproven" "superior," "superiority," and/or "more effective" as the basis for the denial of the requested PET delivery code, unless such terms were expressly included in the definition of "medical necessity"/"medically necessary" set forth in the applicable member's Plan Document/Benefits Booklet, who: (1) (a) Had a PET precertification request submitted prior to the date of service (unless precertification was not required by the applicable Plan Document/Benefits Booklet), and (b) subsequently received PET for the same diagnosis code with no allowed post-service PET benefit claim(s), and (c) a denied post-service claim for the delivery of PET for the same diagnosis code, and (d) had no allowed claims related to the same diagnosis code for an alternative recognized medical treatment (specific Current Procedural Terminology ("CPT") codes as identified in the Settlement Agreement) not including claims related to treatment plans that include PBT in combination with another modality (e.g., concurrent chemotherapy radiation), or (2) (a) Had an approved PBT precertification request, that was submitted prior to the date of service, and (b) subsequently received PBT for the same diagnosis code with no allowed post-service PBT benefit claim(s), and (c) a denied post-service claim for the delivery of PBT for the same diagnosis code, and (d) had no allowed claims related to the same diagnosis code for an alternative recognized medical treatment (specific CPT codes as identified in the Settlement Agreement) not including claims related to treatment plans that include PBT in combination with another modality (e.g., concurrent chemotherapy radiation)." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) individuals who received coverage for PBT or for an alternative recognized medical treatment from another carrier; (2) individuals who received a final pre-certification or post-service claim denial for an administrative reason (i.e., member not covered under an insured or administered Aetna health benefit plan); and (3) the undersigned and the undersigned's immediate family. The Court also entered an order: -- appointing the Plaintiff Mark Lemmerman as class representative for the Settlement Class. -- appointing Stephanie A. Casey of Colson Hicks Edison and Maria D. Garcia and Robert J. Neary of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Aetna offers a variety of health insurance plans. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bpTPwc at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Breaux FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Patrick Breaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alliance Liftboats, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-1000, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Susie Morgan granted on Oct. 6, 2025. The Court finds the proposed collective meets 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)'s similarly situated standard. First, the proposed collective is subject to the Defendant's policy of classifying its liftboat employees as FLSA-exempt seaman. Second, the common question of whether the employees are FLSA-exempt seaman may be answered on a class-wide basis. Third, the individualized defenses available to Defendant affect only a subset of the proposed collective and do not prevent the Court, or the jury, from deciding this matter with respect to the entire collective. Fourth, certification of a collective action does not present unmanageability concerns, and will allow for lower costs through aggregation and consolidation of similar claims. Finally, certification will promote judicial economy by avoiding duplicative trials. The appellate case is entitled Breaux v. Alliance Liftboats, Case No. 25-30648, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on November 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICK BREAUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Harry E. Morse, Esq. BOHMAN MORSE, L.L.C. 400 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 930-4030 - and - Cayce Peterson, Esq. JJC Law, L.L.C. 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Heritage Plaza Metairie, LA 70005 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 Defendant-Appellant ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS, LLC, et al. are represented by: David Matthew Korn, Esq. Stephanie Michelle Poucher, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP 365 Canal Street 1 Canal Place New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 584-9374 (504) 566-1311 ALO LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action Suit Over Unsolicited SMS ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Bridget Botto filed a class action lawsuit against Alo LLC. Why: Botto claims Alo Yoga sent unsolicited text messages to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Alo Yoga of sending unsolicited text messages to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Bridget Botto filed the class action complaint against Alo on Oct. 31 in California federal court, alleging violations of federal law. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls and messages, Botto argues. The law allows individuals to recover penalties for receiving more than one unsolicited call or text message after requesting to be placed on a company's do-not-call list or after registering their number on the National Do Not Call Registry, she says. Botto claims she received multiple unsolicited text messages from Alo Yoga despite having opted out of receiving such communications. She alleges that she initially received an unsolicited text message from Alo Yoga on June 25, 2025, and subsequently requested to opt out by replying with the instruction to stop. However, she claims Alo Yoga ignored her request and continued to send her marketing text messages on at least two other occasions in July. Alo Yoga 'failed' to honor opt-out requests, lawsuit claims The class action lawsuit alleges Alo Yoga failed to honor Botto's opt-out requests, demonstrating that it did not have proper procedures in place for maintaining a do-not-call list and training its personnel on its use. It further claims Alo Yoga's actions violated the TCPA, which requires companies to have written policies and procedures for handling opt-out requests and to train their personnel accordingly. Botto seeks to represent anyone in the United States who received two or more text messages from Alo Yoga within a 12-month period after opting out or while their number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. She demands a jury trial and requesting statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation as well as injunctive relief to prevent Alo Yoga from continuing its alleged unlawful practices. Earlier this year, a North Dakota consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Kohl's, claiming the department store violated state and federal laws by repeatedly making unauthorized robocalls to him and other consumers. The plaintiff is represented by Gerald D. Lane Jr. of The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi. The Alo Yoga class action lawsuit is Botto v. Alo LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10478, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Modify Briefing Schedule Tossed in Shamman ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shammam v. American Honda Finance Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to modify briefing schedule for Defendant's Daubert motion. In short, the Defendant seeks an extension based on circumstances that do not exist and may never come to pass. The Scheduling Order, dated October 3, 2025, remains in effect. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). American Honda is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Honda Motor Co., Inc., the sole authorized distributor of Honda and Acura motor. The Defendant provides financial services.[CC] AMERIFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL: Machichi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL MACHICHI, Plaintiff v. AMERIFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. and ANTONY FARIAS RODRIGUEZ, ALFREDO ROCHIN, and ARTURO FELIX individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03594 (D. Colo., November 10, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated are currently or were formerly employed by Defendants and were not paid overtime in compliance with the law. Specifically, the Defendants failed to pay their hourly employees overtime wages at one- and one-half times their hourly rate for hours worked beyond 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 5, 2024 until June 20, 2025 as a construction laborer, performing demolition, asbestos removal, and other general construction duties. Ameriforce Environmental, Inc. is an asbestos testing service in Wheat Ridge, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, New York 10007 BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Electrical Workers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Electrical Workers Pension Fund class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On October 16, 2025, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and employees were named in a class action complaint captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Baxter International Inc. et al. that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff, which allegedly purchased or otherwise acquired shares of its common stock during the specified class period, filed this putative class action on behalf of itself and those who purchased or otherwise acquired Baxter common stock between February 23, 2022 and July 30, 2025. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and certain former and current officers and employees violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts relating to Novum LVP. Baxter International Inc. is a healthcare company based in Illinois. BIOVENTUS INC: Discovery Ongoing in Ciarciello Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bioventus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that discovery is ongoing in the Ciarciello securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On January 12, 2023, the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North Carolina, Ciarciello v. Bioventus Inc., No. 1:23– CV – 00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. 2023). The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and generally alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding rebate practices, its business and financial prospects, and the sufficiency of internal controls regarding financial reporting. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2023, the Court appointed Wayne County Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint was filed with the Court on June 12, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising a number of legal and factual deficiencies with the amended consolidated complaint. In response to the defendants' motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 31, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 21, 2023, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on November 6, 2023. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's Securities Act claims, but allowed the plaintiff's Exchange Act claims to proceed into discovery. Bioventus Inc. functions as a holding company with no direct operations, material assets or liabilities other than the equity interest in BV LLC, a limited liability company that operates as a partnership. BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Duloxetine Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals has agreed to a class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the company made and distributed anxiety and depression treatment duloxetine, the generic version of brand-name Cymbalta, that contained an impurity that can supposedly cause cancer under certain circumstances. The generic Cymbalta class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 22, 2025. The deal covers all natural persons in the United States who bought Breckenridge duloxetine for personal or household use between August 4, 2020 and May 22, 2025. Court documents state that, while the exact number of class members is unknown, approximately four million individuals are covered by the generic Cymbalta settlement. The court-approved Breckenridge Pharmaceutical settlement website can be found at BoyerSettlement.com. The Breckenridge Pharmaceutical class action settlement offers cash payments in three tiers: Non-Recall Tier, Recall Tier, and Recall Plus Tier. Class members cannot submit claims for more than one tier, the settlement website says. The Non-Recall Tier offers a single $5.00 cash payment to class members who bought three prescriptions of Breckenridge duloxetine and submit a valid, timely claim form and proof of purchase. Proof of purchase can be provided by presenting an original receipt for the purchase of Breckenridge duloxetine between August 20, 2024, and May 22, 2025. The Recall Tier offers a single cash payment of $7.50 for class members who bought three prescriptions of Breckenridge duloxetine and submit a valid, timely claim form and provide proof that the purchased duloxetine prescription was subject to a product recall. Proof for the Recall Tier includes documentation from the pharmacy where the Breckenridge duloxetine was purchased, indicating the duloxetine purchased was subject to a recall. Documentation showing the name and address of the pharmacy from which the class member purchased duloxetine, and documentation from the pharmacy showing the expiration date and National Drug Code (NDC) included in the recall, can also be used as proof, per the settlement agreement. The Recall-Plus Tier offers a $10.00 cash payment per prescription and covers class members who bought three Breckenridge duloxetine prescriptions and submit a valid, timely claim form with proof showing that they purchased and were unable to use the medicine due to a product recall. To prove an inability to use purchased Breckenridge duloxetine, class members should provide documentation of proof of purchase, proof that the duloxetine was subject to a product recall, and proof of return of unused Breckenridge duloxetine due to a product recall, court documents explain. Generic Cymbalta settlement class members who wish to submit a claim form online can do so on this page. All duloxetine settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by December 27, 2025. Per court documents, the final approval hearing for this class action settlement was held on September 23, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after any appeals are resolved. Settlement class members who purchased Breckenridge duloxetine after May 22, 2025 may be eligible to participate in a future refund program, settlement documents continue. Information about the Breckenridge Future Refund Program, which will remain in effect until January 1, 2028, can be found at BreckenridgeFutureRefundProgram.com. Duloxetine is a generic version of the brand-name medication Cymbalta, which is used to help control anxiety and depression and a host of other health conditions. According to settlement documents, n-nitroso-duloxetine (NDLX) is a chemical impurity classified as a nitrosamine, part of a family of substances that allegedly increase the risk of certain cancers, that was found in Breckenridge’s duloxetine. Breckenridge duloxetine allegedly contained NDLX over the acceptable intake amount, and the plaintiff argued the duloxetine purchased by class members was thus contaminated, dangerous, and worthless. In 2024, Breckenridge recalled hundreds of thousands of bottles of its duloxetine, suggesting that "all Breckenridge duloxetine may have been contaminated," court documents note. [GN] BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL: Morris Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN MORRIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00523-MSM-PAS (D.R.I., October 13, 2025) arises out of Defendant Brightstar's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to a "Notice of Data Breach: posted on the Maine Attorney General's website, a data breach occurred in Brightstar's network on or about November 17, 2024, and was disclosed on or about October 3, 2025. Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive and personally identifiable information and protected health information. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both, says the suit. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Brightstar Global Solutions Corporation is an IT services and consulting firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com C.A. CARRILLO: Da Silva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Da Silva and Ryan Santos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. C.A. Carrillo Electrician Corp, and Candido A. Carrillo Machuca, Defendants, Case No. 2581CV02805 (Mass. Super, Middlesex Cty., November 10, 2025) alleges that Defendants have violated Massachusetts General Laws, by failing to pay Plaintiffs and their coworkers time and one half their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 on a weekly basis. Plaintiffs Da Silva and Santos were employed by the Defendants as electrical assistants/apprentices from approximately late June 2025 to the end of October 2025, and from approximately May 2025 to October 2025, respectively. C.A. Carrillo Electrician Corp. s an electrical services company with a principal place of business located in Ayer, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Nineteenseventynine Balks at Egg Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Nineteenseventynine LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Versova Holdings, LLC, Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC., Hillandale Farms East, Inc., and Hillandale Farms, Inc, Daybreak Foods, Inc., Urner Barry Publications, Inc. d/b/a Expana, Egg Clearinghouse, Inc., United Egg Producers, and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02301-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., November 10, 2025) seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief as appropriate, based on Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants have conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs from at least January 1, 2022, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects ceases. Defendant and publisher Urner Barry collects, analyzes, and disseminates current information to its food industry customers in the egg, poultry, meat, seafood, plant protein, and related segments. Urner Barry provides actionable, competitive information related to the egg market to the Egg Producer Defendants and other egg producers. The complaint asserts that the Egg Producer Defendants reported inflated assessments of egg prices to Urner Barry. Urner Barry then published price quotes using the information provided by its subscribers, including the Egg Producer Defendants. It also used transaction prices from Defendant ECI's private online spot market for egg trading. The egg prices dropped after March 2025, only when Defendants' alleged misconduct became public through the revelation of the Department of Justice's investigation of the industry for price fixing, with Cal-Maine, Rose Acre, and Urner Barry reportedly among those under scrutiny, says the suit. Plaintiff Nineteenseventynine LLC, d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt, an Arizona limited liability company, purchased Conventional Shell Eggs in Arizona indirectly from one or more Defendants for its own business use in commercial food preparation during the Class period. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer of eggs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (601) 270-0197 E-mail: tyler@jefirm.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. Zachary J. Freese, Esq. Giselle M. Webber, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com zachary.freese@zimmreed.com giselle.webber@zimmreed.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP Two City Place Drive, Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Evelyn Riley, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M St. NW Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: evelyn@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com - and - John "Don" Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. Sterling Aldridge, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com CAPITAL ONE: Ferrell Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ RANDY FERRELL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Randy Ferrell, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Capital One NA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00091-LMB-WEF, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This action is brought by Plaintiff Randy Ferrell, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated holders of Capital One banking accounts. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief based upon the unlawful conduct of Capital One in denying such account holders the ability to obtain funds in their accounts and in misappropriating funds held in the Capital One accounts. On Apr. 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which Capital One moved to dismiss on May 21, 2025. On June 24, 2025, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema entered an Order granting the motion to dismiss. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint, which Capital One moved to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2025. On Oct. 3, 2025, Judge Brinkema entered an Order granting the motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Randy Ferrell v. Capital One N.A., Case No. 25-2348, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDY FERRELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Katherine Marie Aizpuru, Esq. Glenn Edward Chappell, Esq. Katherine Marie Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 - and - Steven Tobin Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK, LLP 2300 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Defendant-Appellee CAPITAL ONE N.A. is represented by: Connor James Kelley, Esq. Andrew James Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 1 CityCenter 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 CAPRI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Capri Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On December 23, 2024 and January 28, 2025, two purported shareholders of Capri filed putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Capri, Tapestry and certain of their officers (including John D. Idol, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas J. Edwards, Jr., its former Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer) alleging violations of the federal securities laws based on certain statements by defendants concerning the previously proposed Merger and the FTC’s action to enjoin the Merger. The Court appointed the lead plaintiff on March 7, 2025, and on May 15, 2025 the lead plaintiff filed the Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint. The Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint seeks to bring federal securities claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased Capri stock and sold Capri puts between August 10, 2023 and October 24, 2024. It may incur substantial costs defending the Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint, and it cannot provide assurance regarding the outcome of this Amended Federal Securities Law Complaint. An unfavorable judgment or ruling could result in substantial liability. It may also be subject to additional demands or filed actions. The Company's potential liability to shareholders for federal securities claims or other matters related to the previously terminated Merger may be covered in part by its insurance policies, but it may not always have adequate insurance to defend all claims. Capri Holdings (NYSE: CPRI) is a global fashion luxury group consisting of iconic, founder-led brands Versace, Jimmy Choo and Michael Kors. The Company is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, with executive offices in London and operational offices in New York. It was founded in 1981 by American designer Michael Kors. CAREDX INC: Plumbers Securities Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CareDx Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself Plumbers & Pipefitters federal securities class suit settlement hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2025. On May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal securities class action (the "Securities Class Action") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain individuals. On April 1, 2025, a mediation was held between the parties to the Securities Class Action with the assistance of Phillips ADR Enterprises. On April 22, 2025, the parties in the Securities Class Action reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve the Securities Class Action under which the Company would pay or cause to be paid a settlement payment of approximately $20.25 million. On May 16, 2025, the parties reached a definitive stipulation of settlement. On May 23, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval. On July 23, 2025, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement triggering the Company's obligation to fund its portion of the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company and its insurers each deposited their respective obligations into an escrow account. The Company recorded its escrow deposits in prepaid and other current assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2025. In accordance with the Court’s July 23, 2025 order, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval and a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses on September 30, 2025. These motions remain under consideration and a fairness and approval hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2025. The Company has recorded the settlement payment obligation of approximately $20.25 million as accrued litigation settlement expense and also recorded approximately $14.9 million in expected insurance proceeds as prepaid and other current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2025. The Company recorded a net litigation settlement expense of approximately $5.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 based on the agreement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action but there is no guarantee that the agreement will be approved by the Court. CareDx develops, markets, and delivers a diagnostic surveillance solution for heart transplant recipients. CARGILL INC: Sued Over Failure to Compensate All Hours Worked ------------------------------------------------------------- Gillermo Cardenas and Mekonnen Atske, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:25-cv-03736-SBP (D. Colo., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought challenging the Defendant's long-standing policy of failing to properly compensate its non-exempt employees for all hours that they worked under the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA") the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards ("COMPS"). Specifically, Defendant required Plaintiffs to perform work prior to the start of their shifts and after the end of their shifts without pay. Additionally, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with at least a 20-minute, uninterrupted meal break. This conduct violates both Colorado law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant also violated Colorado law in failing to provide Plaintiffs with a 10-minute paid rest break for each four hours they worked for Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant in Ft. Morgan, Colorado during the class period. The Defendant is an agriculture, food, and beverage manufacturer that operates across the country, including in Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celsius Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the securities litigation concerning the Pepsico Inc. distribution agreement remains pending. The Company and individual executives were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions, both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and concerning, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's distribution agreement with Pepsi and the Company's growth. The first putative securities class action was filed on November 22, 2024. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The second putative securities class action was filed on January 14, 2025. The complaint also asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 3, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating the two putative securities class actions (the "Securities Class Action") and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 25, 2025, naming the Company, its CEO, CFO and Chief of Staff as defendants. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's stock between May 9, 2023 and November 5, 2024. On June 13, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss seeking complete dismissal of all claims. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on September 5, 2025 and remains pending. CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend California Consumer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Celsius Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the California consumer class action. On January 22, 2025, the Company and certain individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all purchasers of Celsius products, that plaintiff and other class members were misled regarding the alleged financial relationship between Celsius and the individual defendants, who allegedly promoted the Company's products on social media. The complaint asserts claims for (i) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) negligent misrepresentation. On August 18, 2025, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. On October 15, 2025, a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer, the amended complaint was filed on behalf of all defendants. The Company believes that the claims asserted in this putative class action are without merit and that the likelihood of loss is remote. However, the ultimate outcome of these actions may differ materially from the Company's current expectations, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of losses at this time. The Company will vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. CINTAS CORPORATION: Collins Wage Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CORAL COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CINTAS CORPORATION No. 3, a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-03908-39, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Yakima to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on November 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03204-RLP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts that Cintas: (1) failed to provide rest periods; (2) failed to provide meal periods; (3) failed to pay overtime wages; (4) failed to pay wages less than entitled; (5) failed to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; (6) made unlawful deductions and rebates from employees' wages; (7) failed to pay all wages due at termination; and (8) willfully refused to pay wages. In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class (the "Class") consisting of "[a]ll hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of Washington at any time during the period from three years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final disposition of the action." The class period, pursuant to Plaintiff's definition of the putative class, extends from October 24, 2022, to present. Cintas Corporation's line of business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of apparel and accessories.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 701 Fifth Avenue Columbia Tower, 42nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: +1 512 277 2300 E-mail: DBHeidtke@duanemorris.com - and - Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: +1 312 499 6710 E-mail: GMaatman@duanemorris.com E-mail: JARiley@duanemorris.com COHEN'S FASHION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sanchez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- EFREN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COHEN'S FASHION OPTICAL OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06261 (E.D.N.Y., November 10, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant that, upon information and belief, compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public private information as a condition of obtaining products or services from Defendant, which Defendant retains for years. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On October 28, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendant's inadequately secured systems and obtained files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, 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. Cohen's Fashion Optical of America, Inc. is a retailer in the United States, providing eyeglasses and eye exam services to customers with over 100 locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ashamis@shamisgentile.com COLETTE 4 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anjos Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- FREDSON ALMEIDA DOS ANJOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLETTE 4 INC. d/b/a FETTA REPUBLIC, and YANA KIRKIS, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-62274 (S.D. Fla., November 11, 2025) is a class lawsuit seeking recovery against Defendants for their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for all hours worked including overtime compensation as required by federal and state law. The Plaintiff has thus initiated this case to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation he has been deprived of, plus interest (pre-judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from January 20, 2020 through February 8, 2025, or a period of 264 weeks, as a prep cook and dishwasher. Colette 4 Inc., d/b/a Fetta Republic, is a Mediterranean-style eatery with locations in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pinkhasov, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367-1305 Telephone: (718) 701-4605 Facsimile: (718) 715-1750 E-mail: dpinkhasov@consumerattorneys.com COLUMBIA BANKING: $55-Mil. Settlement Granted Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Columbia Banking System, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a California court has granted final approval of the $55 million settlement in the class action complaint alleging aiding and abetting claims against the Bank associated with the failure of two commercial real estate investment companies, Professional Financial Investors, Inc. and Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc. In August 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging aiding and abetting claims against the Bank associated with the failure of two commercial real estate investment companies, Professional Financial Investors, Inc. and Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc., allegedly effected through a Ponzi scheme. Both companies maintained their primary deposit account relationship with the Bank's Novato, Marin County, California branch office, acquired by the Bank from Circle Bank. The Bank's motion to dismiss was denied in January 2021, and its motion for summary judgment was denied in December 2022, and at the same time the District Court certified the plaintiffs' proposed class. Two other related cases were filed in 2023: one case alleges similar claims by two investors and was filed in May 2023 in Marin County Superior Court that was settled in February 2025 for a nominal sum; and another case was filed in June 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging claims by ten investors with different investments than the class members and dismissed by the court for lack of standing in July 2024. Filing of these cases follows an SEC non-public investigation of Professional Financial Investors, Inc. and Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc. that commenced on May 28, 2020. Plaintiffs in the District Court class action case alleged damages resulting from the scheme of between $297 million and $368 million, including prejudgment interest. Trial in the District Court class action case commenced on February 3, 2025 and a mistrial was declared on March 4, 2025. The Bank subsequently engaged in a court ordered settlement conference, and a Notice of Settlement was filed on March 27, 2025, which contemplates a settlement payment of $55 million by the Bank, including any attorneys' fees or costs. The settlement was granted final court approval on September 11, 2025 and funded in October 2025. CONDUENT BUSINESS: St. John Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MARLON ST. JOHN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17350 (D.N.J., November 10, 2025) is a class action complaint on behalf of a class of persons impacted by Defendants' failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain, and protect highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information. BCBSIL is a customer of Conduent and provided Conduent with the sensitive information of BCBSIL's own customers, including Plaintiff. On October 21, 2024, cybercriminals gained access to Conduent's networks. The cybercriminals enjoyed that access for three months, during which time they exfiltrated files associated with Conduent's clients. Those files included sensitive information such as names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, treatment information, and claims information. Despite its discovering the attack in January 2025, it was not until October 24, 2025 -- a year after the attack -- that Conduent began providing notice to impacted individuals, says the suit. As a direct result of the breach, the Plaintiff suffers from an increased risk of harm due to the exposure and potential misuse of his personal data by criminal hackers. As such, the Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of persons whose sensitive information was stolen during the data breach. Conduent Business Services, LLC is a provider of third-party printing/mailroom services, document processing services, payment integrity services, and other back-office support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Contra Costa County, California, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over a September 2022 data breach that potentially compromised the personal information of thousands of people. The Contra Costa class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 22, 2025, and covers any individual with a California mailing address who received a data breach notice from Contra Costa County on or about May 10, 2023. Per the settlement documents, approximately 15,591 people were impacted by the Contra Costa County data breach. The court-approved website for the Contra Costa settlement can be found at ContraCostaSettlement.com. Class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive up to $500 in reimbursement for ordinary expenses incurred because of the data breach. Per the settlement website, settlement class members must provide proof for each expenditure for which they seek reimbursement. Expenses covered under this option include costs to obtain credit reports, credit freezing and unfreezing, card replacement fees, late fees, and any other costs associated with credit monitoring or identity theft protection, the settlement website says. Furthermore, settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can also receive reimbursement for up to four hours of lost time spent dealing with the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, for a total of $100. This payment will count toward the $500 limit on out-of-pocket expenses, settlement documents state. Class members who submit a claim for reimbursement for their time must submit a short narrative explanation attesting that their activities during the claimed time were directly related to the data breach, the website relays. Settlement class members can also receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented unreimbursed extraordinary expenses stemming from the Contra Costa data breach. Extraordinary expenses include documented professional fees to address actual identity theft or fraud, and documented unreimbursed losses resulting from identity theft or fraud, as explained in the settlement documents. Additionally, the Contra Costa County settlement offers class members two years of three-bureau credit monitoring through Equifax. To submit a Contra Costa County settlement claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and enter their unique settlement claim ID, which can be found in the settlement notice. Class members who prefer to submit a paper claim form can download the claim form here and mail it to the settlement administrator listed on the website. In addition, Contra Costa County, as part of the class action settlement, has agreed to implement stronger data security measures to prevent any future data breaches. Contra Costa settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 20, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the class action settlement at a hearing on February 5, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Contra Costa County class action lawsuit alleged an unauthorized third party gained access to two employee email accounts between September 19 and 20, 2022. During the investigation, Contra Costa County discovered that approximately 15,591 individuals' data was potentially compromised, according to court documents. [GN] COUNTER CULTURE: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTER CULTURE COFFEE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09401 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.counterculturecoffee.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Sanctuary - Counter Culture Coffee from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, says the suit. 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. Counter Culture Coffee, Inc. operates the website that offers coffee products.[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 CRACKER BARREL: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. filed on November 7, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-534, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dated July 1, 2025, in the case captioned Andrew Harrington, et al. vs. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., Case Nos. 23-15650 and 24-1979. The suit is filed against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant-Petitioner CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. is represented by: James M. Coleman, Esq. Jason D. Friedman, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 12500 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 300 Fairfax, VA 22033 - and - Steven B. Katz, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 Email: skatz@constangy.com CUSTOM BUILDING: Garcia Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as LUIS GUILLERMO RAMOS GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0015157, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-at-1581 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; (5) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (8) Unfair Business Practices. Custom Building Products, LLC is a manufacturer of flooring preparation products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Todd B. Scherwin, Esq. Drew M. Tate, Esq. Tristy Rashtian, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: tscherwin@fisherphillips.com dtate@fisherphillips.com trashtian@fisherphillips.com CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Chun Yao Chang Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Customers Bancorp, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Chun Yao Chang matter was voluntarily dismissed. On December 2, 2024, a federal securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned Chang v. Customers Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06416-JS, by Chun Yao Chang against Customers Bancorp, Jay Sidhu, its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, and Carla Leibold, its former Chief Financial Officer. The action alleges that Customers Bancorp and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions during the class period of March 1, 2024 through August 8, 2024, and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of Customers Bancorp. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' costs incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs. On January 31, 2025, Chun Yao Chang filed the only application for appointment as lead plaintiff with The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as counsel. On June 24, 2025, the court denied plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead counsel, finding that plaintiff had not made the required prima facie showing that he will be an adequate class representative. Customers Bancorp intends to defend itself against this action. On October 28, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss his case without prejudice against all defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Noriega Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noriega, et al., v. Dallas County, Case No. 3:25-cv-01567 (N.D. Tex., Filed June 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting motion to extend time. The Plaintiff must file his reply to Defendant's response to the motion for class certification by or before Dec. 11, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] DELTA FOOD MART: Moumouni Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Karambiri Moumouni, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. DELTA FOOD MART INC. d/b/a DELTA GAS STATION, WEBSTER FOOD MART INC. d/b/a WEBSTER AVE. CITGO, BALAK FOOD MART INC. d/b/a CONOCO, AND VISHAL KUMAR, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:25-cv-06408 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("N.Y. Lab. Law") that Defendants failed to pay them overtime pay. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any overtime premium pay for hours the worked over 40 in a week. Many times, Defendants' checks to Plaintiff bounced and could not be deposited. This led to days or weeks of waiting until the issue was resolved. The Plaintiff knows from personal conversations and observations that Defendants' cashiers and other hourly employees were paid the same way that he was paid and were not paid any overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a week, regardless of which one of Defendants' locations they worked at, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cashier from February 1, 2024 to November 1, 2024. The Defendants operate gas stations and convenience stores in Suffolk, Nassau, and Westchester counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Frank J. Tantone, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com frank@lipskylowe.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bid to Junk Byte Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Dentsply Sirona Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit relating to its acquisition of Byte LLC remains pending. On November 26, 2024, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the SDNY Court captioned North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-09083 (the "North Collier Action"). On December 18, 2024, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the SDNY Court captioned Calvin v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-09764 (the "Calvin Action"), and on December 19, 2024, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the SDNY Court captioned Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-09819 (the "Key West Action"). The complaints in these three cases allege that, for different alleged class periods over the period from May 6, 2021 through November 6, 2024, the Company and certain current and former officers violated U.S. securities laws by, among other things, making materially false and misleading statements or omissions, including regarding the performance of the Company's Byte aligners business, following the Company's acquisition of Byte LLC in December 2020. On February 21, 2025, the SDNY Court entered an order consolidating the North Collier Action, the Calvin Action, and the Key West Action under the caption In re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 24-cv-9083 (the "2024 Securities Litigation"), and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated case. An amended complaint was filed on May 9, 2025. On July 8, 2025, the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Continues to Defend SDNY Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 2, 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio captioned City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust v. Casey, Jr. et al., No. 2:22-cv-02371, and on July 28, 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Court") captioned San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-06339 (together, the "Securities Litigation"). The complaints in the Securities Litigation are substantially similar and both allege that, during the period from June 9, 2021 through May 9, 2022, the Company, Mr. Donald M. Casey Jr., the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Jorge Gomez, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, violated U.S. securities laws by, among other things, making materially false and misleading statements or omissions, including regarding the manner in which the Company recognized revenue tied to distributor rebate and incentive programs. On March 27, 2023, the Court in the Southern District of Ohio ordered the transfer of the putative class action to the SDNY Court. On June 1, 2023, the SDNY Court consolidated the two separate actions under case No. 1:22-cv-06339 and appointed as lead plaintiffs for the putative class the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, the El Paso Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund, and the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (collectively, the "Lead Plaintiffs"). Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on July 28, 2023 (the "Amended Complaint"). In addition to asserting the same claims against the Company, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Gomez, the Amended Complaint added the Company's former Chief Accounting Officer, Mr. Ranjit S. Chadha, as a defendant (collectively, "Defendants"). On October 10, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs opposed the motion. On May 1, 2024, the SDNY Court granted the motion to dismiss as to Mr. Chadha and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss as to the Company, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Gomez. The Company's answer to the Amended Complaint was filed on May 21, 2024. On November 15, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the matter as a class action, to appoint Lead Plaintiffs as class representatives, and to appoint class counsel. Defendants opposed the motion. On July 10, 2025, the SDNY Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointed the Lead Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointed counsel for Lead Plaintiffs as class counsel. The Company has recognized a liability as of September 30, 2025, with an offsetting insurance receivable, resulting in no impact to the Consolidated Statements of Operations in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Settlement in EDNY Securities Suit Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has final court approval. On December 19, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "EDNY Court") against the Company and certain individual defendants. The case was narrowed following its inception. The plaintiff's claims which, have now been approved for final settlement, were that the Company and certain individual defendants violated U.S. securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omitting required information in the December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with the 2016 merger of Sirona Dental Systems Inc. ("Sirona") with DENTSPLY International Inc. (the "Merger") and that the defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated U.S. securities laws by making false and misleading statements in quarterly and annual reports and other public statements between May 6, 2016 and August 7, 2018. The plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from December 8, 2015 through August 6, 2018. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 15, 2019. The plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on January 22, 2021, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 8, 2021, with briefing on the motion fully submitted on May 21, 2021. The Company's motion to dismiss was denied in a ruling by the EDNY Court on March 29, 2023, and the Company's answer to the second amended complaint was filed on May 12, 2023. Following additional motion practice -- which remained outstanding with the EDNY Court -- and discovery, the parties engaged in settlement discussions with the assistance of a mediator, and, in January 2025, reached a settlement in principle to resolve the case in full for $84 million. In connection with the settlement, the Company received an offsetting insurance policy receivable of approximately $78 million and paid the rest in cash. The excess of the settlement liability over the corresponding insurance policy receivable resulted in $6 million of legal expense which was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2024. The settlement agreement, which was negotiated and signed in January, was approved by the EDNY Court following a final approval hearing held on September 10, 2025. DEXCOM INC: Oakland County Assoc. Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ OAKLAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OAKLAND COUNTY VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES' BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEXCOM, INC., KEVIN R. SAYER, JACOB S. LEACH, JEREME M. SYLVAIN, and SEAN CHRISTENSEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09370 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2025) is a securities class action against Dexcom and certain of its current senior executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Dexcom common stock between January 8, 2024, and September 17, 2025, inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly praised the accuracy and overall performance of the G7, Dexcom's latest generation of continuous glucose monitors, touting it as "the most accurate sensor on the market today," and "the most accurate CGM that has been cleared by the FDA." The Defendants expressly attributed the Company's success to the device's performance. However, the Defendants' Class Period representations that the G7 was accurate and high performing were false. In truth, the Defendants knew that the G7 product was plagued with quality issues relating to both the accuracy of the sensor, and the sensor's ability to transmit data to the user's chosen receiver or smart device. As a result of Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions, shares of Dexcom's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, says the suit. On September 18, 2025, research firm Hunterbrook Media LLC published a report detailing incidents of G7 users being hospitalized or dying as a result of incorrect blood glucose readings from their G7 devices. This report included information from former Dexcom employees, healthcare experts, and G7 users, as well as documents from the FDA investigation that had prompted the March 2025 warning letter. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Dexcom common stock declined by $8.99 per share, or 11.8%, over the following two trading sessions, the suit relates. Plaintiffs Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association are employee benefit plans for employees and retirees of Oakland County, Michigan. DexCom, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets CGMs for diabetics to monitor their blood glucose levels. Dexcom is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hannah Ross, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Aaron L. Castle, Esq. VMT LAW, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578 1201 E-mail: acastle@vmtlaw.com DRIFTER'S KITCHEN: Duran Seeks to Recover Workers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY DURAN, Plaintiff v. DRIFTER'S KITCHEN AND BAR, INC and DAVID DONOFRIO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06278 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2025) is a class action on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the proper minimum wages, spread-of hours wages, and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately August 2022 until October 12, 2025 as a dishwasher. Drifter's Kitchen and Bar, Inc. is a New York-based restaurant.[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 DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Nuclear Compensation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the nuclear compensation lawsuit. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs Leo Dorrell and John Dunn filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, including Duke Energy Corporation (Parent) and Progress Energy. The plaintiffs allege that the nuclear power industry engaged in a conspiracy to suppress compensation by exchanging salary information since 2003, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages, on behalf of current and former employees in the nuclear power industry as well as injunctive relief. On October 15, 2025, all defendants jointly filed an omnibus motion to dismiss all claims in the complaint and Duke Energy also joined a motion filed by several defendants to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Business Services as defendants and including more factual allegations to support their complaint. Although not named as a defendant, Duke Energy Progress is accused of having participated in the alleged conspiracy. The defendants have until November 19, 2025, to respond to the amended complaint. DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL MABLE, v. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00117-RH-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Hinkle entered an order compelling discovery and amending the schedule as follows: -- The plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in part. -- The parties may agree to alter the schedule for conferring and for the production, but absent contrary agreement, the parties must meet this schedule: (a) By November 21, 2025, the plaintiff must (i) notify the Defendant of the plaintiff’s decision whether to abandon or defer at this time any portion of the production required by this order and (ii) notify the defendant of any subsets of documents for which the plaintiff requests a separate cost estimate; (b) By December 2, 2025, the defendant must provide the Plaintiff a good-faith estimate of the overall cost of production and the cost the defendant will incur for each subset of documents for which the plaintiff has requested a separate estimate; (c) By December 9, 2025, the plaintiff must notify the Defendant of the production it wishes to obtain at the plaintiff’s expense; (d) By December 23, 2025, the defendant must produce the requested documents; (e) By December 30, 2025, the defendant must provide Plaintiff an invoice for the production; (f) By January 13, 2026, the plaintiff must pay the invoice except for any portion the plaintiff contests and, for any contested portion, must confer as required by Local Rule 7.1 and move to adjust the required amount. -- By December 23, 2025, the defendant must produce to the plaintiff at the defendant’s own expense the documents described in request for production 35. -- The motion to extend deadlines is granted. -- The deadline for the plaintiff's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosures is January 16, 2026. -- The deadline for the defendant's 26(a)(2) disclosures is February 13, 2026. -- The deadline to move for class certification is Feb. 27, 2026. - The discovery deadline is March 27, 2026. This automatically moves the deadline to move for summary judgment to April 24, 2026. Duke provides utility services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ALrqGq at no extra charge.[CC] DUKE ENERGY: Mooresville Coal Ash Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Duke Energy Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Mooresville Coal Ash lawsuit remains pending. On December 20, 2024, 15 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Iredell County, North Carolina, against Duke Energy (Parent), Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress (collectively "Duke Energy") on behalf of a putative class alleging past and ongoing environmental contamination in the Mooresville area of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that Duke Energy disposed of and sold coal ash as structural fill resulting in the contamination of soil, groundwater and Lake Norman. The plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy failed to properly remediate the contamination and continues to pollute, and they assert that the contamination has negatively impacted property values. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief to stop further contamination, remediation of contaminated areas and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, private nuisance, strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities and trespass. On September 11, 2025, Duke Energy filed its answer to the plaintiff's amended complaint and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings is scheduled for December 15, 2025. EAGLE FAMILY: Faces Most Suit Over Mislabeled Popcorn Products -------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN MOST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE FAMILY FOODS GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2025LA001443 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., November 10, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The suit arises from the illegal actions of Defendant, in intentionally labeling their popcorn products as "no artificial preservatives," when they contain the synthetic preservatives sodium phosphate and lactic acid. By making false and misleading claims about the contents of its products, the Defendant impaired Plaintiff's ability to choose the type and quality of products he chose to buy. Therefore, the Plaintiff has been deprived of her legally protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about his consumer products as required by law, says the suit. Eagle Family Foods Group LLC provides packaged dairy products. The Company produces and markets canned sweetened condensed and evaporated milk products. Eagle Family Foods Group serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 555 Skokie Blvd., Suite 500 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (224) 218-0875 E-mail: Steven.perry@toddflaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com EAST JEFFERSON: Booth Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Robert Booth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EAST JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL and LCMC HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 869766, was removed from the 24th District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02321 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that LCMC Health Holdings, Inc. ("LCMC") failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems with certain personally identifiable information and personal health information and that there was an alleged breach and disclosure of confidential information (the "Data Breach") which allegedly harmed Plaintiff and members of the putative class. The complaint asserts various claims under federal law including that (i) LCMC allegedly violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPPA") and (ii) LCMC allegedly violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The state law claims asserted involved the same case or controversy as the federal claims as all the claims arise from the alleged improper conduct or practice of LCMC (now UHS) which allegedly resulted in the Data Breach. LCMC Health Holdings, Inc. no longer exists and University Healthcare System, L.C. ("UHS") is its successor by way of merger. UHS owns and operates East Jefferson General Hospital. East Jefferson General Hospital is not a legal entity but rather is the registered trade name of Louisiana Children's Medical Center.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Butler, Jr., Esq. Richard G. Passler, Esq. Thomas M. Benjamin, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 909 Poydras Street Suite 1500 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 619-1800 E-mail: Peter.Butler@bswllp.com Richard.Passler@bswllp.com Thomas.Benjamin@bswllp.com - and - Thomas R. Temple, Jr., Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 301 Main Street Suite 2300 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Telephone: (225) 387-4000 E-mail: Thomas.Temple@bswllp.com EAST JEFFERSON: Parnell Data Breach Suit Removed to E.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as WESLEY PARNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EAST JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL and LCMC HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 869731, was removed from the 24th District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02323-BWA-EJD to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that LCMC Health Holdings, Inc. ("LCMC") failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems with certain personally identifiable information and personal health information and that there was an alleged breach and disclosure of confidential information (the "Data Breach") which allegedly harmed Plaintiff and members of the putative class. The complaint asserts various claims under federal law including that (i) LCMC allegedly violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPPA") and (ii) LCMC allegedly violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The state law claims asserted involved the same case or controversy as the federal claims as all the claims arise from the alleged improper conduct or practice of LCMC (now UHS) which allegedly resulted in the Data Breach. East Jefferson General Hospital is the registered trade name of Louisiana Children's Medical Center. University Healthcare System, L.C. ("UHS") is the successor by way of merger to LCMC Health Holdings, Inc. It is an acute general hospital whose primary function is to provide inpatient diagnostic and therapeutic services for a variety of medical conditions, both surgical and non-surgical, to a wide population group.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Butler, Jr., Esq. Richard G. Passler, Esq. Thomas M. Benjamin, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 909 Poydras Street Suite 1500 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 619-1800 E-mail: Peter.Butler@bswllp.com Richard.Passler@bswllp.com Thomas.Benjamin@bswllp.com - and - Thomas R. Temple, Jr., Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 301 Main Street Suite 2300 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Telephone: (225) 387-4000 E-mail: Thomas.Temple@bswllp.com EMBER TECHNOLOGIES: Filing of Bid to Dismiss Gutman Suit Due Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gutman v. Ember Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02436 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order setting the following briefing schedule for Defendants' motions to dismiss: -- The Defendants' motions to dismiss due Dec. 1, 2025 -- The Plaintiff's oppositions due by Dec. 22, 2025 -- The Defendants' replies due January 12, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Ember is a design-led temperature control brand and technology platform.[CC] EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES: Shane Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- HILARY SHANE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Hilary Shane, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Emisphere Technologies Inc, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-20898, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a class consisting of the Plaintiffs and other investors that sold shares of the publicly traded common stock of Emisphere Technologies from November 6, 2020. On May 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 20, 2025. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that further amendment would be futile as it relates to Lead Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs purchased their shares after the Proxy was issued. Accordingly, dismissal of the Lead Plaintiffs' claims is with prejudice. This dismissal, however, is limited to the named Lead Plaintiffs and does not bind absent class members who were not parties to this action. The appellate case is entitled Hilary Shane, et al. v. Emisphere Technologies Inc, et al., Case No. 25-3140, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants HILARY SHANE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Defendants-Appellees EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al. are represented by: Samuel I. Portnoy, Esq. GIBBONS One Gateway Center 1145 Raymond Plaza West Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4909 - and - Kevin H. Marino, Esq. John D. Tortorella, Esq. MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE 437 Southern Boulevard Chatham Township, NJ 07928 Telephone: (973) 824-9300 - and - Joseph L. Buckley, Esq. Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq. Peter C. Urmston, Esq. SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS The Legal Center One Riverfront Plaza Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 643-7000 - and - Ian S. Marx, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG 500 Campus Drive, Suite 400 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 360-7900 ENCORE SENIOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 10, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIE MOE, v. ENCORE SENIOR LIVING, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01246-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling conference order: 1. The parties may join additional parties and amend pleadings without further leave of the court through Dec. 5, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff will file a motion for court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on or before April 10, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and a motion for collective certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on or before Apr. 10, 2026. 4. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith effort to settle the case. Encore operates several communities for seniors in southwest region of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v1HVLF at no extra charge.[CC] EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Delaware Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- EverCommerce Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the putative class action lawsuit pending in a Delaware court. On January 31, 2024, plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, members of its Board and the other parties to its sponsor stockholders agreement, dated June 30, 2021, Providence Strategic Growth II L.P., Providence Strategic Growth II-A L.P., SLA Eclipse Co-Invest, L.P., and SLA CM Eclipse Holdings, L.P. (collectively, the "Sponsor Stockholders"), captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Eric Remer, Penny Baldwin, et. al., Case No. 2024-0077 (Del Ch.). The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") by providing the Sponsor Stockholders with a veto right over the Board's ability to hire or fire the Company's Chief Executive Officer (the "CEO Approval Right") on the basis that it unlawfully limits the Board's authority to manage the business and affairs of the Company. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the CEO Approval Right is invalid and void, other declaratory and equitable relief for the class and/or the Company, attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs and expenses, and other equitable relief. On June 14, 2024, the Company filed its opening brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss, and on July 15, 2024, Plaintiff opposed that motion. On July 16, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order dismissing the director defendants from the action. On August 29, 2024, the remaining defendants, the Company and Sponsor Stockholders (collectively, "Defendants"), filed their reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss, and pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on September 26, 2024, which Defendants filed a response to on October 10, 2024. On October 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that the claims alleged are not ripe for adjudication and on November 15, 2024 Plaintiff opposed that motion. On December 9, 2024, Defendants filed their reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. On January 3, 2025, the Court entered a minute order deferring oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss until after the disposition of the appeal in Moelis & Company v. West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, Case No. 340, 2024 (Del. Supr.). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. EVERGY INC: Faces Nuclear Antitrust Suit in Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- Evergy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a nuclear antitrust lawsuit in a Maryland court. In July 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act in establishing wages for employees at nuclear facilities since 2003. The complaint names 28 defendants, including all 26 owner operators of nuclear facilities in the United States, or affiliated entities, including Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which owns and operates Wolf Creek, a nuclear facility in Kansas. Evergy indirectly owns 94% of Wolf Creek, with Evergy Kansas Central and Evergy Metro each owning 47% of the nuclear facility. This case is at a preliminary stage and the Evergy Companies are unable to assess the outcome or reasonably estimate any possible damages with respect to the claims. EXICURE INC: "Colwell" Settlement Has Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Exicure, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., has received final court approval. The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were defendants in Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:21-cv-06637) (the "Securities Class Action"). On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint generally alleging that the defendants made false statements about the results of experiments concerning the drug XCUR-FXN and asserting claims for violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On October 8, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the Securities Class Action and set a schedule for final approval proceedings, including a final approval hearing on January 13, 2025. On January 13, 2025, the court entered final judgment approving a settlement of this litigation, which settlement included a $5,625,000 payment. The settlement will be fully covered by insurance. However, the settlement includes a reservation of rights by the insurers against the Company for the unsatisfied portion of its self-insured retainer. As a result, the Company recorded an accrual as of September 30, 2024 for the amount of the unsatisfied retainer of approximately $1,100,000 needed to bridge the $2,500,000 retainer that the Company is liable for under its self-insured retention. On July 29, 2025, the Company entered into an agreement with the insurer to remit $1,000,000 in order to satisfy the remaining balance of its self-insured retention obligation and paid this on August 13, 2025. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cross Appeals Keller Suit Order to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. is taking a cross appeal in the lawsuit entitled Eric Keller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00409-TDS-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. In this putative class action, Plaintiff Eric Keller seeks recovery from Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for Experian's alleged failure to timely reinvestigate disputed information in his file. On July 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing on Nov. 4, 2024. On Sept. 23, 2025, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Experian's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Keller's motion for leave to amend, and Experian's motion for a protective order and motion to quash Keller's request for entry are denied without prejudice. In sum, the Court ruled that there is simply no party who has alleged an injury in fact that can fairly be traced to Experian's challenged conduct, specifically, its suspicious mail policy. Thus, dismissal is warranted. On Oct. 22, 2025, the Plaintiff appealed the Sept. 23 Order. The appellate case is entitled Eric Keller v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25-2357, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ERIC KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Chami, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC 8095 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 626-2359 - and - Jed Robert Nolan, Esq. Benjamin Matthew Sheridan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN 3566 Teays Valley Road Hurricane, WV 25266 Telephone: (304) 562-7111 - and - Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS 2290 East Speedway Boulevard Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone: (602) 807-1504 Defendant-Appellant EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented by: Caren D. Enloe, Esq. SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP P.O. Box 176010 Raleigh, NC 27619 - and - Christopher A. Hall, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 - and - John Alexander Vogt, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Strikes Class Action Allegations ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACKIE DRUG STORE, INC., on Behalf of Itself and Arkansas Similarly Situated, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., ESI MAIL ORDER PROCESSING, INC., ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICE, INC., and EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01669-MAL (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Lanahan entered an order: 1. Granting the motion to strike class action allegations; 2. Granting the motion to dismiss all claims against the defendants ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc., ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc.; 3. Granting the motion to dismiss Counts II, IV, and V; and 4. Denying the motion to dismiss Count I and III. Lackie is an independent retail pharmacy with its principal place of business in Lonoke, Arkansas Express is a pharmacy benefit management (PBM) organization. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bNrfGj at no extra charge.[CC] FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Fastly, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in the securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. On May 24, 2024, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Ken Kula v. Fastly, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-03170), naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on July 23, 2024. On August 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and lead counsel. On November 1, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired Fastly securities between November 15, 2023 and August 7, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2025. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On October 24, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss is due December 9, 2025, Lead Plaintiff's opposition is due January 26, 2026, and Defendants' reply is due February 19, 2026. A hearing has not yet been scheduled on Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters and also naming as defendants the Company and its officers and directors. FEDERAL SAVINGS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Anthony TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Michael Anthony, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Federal Savings Bank, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02509, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Sept. 23, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. On Oct. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Sept. 23 Order. The appellate case is entitled Michael Anthony v. The Federal Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 25-8030, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MICHAEL ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com - and - Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Avenue, Suite 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com Defendants-Petitioners THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, et al. are represented by: Steven M. Hartmann, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 360-6000 Email: shartmann@sgrlaw.com - and - Amanda Witts, Esq. Ari Karen, Esq. Sean Hennessy, Esq. MITCHELL SANDLER PLLC 2020 K. Street NW, Suite 760 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 886-5260 Email: v.awitts@mitchellsandler.com akaren@mitchellsandler.com shennessy@mitchellsandler.com FEDEX GROUND: Sullivan-Blake Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL SULLIVAN-BLAKE and HORACE CLAIBORNE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03419-MJM (W.D. Pa., October 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to pay proper overtime to Plaintiffs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The collective action lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, who have been employed by FedEx through intermediary employers to perform delivery services on FedEx's behalf and who have been eligible to receive overtime pay but have not been paid time-and-a-half compensation for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs Sullivan-Blake and Claiborne worked as delivery drivers for FedEx through an intermediary entity that FedEx calls an independent service provider. FedEx is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. FedEx has engaged in the business of the delivery of packages nationwide and within the state of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com FIGS INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ FIGS, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the appeal from the order dismissing the putative securities class action remains pending with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "The putative securities class action filed in November 2022 against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California was dismissed with prejudice by the court in January 2025 with judgment against the plaintiffs entered by the court on February 13, 2025. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from that dismissal and briefing on the appeal is ongoing. The related derivative suits against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors are currently pending. "On November 1, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed against us and certain of our executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements in our IPO in May 2021 and thereafter. An additional putative class action complaint was filed against us, certain of our executive officers and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to our IPO, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 8, 2022, making similar allegations to the previously referenced purported class action. On February 14, 2023, the court consolidated the two complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs. On April 10, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against us, certain of our executive officers and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to our IPO, alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements between May 27, 2021 and February 28, 2023 with respect to our ability to predict customer demand and to manage our supply chain, inventory, air freight usage and costs (the "Class Action Securities Litigation"). The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. On May 25, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 17, 2024, the court granted the motion in its entirety as to all defendants, dismissed the case without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On March 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act similar to those alleged in the previously dismissed amended complaint. On May 3, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 10, 2025, the court granted the motion in its entirety as to FIGS and the executive officer and director defendants, dismissed certain claims with prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint further as to the remaining claims. Thereafter, plaintiffs declined to file an amended complaint and the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs on February 13, 2025. "Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and briefing in that appeal is complete," the Company stated. FIRSTKEY HOMES: Must Produce Emails in "Harper" Wage&Hour Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Taki Harper, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FirstKey Homes, LLC, Defendant, No. 3:25-CV-642-L-BW (N.D. Tex.), United States Magistrate Judge Brian McKay of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. FirstKey is ordered to produce emails drafted, sent, and received by the named and opt-in Plaintiffs and is ordered to produce Plaintiffs' activity records from software platforms Yardi, Vonage and InContact, Lead, and Zendesk. Plaintiffs Taki Harper, Shawnte Leigh, and Kelly Williams, on behalf of themselves and others including opt-in plaintiffs, filed this collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) against Defendant FirstKey Homes, LLC alleging claims for unpaid time under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On June 10, 2025, the Court entered an initial scheduling order that provides for pre-notice discovery, consistent with Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, L.L.C., 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021), so the parties may assess the plaintiffs' similarity of situation. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel, in relevant part, seeks the production of all of Plaintiffs' emails and records showing their use of Defendant's software platforms. At issue in the motion are two requests for production. RFP No. 4 seeks all emails for Plaintiffs in a searchable PDF format and in chronological order, which includes all emails received or sent by Plaintiffs, regardless if deleted or not, and regardless of whether kept in a specific sub-folder; deleted drafts created by Plaintiffs; all attachments to any of the foregoing; and to the extent not readily identifiable by the email itself, all data necessary to determine time/date created, sent, received and read. RFP No. 10 seeks all transaction records, software activity records, software login and logout records, and documents reflecting Plaintiffs' usage of any computer/software system utilized by Plaintiffs in performing their work duties during the relevant time period, including all documents reflecting the time Plaintiffs access any such systems/software, including but not limited to Yardi, RentCafe, Dynamics 365, Dynamics CRM, Outlook, Teams, Keyper Wire Chat, Slack, Vonage, inContact, and Skype. The Court first considered Plaintiffs' request for their emails. The Plaintiffs assert that the emails are necessary for two purposes at this stage: first, they argue that the timing of the emails would show similarity among them by establishing that they worked hours outside scheduled hours and during their lunch breaks; second, they contend that the substance of the emails would show substantial similarity in tasks performed. The Defendant has collected emails for the named Plaintiffs and has offered to provide data showing the date and time of all emails sent by Plaintiffs for their comparison to time records, and produce responsive emails returned by agreed-upon search terms. The Court found that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that at least some of the documents requested are relevant, noting that whether Plaintiffs were similarly required to work during off hours or lunchbreaks is relevant to the notice issues discussed in Swales. The Court was unpersuaded by FirstKey's argument of undue burden for two primary reasons. First, it does not provide evidence from which the Court may find that the onerousness of the production is disproportionate to the needs of this case. Second, even accepting FirstKey's representations about the volume of named Plaintiffs' emails, its argument against production is constructed on a burden that it need not undertake. The Court noted that Plaintiffs expressed their expectation that FirstKey will produce the emails under a blanket confidentiality designation and their willingness to accept them that way. With this, FirstKey's burden argument largely falls away. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted as to RFP No. 4. Judge Brian observed that RFP No. 10 seeks transaction data that concerns Plaintiffs' use of FirstKey's systems to accomplish their work. The Plaintiffs argue that software activity records are essential to showing their work hours and when they performed work activities. FirstKey has agreed to produce activity records for Yardi, Vonage and InContact, Lead, and Zendesk. It has offered to produce documents from Outlook and Teams that are responsive to agreed-upon search terms, and it has resisted the production of information from Dynamics. FirstKey argues that producing all the requested software data is unduly burdensome, and it supports its argument with the affidavit testimony of its chief information officer providing some detail concerning the work that would be necessary to produce the information requested. The Plaintiffs' motion was granted with respect to the production of activity records for Yardi, Vonage and InContact, Lead, and Zendesk. Considering the parties' arguments and the evidence produced, and particularly the full production of Plaintiffs' emails, the Court concluded that the full production of additional Outlook and Teams data is disproportionate to Plaintiffs' needs in this case. FirstKey is ordered to produce Outlook and Teams messages responsive to agreed-upon search terms. The Court directed the parties to negotiate search terms to be applied to the instant messages. The Court denied the motion with respect to data from Dynamics, noting that although Plaintiffs generally characterize the discovery as essential, they have not demonstrated how the data from this particular platform, considering the data ordered produced by this order, outweighs the burden of its collection and production. The Plaintiffs state in their motion that FirstKey, in response to interrogatories, served a litany of general and boilerplate objections and refused to fully answer any of the interrogatories. Based on the information provided in the Joint Status Report and hearing, the Court concluded that attempts to resolve the issues through attorney conference have not yet been exhausted. The Court denied the motion to compel without prejudice with respect to Defendant's responses to interrogatories. A copy of the Court's decision ordered November 17 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ksJAnF from PacerMonitor.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Awaits Prelim OK of Settlement in Cyber Breach Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Flagstar Bank, National Association, disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it awaits preliminary approval of a settlement in the cyber breach lawsuits. "Flagstar has been named as a defendant in three different sets of purported class actions related to three separate cyber breach incidents. Flagstar has vigorously defended these actions and also intends to vigorously defend any future or related actions. The first set, captioned Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank, Case No. 2:21-cv-10657-MFL-DRG, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, relates to a data breach that occurred in January 2021, after threat actors exploited vulnerabilities in a File Transfer Appliance (FTA) used by Flagstar Bancorp, which was acquired by Flagstar in December 2022, to gain access to confidential customer information. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages to be proven at trial and alleges breach of implied-in-fact contract, breach of confidence and public disclosure of private fact and also violations of various California consumer protection laws. On March 27, 2025, the court granted Flagstar's motion to dismiss as to certain allegations and denied Flagstar's motion to dismiss as to certain other allegations. On April 4, 2025, the court entered a stipulated Order to Stay Proceedings Pending Mediation. The order stayed the matter for 90 days, to allow the parties to participate in mediation to resolve both this matter and the In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation matter. "The second set, captioned In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-11385 is comprised of twenty purported class action lawsuits that were consolidated into a single action filed on June 23, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and relates to a cyber breach of Flagstar Bancorp's information technology system that occurred in December 2021. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages to be proven at trial and alleges common law and statutory claims associated with the exposure of customers' Personally Identifiable Information (PII) as a result of the data breach and seeks class certification. On September 30, 2024, the court dismissed 17 of the 18 claims in the plaintiff's consolidated complaint, allowing only the claim under the California Consumer Privacy Act to proceed, thereby limiting participation in the action to California class members. On April 4, 2025, the court entered a stipulated Order to Stay Proceedings Pending Mediation. The order stayed the matter for 90 days, to allow the parties to participate in mediation to resolve this matter and the Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank matter, discussed above. "On August 8, 2025, the parties reached a global settlement for both In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation and Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank. The settlement, which requires court approval would fully resolve the common law and statutory claims of all potential claimants associated with the combined lawsuits. In order to consolidate the two data breach cases, In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation was reassigned to the judge presiding over Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank. An order was issued on August 25, 2025, closing out In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation and consolidating the two cases into the Angus matter (Case No. 2:21-cv-10657 (E.D. Mich.). As part of the global settlement process, Plaintiffs first filed a consolidated class action complaint on September 24, 2025 and then, on October 1, 2025, filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement with the Court. "We await the Court's approval of the Motion for Preliminary Approval," the Company stated. FLAGSTAR BANK: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Flagstar Bank, National Association, disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the consolidated securities lawsuit pending in a New York court. "Flagstar and certain former executive officers of Flagstar and certain current and former directors of Flagstar have been named as defendants in a consolidated purported shareholder class action captioned Lemm, Jr. v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00903, filed on February 6, 2024 (and later amended on September 6, 2024) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This action seeks unspecified compensatory damages to be proven at trial, alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, with respect to disclosures concerning our business, operations and prospects, particularly regarding the impact of the Flagstar Bancorp and Signature transactions and the Bank's CRE loan portfolio and related matters, that were made in our public SEC filings and press releases during the period beginning on July 27, 2022 and ending on February 29, 2024. In addition, plaintiffs allege claims of violations of various federal securities laws related to the registration statement filed by NYCB in connection with its merger with Flagstar in 2022. "On December 19, 2024, another purported shareholder of Flagstar filed an additional purported shareholder class action, captioned Garfield v. Flagstar Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08655, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain current and former directors and executive officers of Flagstar. This additional purported class action alleged substantially the same claims as those set forth in the Lemm complaint and the plaintiff has filed a motion to consolidate this matter with the Lemm matter. On April 28, 2025, the Court entered a stipulated order consolidating the Lemm and Garfield matters. The action formerly known as Lemm was then recaptioned by the Court to In re: New York Community Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation. "We are vigorously defending the allegations set forth in the purported class action complaints and also intend to vigorously defend any related actions," the Company stated. FOREST RIVER: Court Certifies Class of Montana Owners of RVs ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered an order that: 1) Nelson's motion for reconsideration of nationwide class certification is denied in part and granted in part. The Court will not certify a Montana class of all Forest River Towable RVs. The Court will certify a class of Montana owners of Forest River Fifth Wheel RVs. 2) The Montana Class shall consist of: "all persons in Montana who own a Forest River Fifth Wheel RV other than for resale or distribution." The Court determined that Forest River had presented a reasonable reading of the safety standards. (Doc. 208.) Nelson now attempts to present new arguments on the reading of the RVIA 3-1 and 3-5 safety standards. Nelson's previous briefings lacked arguments to rebut Forest Rivers contentions that the standards applied differently if the wiring entered the RV. The Court declines now to apply statutory interpretation to the RVIA safety standards as argued by Nelson, as Nelson could have made these arguments in its reply brief in support of the motion for class certification. Even if Forest River's reading of RVIA 3-1 and 3-5 proves unreasonable, this finding would not change the Court’s class certification analysis. The common question in this case cannot simply be whether Forest River failed to follow the safety standards set out in the RVIA. The parties dispute the safety standards application to different Towable RVs, Forest River’s adherence to these standards, and the safety standards interpretation. With the dispute as to the difference in wiring of the various model of Towable RVs, a broad “yes” answer would not resolve the dispute at a class wide level that included all Towable RVs. Like Nissan, wherein the defendant’s expert noted that the brake-related warranty claim rates varied widely across vehicle model and software update level to defeat commonality, the thermal event related warranty claim rates varied across the Towable RV models, type, and manufacturer. Some Towable RV models appear to have higher rates of warranty claims related to thermal events, while other Towable RV models appear not to have wiring issues at high rates. This variation indicates that different claimants experience different defects and/or harm depending on the make, model, type, and the wiring of the Towable RV. The parties also continue to dispute the variation in wiring schematics across the Towable RV models. Nelson 25 Case 4:22-cv-00049-BMM Document 241 Filed 11/18/25 Page 26 of 26 has not established that one common question, answer, or defect exists across a class of all Forest River Towable RVs. Nelson alleges in his Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC) that Forest River failed to disclose violations of the applicable standards, actively concealed the violations, and refused to remedy adequately the resulting wiring defects. The Court denied Nelson's motion to certify a nationwide class of all Forest River Towable RV's. The Court certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3) a narrower class of: "All persons in Montana who own a Forest River Cedar Creek Fifth Wheel RV or a Forest River Puma Fifth Wheel RV other than for resale or distribution." Forest is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gQJKdY at no extra charge.[CC] FORTINET INC: Faces Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------- Fortinet, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a securities class action in a California court. "On September 22, 2025, a securities class action was filed against us, our chief executive officer, our chief technology officer, our current chief financial officer and our former chief financial officer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Fortinet, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-08037. On October 16, 2025, a securities class action was filed against us, our chief executive Officer, our current chief financial officer and our former chief financial officer in the same court, captioned State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer v. Fortinet, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-08888. These suits are brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of our common stock between November 8, 2024 through August 6, 2025. "The complaints allege that defendants made false or misleading statements about our business, operations and prospects, including regarding the 2026 firewall refresh cycle, and purport to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The time to respond to the complaints has not yet passed. "We believe these cases are without merit and defendants intend to defend the suits vigorously. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in these cases, the outcome of these matters remains uncertain and we cannot estimate the potential impact, if any, on its business or financial statements at this time. Accordingly, no loss accrual was recorded as of September 30, 2025 related to these litigations," the Company stated. FOX FACTORY: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fox Factory Holding Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a federal securities class action remains pending. On February 20, 2024, a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. On August 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that purported to seek damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023. The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and alleged that the Company and certain current and former officers made material misstatements and omissions to investors regarding demand for the Company's products and its inventory levels. The amended complaint generally sought money damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On October 15, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which plaintiff opposed. On March 13, 2025, the Court dismissed the amended complaint but granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On April 14, 2025, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting essentially the same claims and relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on May 30, 2025, which plaintiff opposed on July 14, 2025, following which the defendants filed their reply on August 11, 2025. The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the plaintiff's positions are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend themselves. FUJI HANA: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lin, et al., v. Fuji Hana Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03832 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order referring to Magistrate Judge James R. Cho motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Fuji Hana is an authentic Japanese restaurant.[CC] FULTON BANK: Fails to Provide Proper Repossession Notice, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LANEAN PATTERSON-ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULTON BANK N.A., Defendant, Case No. 251101422 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., November 10, 2025) is a consumer class action brought against the Defendant to redress systemic violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code. According to the complaint, Defendant Fulton Bank NA regularly finances the purchase of automobiles for consumer use in Pennsylvania. When the Bank believes that a consumer has defaulted on a secured vehicle finance agreement, it repossesses and then makes preparations to auction the vehicle. In the course of so doing, the Bank failed to provide Plaintiff and the class with the proper notice of repossession and disposition of collateral required by Pennsylvania Law, including Pennsylvania's UCC. Because self-help repossession is effected without judicial authorization or oversight, the UCC requires secured creditors like the Bank to adhere strictly to the Code's notice requirements. Failure to provide proper notice of repossession of consumer goods is a violation of the Code that yields statutory minimum damages without evidence of harm for the Plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent, the suit asserts. Fulton Bank is a Pennsylvania state bank with an office for the regular transaction of business in East Petersburg.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 E-mail: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consumer class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On October 18, 2024, two individuals filed a putative consumer class action lawsuit against Generac Power and the Company in the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 24-cv-02412). The Amended Complaint, which includes additional plaintiffs, alleges certain defects for home standby generators manufactured or sold to consumers from 2020-2024. Plaintiffs assert breaches of warranty, tort-based, and statutory claims relating to the sale and performance of home standby generators. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in the complaint, including that the case should not proceed as a class action. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Oakland County Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend the Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association securities class sit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On December 1, 2022, Oakland County Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association and Oakland County Employees' Retirement System filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The court subsequently consolidated a later filed action and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging violation of federal securities law related to disclosures of certain matters (the Oakland County Lawsuit). On February 7, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a securities fraud claim. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2025 and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Walling Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Walling securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. On November 21, 2023, Christopher Walling filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the Western District of Wisconsin and was later appointed lead plaintiff. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violation of federal securities law related to statements concerning the Company's financial outlook and the impact of macroeconomic trends on the demand for its products. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock between May 3, 2023, and August 3, 2023, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's stock (the Walling Lawsuit). The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 21, 2024, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in the amended complaint. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Settlement in Consumer Suit for Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the consumer class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On October 28, 2022, Daniel Haak filed a putative consumer class action lawsuit against Generac Power in the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges breaches of warranty, tort-based, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power relating to the sale and performance of certain clean energy products, and seeks to recover damages, including consequential damages, that the plaintiff and putative class allegedly incurred.  Additional putative class actions were filed by consumers raising similar claims and allegations in other district court cases. These putative class actions have been consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation, In re: Generac Solar Power Systems Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation currently pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 23-md-3078. Generac Power and plaintiffs participated in a mediation through which the parties agreed to certain monetary and non-monetary terms to resolve the matter on a classwide basis. The parties will seek court approval for the classwide settlement and Generac Power has reserved for the contemplated $15,000 settlement fund. Generac Power does not concede liability or any charges of wrongdoing in connection with the proposed settlement. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GEO GROUP: Awaits SCOTUS Ruling in Immigration Detainee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The GEO Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Aurora ICE Processing Center immigration detainee litigation. Civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The complaint also claims that the Company was unjustly enriched based on the level of payment the detainees received for work performed in a Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") the Company is required to implement at the facility under the terms of its contract with the federal government. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the CMWA and dismissed this claim. On February 27, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiffs' class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 18, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Company's affirmative defenses, denying the Company's motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the class period for plaintiffs' TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling against the Company's motions for relief. All trial dates were stayed by court order pending appeal of certain of GEO's defenses to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was held on September 18, 2023. On October 22, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued an Order finding appellate review of GEO's claim of immunity was premature and, therefore, the Tenth Circuit was currently without jurisdiction to consider the merits of GEO's claimed immunity. On January 13, 2025, GEO filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Tenth Circuit's decision. On June 2, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted GEO's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was set for November 10, 2025. All trial dates remain stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court. GEO GROUP: California Immigration Detainee Suit Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a California immigration detainee class action remains stayed pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In California, a class action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017, by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of the Central District of California. The California lawsuit alleges violations of the state's minimum wage laws, violations of the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and retaliation. The California court has certified a class of individuals who have been civilly detained at the Company's Adelanto Facility from December 19, 2014, until the date of final judgment. On March 31, 2022, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits, which is stayed pending GEO's Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. GEO GROUP: Mesa Verde Immigration Detainee Suit Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center immigration detainee class action remains stayed pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Current and former detainees of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and the Golden State Annex ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on July 13, 2022, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. The complaint alleges that federal detainees who volunteer to participate in the VWP at GEO's Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex ICE facilities are employees of GEO and entitled to the state's minimum wage. Plaintiffs also make claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, human trafficking, forced labor, California's Private Attorneys General Act and retaliation. GEO filed both a motion to stay the action pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in the State of Washington lawsuits and a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety. On July 10, 2023, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 10, 2025, the Court denied plaintiffs' request to lift the stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on GEO's Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which is stayed pending GEO's Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. GOOGLE LLC: Rendon Sues Over Unsolicited Commercial E-Mails Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- ISABEL RENDON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware entity; LULULEMON ATHLETICA INC., a Delaware entity, Defendants, Case No. 30-2025-01525137-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., November 10, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements sent to Plaintiff in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. In October of 2025, the Plaintiff received a spam e-mail from Defendant Google promoting Lululemon's products. The e-mail was sent from mail-noreply@google.com with the subject line "Now $59 -- List Price $118, and more." The e-mail contained an embedded link https://shop.lululemon.com. The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of all natural persons using California email addresses who received any commercial email from Defendant Google advertising any purported discount on and Lululemon product that contained either a forged header, unauthorized use of a domain, or containing a materially misleading subject line in violation of state law. Google LLC is a multinational technology company, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., that specializes in Internet-related products and services. Lululemon Athletica Inc. designs and retails athletic clothing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrel1@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattomeys.com GOTHAM COMEDY: Agrees to Settle Ticket Pricing Suit for $716,389 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that New York's Gotham Comedy Club has agreed to pay up to $716,389 as part of a class action settlement resolving a lawsuit over allegedly hidden fees and a lack of transparency in the club's online ticket pricing. The Gotham Comedy Club settlement agreement received preliminary approval from the court on September 18, 2025. The deal covers anyone in the United States who purchased electronic tickets through ShowClix.com to any event hosted by the Gotham Comedy Club in New York from August 29, 2022, to May 17, 2024. The court-approved settlement website is available at GothamComedyClubTicketFeeSettlement.com. Settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a cash payment of $4.50 for each ticket purchased during the settlement period, court documents state. Class members can choose to receive the cash payment by check or electronically. To submit a claim form online, class members can go to this page of the settlement website and enter their unique ID and PIN found in their class action settlement notice. Class members who prefer to submit a claim form by mail can download it at https://www.classaction.org/media/gothamcomedy-summerville-claimform.pdf and mail the form to the address listed on the first page of the document. Gotham Comedy Club settlement class members must submit their claim forms online or by mail by December 30, 2025. A final approval hearing for the Gotham Comedy Club settlement is scheduled for February 5, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Gotham Comedy Club class action lawsuit arose over the venue's alleged practice of "ambush[ing]" online ticket buyers with a $4.50 service fee at checkout. The complaint claimed customers had no way of discerning the true ticket prices until checkout, when they were presented with an eight-minute countdown to complete the purchase. The class action lawsuit argued that customers were pressured into accepting the bogus $4.50 service fee because of the artificial urgency created by the countdown. [GN] GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Ogdon Suit Ongoing in Arizona Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Grand Canyon Education, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that a May 2020 case captioned "Ogdon v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., et al.," filed in in federal district court in California and later transferred to United States District Court for the District of Arizona is currently ongoing. Suit asserts claims for violations of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act; Unjust Enrichment; and purported violations of the federal RICO statute, including a conspiracy claim. The defendants include the company along with our chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer. In July 2025, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and added an additional plaintiff. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 19, 2025. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. Discovery is ongoing, and there is currently no trial date scheduled in this matter. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities. GRANT MONEY: Appeals Denied Motion to Stay in Revell Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- GRANT MONEY, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to stay in the lawsuit entitled John Revell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grant Money, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05994-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Military Lending Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Georgia Payday Loan Act. On Aug. 8, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to stay individual claims in favor of arbitration and strike class claims, which Judge Trina L. Thompson denied on Nov. 5, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Revell v. Grant Money, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-7035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 6, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 19, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 19, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 28, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 27, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN REVELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 - and - Elliot Jason Conn, Esq. CONN LAW, PC 100 Bush Street, Suite 1580 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - Jacob Phillips, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Defendants-Appellants GRANT MONEY, LLC, et al. are represented by: Matthew P. Previn, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 - and - Michael Morrill, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive, 45th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Sean David Unger, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 GREEN 70: Ruiz Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDILBERTO RUIZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members, v. GREEN 70 LLC, GREEN 84, LLC, C & V 77 ENTERPRISES, LLC, ARI KASIMIS, PETER KASIMIS, and VASILI KARABATSOS, Case No. 1:25-cv-05777-JMF (S.D.N.Y), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vGfJGC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 HANDI-FOIL CORP: Court Denies Joint Motion to Seal Documents ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Merryl Osdoby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Handi-Foil Corp., Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-04199 (NG) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Parties' joint motion to seal documents filed in connection with the Defendant's summary judgment motion and Plaintiff's class certification motion. The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action against the Defendant alleging claims under New York General Business Law Section 349-50, seeking monetary relief for the alleged misleading/deceptive business practices and false advertising based upon the Defendant's mislabeling of its aluminum foil products as made in the USA. The Court So-Ordered the Parties' Confidentiality Stipulation on January 23, 2023. The Parties sought to file under seal or in redacted form documents filed in connection with the Defendant's summary judgment motion and the Plaintiff's class certification motion. The Court applied the three-part analysis adopted by the Second Circuit in Lugosch to determine whether documents filed in a case can and should be placed under seal. The Court found that the documents within the application are unquestionably judicial documents. The Parties sought that memoranda, declarations, exhibits and 56.1 statements for the summary judgment motion, and the class certification motion papers with any accompanying exhibits be sealed or redacted. The Court noted that summary judgment motions have been deemed a judicial document with a strong presumption of access that attaches to documents filed in connection with a dispositive motion. Likewise, motion papers and the documents relating to class certification are considered judicial documents because they are relevant to the judicial function and useful to the judicial process. Secondly, the Court determined that the presumption of public access to the documents requested to be sealed are at its zenith. The presumption of public access exists along a continuum. The strongest presumption attaches where the documents determine litigants' substantive rights, and is weaker where the documents play only a negligible role in the performance of Article III duties. A strong presumption attaches to materials filed in connection with dispositive motions, such as a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment motion. Documents submitted in connection with a motion for class certification are judicial records to which a strong presumption of access applies. Addressing the third factor, the Court found that the Parties failed to make a particularized showing of compelling reasons why any documents should be redacted and/or filed under seal. To overcome the presumption of public access, the party seeking to seal bears the burden of showing that countervailing, substantial interests outweigh the presumption. Substantial interests generally include a third party's personal privacy interests, the public's safety, or preservation of attorney-client privilege. When analyzing whether countervailing concerns outweigh the presumption of access, courts should consider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public, the nature and degree of injury that may result from disclosure, and the reliability of such information. The Parties offered that if the information is disclosed publicly, Handi-Foil would experience financial harm and competitive disadvantage, and the Plaintiff believes certain import information may bear on sensitive competitive sourcing information. However, the Court found that the Parties have failed to make a particularized showing through clear and compelling reasons why specific portions of documents should be redacted and filed under seal. The perfunctory recitation of the standard along with generalized statements are not enough to shield records from public view. Without justification or compelling reasons linking the list of documents to be filed under seal, which appear to be majority of both motions, the Court concluded that the documents should not be sealed. The Court noted that although the Parties cite to their Confidentiality Stipulation and Order for what the parties deemed may be designated as confidential, a designation of a document as confidential under a protective order, by itself, is not sufficient to permanently seal a document. Documents used by parties moving for, or opposing, summary judgment should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons. A copy of the Court's decision dated November 25, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jpZXHS from PacerMonitor.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Doller Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Doller securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Middle District Court"), captioned Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No. 2:24-CV-00513). On September 30, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, following the Florida Middle District Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts claims against Hertz Global, former Company CEO, Stephen M. Scherr, and former Company Chief Financial Officer, Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including concerning statements regarding demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global's securities between January 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Hertz Global filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Florida Middle District Court stayed all proceedings, pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. On October 16, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part. The Court dismissed all claims except those based on statements alleged in Paragraphs 98 and 110 of the Amended Complaint. The Court directed the clerk to lift the stay and ordered the parties to file a case management report by October 31, 2025. Hertz Corp. and its subsidiaries -- http://www.hertz.com/-- operate a worldwide vehicle rental business under the Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty brands, with car rental locations in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and New Zealand. They also operate a vehicle leasing and fleet management solutions business. HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Jiwani Data Breach Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jiwani data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division (Rockford, Illinois). On April 15, 2025, Zain Jiwani filed a class action complaint against Cleo Communications U.S., LLC ("Cleo") and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division (Rockford, IL) (the "Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court"). Plaintiff alleges that Cleo, a file-transfer vendor for the Company, experienced a data breach event that may have impacted the personal information of certain individuals during the secure file transfer process from the Company's systems to third-party systems and that Company data may have been acquired by an unauthorized third party that exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo’s platform in October and December of 2024. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was negligent in failing to secure the data, breached implied contracts and was unjustly enriched. Ten similar class action complaints were filed against the Company shortly thereafter and eventually transferred to the same court, the Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court. The class actions generally seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The defendants' responses to the complaints have been stayed pending the Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court's entry of a global scheduling order. At this early stage of the litigation, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Hertz Corp. and its subsidiaries -- http://www.hertz.com/-- operate a worldwide vehicle rental business under the Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty brands, with car rental locations in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and New Zealand. They also operate a vehicle leasing and fleet management solutions business. HONEST COMPANY: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit over IPO ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honest Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on July 30, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final order approving the settlement and judgment disposing of a consolidated class action complaint filed on February 21, 2022. A putative class action complaint alleging federal securities law violations by the company, certain current officers and directors, and certain underwriters in connection with the company's IPO was filed by Stephen Gambino on October 8, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This and other related complaints have been transferred to the same court and a Lead Plaintiff has been appointed in the matter, and a putative consolidated class action complaint was filed by the Lead Plaintiff on February 21, 2022. On January 21, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation stating that they had reached an agreement in principle to fully settle all pending claims in the action and asking the court to stay the case so the parties could have additional time to negotiate the terms of a formal stipulation of settlement and related documentation. The court entered an order staying the case on the same day. On April 14, 2025, the court preliminarily approved the parties' settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for the release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the defendants in the second amended consolidated complaint, the company agreed to pay $20,000,000 to resolve the dispute. On July 28, 2025, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class settlement and on July 30, 2025, the court entered a final order approving the settlement and judgment disposing of the Securities Litigation Case. The Honest Company, Inc. is a digitally-native consumer products company with products spanning baby care, beauty, personal care, wellness and household care, selling its products through digital and retail sales channels in the following product categories namely diapers and wipes, skin and personal care, and household and wellness. INGHAM COUNTY, MI: Joins Class Action Suit Over Unprotected Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin DuFort Petty of East Lansing Info, reports that earlier November, the East Lansing Public Schools Board of Education approved a plan to join a class-action lawsuit against PowerSchool, a software and cloud-hosting platform used by the district that experienced a data breach in December 2024. Hackers claimed to have stolen the data of 62.4 million students and 9.5 million teachers. Christian Palasty, the district's director of technology and communications, explained in an interview with East Lansing Info that East Lansing students' information was not stolen in the data breach because of extra security measures taken by the district. PowerSchool stores all school records, including attendance, lunch counts, demographic data, grades, behavior reports and emergency contact information. Palasty said schools fall into one of two categories in their PowerSchool setup: districts that self-host the server on their own hardware and districts that have the platform hosted for them. The hack only affected schools that do not host their own servers. "We're one of the few districts in Ingham County that hosts it ourselves," Palasty said. "And the [hacker] did attempt to connect to our server, but we block international traffic, and the person wasn't successful." Even though ELPS student data was not stolen, ELPS Superintendent Dori Leyko told ELi that because the district had an expectation of privacy that was not maintained, it is eligible to join the suit. "I don't know the exact legalese that's in there," Palasty added, "but [the district's contract with PowerSchool] basically says that [they] will hold ourselves to the highest security standard [and] will meet these industry guidelines for cybersecurity best practices. And it kind of came out that they weren't keeping themselves to those high standards." To PowerSchool's credit, Palasty said, the company implemented near-instant security measures after the breach. The company also paid an undisclosed amount of money to the hacker for guarantees that the data would be returned. The data was returned, but the hacker then "reached out to individual districts and tried to extort them," he said. ELPS has utilized PowerSchool since 2007, Palasty said, and never really considered switching to another platform, even after the breach. He said the district trusts PowerSchool moving forward and that there are few alternative platforms the district could use. He said that hacking and data breaches like this one are a constant threat, but ELPS has been successful in preventing breaches. "Public education just doesn't have the resources or the manpower to play that whack-a-mole of keeping things locked down [and] preventing people from clicking on links and emails," he said. "We deal with that on a weekly basis. Thankfully, we [ELPS] haven't had a huge data breach in a very long time. "We can only do the best that we can to lock the network down, run tests on it, have outside contractors run audits on it and see if they find any loopholes or any windows that we've neglected or missed." According to a memorandum from the district's attorneys, Thrun Law Firm, the lawsuit will seek past and future expenses related to the data breach, future expenses for platform changes and data migration, and reimbursements for payments to PowerSchool. Frantz Law Group in California are the class attorneys in the suit. [GN] INNODATA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Innodata Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the putative securities class action remains pending. In February 2024, David D'Agostino filed a putative class action captioned D'Agostino v. Innodata Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "Securities Class Action"). In October 2024, the presiding judge in the Securities Class Action appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel. The Securities Class Action complaint, as amended, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's artificial intelligence ("AI") technology and services. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously. On March 7, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action complaint. On April 10, 2025, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint to the Securities Class Action complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") to correct purported typographical errors in the Securities Class Action complaint. On April 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending with the USDC. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the action at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Giraudon Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Innovative Industrial Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Giraudon federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On January 17, 2025, a second federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Alain Giraudon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Alan D. Gold, Paul E. Smithers, David Smith and Ben Regin, Case No. 1:25-cv-00182-RDB, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its common stock and alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding its business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 27, 2024, and December 19, 2024. On April 25, 2025, the court issued an order setting a briefing schedule, which is as follows: plaintiff is to file an Amended Complaint no later than June 23, 2025; defendants are to file an answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond no later than August 22, 2025; if defendants move to dismiss, plaintiff is to file a response no later than October 21, 2025; and defendants are to file a reply no later than November 20, 2025. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an internally-managed real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, ownership and management of specialized industrial properties leased to experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated cannabis facilities. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Mallozzi Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Innovative Industrial Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Mallozzi federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its common stock and alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding its business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between May 7, 2020, and April 13, 2022. On September 29, 2022, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding as defendants Alan D. Gold and Benjamin C. Regin, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between August 7, 2020, and August 4, 2022. On December 1, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 19, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice. On October 19, 2023, a Second Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, and asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between August 7, 2020, and August 4, 2022. On December 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; on February 1, 2024, plaintiff responded with their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; and on March 1, 2024, defendants replied to plaintiff's response. On September 25, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On September 30, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On December 9, 2024, plaintiff filed their opening appellate brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On January 23, 2025, defendants filed their appellate brief. On February 27, 2025, plaintiff filed their reply brief. Oral argument took place on June 17, 2025. On October 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion and judgment affirming the trial court's dismissal of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The judgment allowed the appellant to file a petition for rehearing on or before October 29, 2025. On October 29, 2025, the appellant filed a petition for rehearing. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, at this time, it cannot predict the probable outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company's consolidated financial statements. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an internally-managed real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, ownership and management of specialized industrial properties leased to experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated cannabis facilities. INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits Remain Pending in US, Canada ------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that consumer class action lawsuits are pending against the Company in the U.S. and Canada. "The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of purchasers of our products, generally claim to have been harmed by our actions and/or omissions in connection with Spectre, Meltdown, and other variants of this class of security vulnerabilities that have been identified since 2018, and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. In the U.S., class action suits filed in various jurisdictions between 2018 and 2021 were consolidated for all pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, which entered final judgment in favor of Intel in July 2022 based on plaintiffs' failure to plead a viable claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in November 2023, ending the litigation. In November 2023, new plaintiffs filed a consumer class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with respect to a further vulnerability variant disclosed in August 2023 and commonly referred to as "Downfall." In August 2024, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' entire complaint for failure to plead a viable claim, with leave to amend. In August 2025, the district court dismissed with prejudice the nationwide class claims under California law in plaintiffs' amended complaint, and denied Intel's motion to dismiss subclass claims pleaded in the alternative under the laws of certain other states. In October 2025 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. "In Canada, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled in one case relating to Spectre and Meltdown pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, and a stay of a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec is in effect. "Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary damages or other related relief. Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters," the Company stated. INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit are pending in a California court. "A securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2024 against us and certain officers following the modification of our segment reporting in the first quarter of 2024 to align to our new internal foundry operating model. In August 2024, the court ordered the case consolidated with a second, similar lawsuit, and in October 2024 plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint generally alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements about the growth and prospects of the foundry business and seeking monetary damages on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock or purchased call options or sold put options on our common stock from January 25, 2024 through August 1, 2024. "In March 2025, the court dismissed plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs failed to plead any false or misleading statements by defendants. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend, but in July 2025 dismissed plaintiffs' second amended complaint and entered judgment in defendants' favor, again finding that plaintiffs failed to plead any false or misleading statements. Plaintiffs have appealed. "Given the procedural posture of the case, including that the plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from the matter," the Company stated. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Judge Remains Undecided in Foul Odors Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fareeha Abrar, writing for First Coast News, reports that a Duval County judge heard hours of tense arguments Monday, November 24, as Murray Hill residents pushed to move forward with a class-action lawsuit against International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) over years of foul chemical odors they say have polluted their neighborhood and seeped into their homes. The hearing centered on a pivotal question: Can the thousands of people who've complained about the smell be treated as one unified class? The decision will determine whether the case moves forward as one large lawsuit or splinters into individual or mass-action claims. IFF's legal team opened the afternoon by attacking the foundation of the plaintiffs' case. Defense attorneys argued that the expert the plaintiffs relied on for some of their evidence used "fabricated" emission numbers instead of data available in the company's state air permit. According to the company's defense counsel, their expert, Roberto Gasporino, testified at a deposition that using IFF's real emission numbers would show odor concentrations too low for humans to detect. Defense also highlighted the presence of multiple industrial odor sources in the area, saying residents' complaints can't reliably be traced back to IFF. They pointed out that other neighborhoods downwind of the plant reported no odors at all. Plaintiffs' attorney countered with a sweeping overview of evidence collected since 2018: more than 2,000 odor complaints, nearly 200 confirmed by the city, and city documents acknowledging that TRS compounds emitted by industrial facilities can travel miles if not properly controlled. The attorneys said the plaintiffs aren't required to prove liability yet, only that a class exists and can be identified. "This class essentially defined itself over four years," Laura Sheets said, adding that residents consistently describe the same "pine-like," chemical odor and consistently attribute it to IFF. One of the sharpest conflicts of the hearing centered on dueling resident declarations. Plaintiffs accused IFF of sending private investigators through Murray Hill to gather statements from residents claiming they don't smell anything. Sheets said some residents later rescinded their statements, claiming they didn't understand they were signing sworn legal documents or that the signatures were not theirs. She also noted that some allegedly said the canvassers said they were working on behalf of Revlon, a cosmetics company, and not IFF. The defense denied wrongdoing and said they only produced the declarations they were asked for. By the end of the hearing, Judge Robert Dees denied all three motions before him -- including cross-Daubert challenges and a motion to strike late-filed declarations -- and did not rule on whether the lawsuit will be certified as a class action. Instead, he ordered both sides to submit proposed written orders stating exactly how they want him to rule. IFF spokesman Michael Munz provided the following statement to First Coast News after the court hearing: "IFF is committed to operating safely, responsibly and in full compliance with all environmental regulations. As a responsible community partner, we employ best-in-class technologies and processes to prevent odors from leaving our facility and work collaboratively with the City of Jacksonville. At today's hearing, we presented evidence -- supported by case experts, the City's own odor study and numerous residents -- demonstrating that we operate well within permitted limits and that IFF is not the source of objectionable odors in Murray Hill. We respect the judge's role and the importance of considering all evidence to reach a fair and informed decision. We look forward to a fair and thorough review of the case law and the facts." [GN] INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Containerboard Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that, together with other containerboard producers, it is facing a purported class action complaint that alleges a civil violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. On July 29, 2025, 12 containerboard producers, including International Paper, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleges a civil violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Artuso Pastry Foods Corp v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in November 1, 2020 through the time of filing, conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of containerboard products and finished packaging products made from containerboard. The alleged class is formed from persons who purchased containerboard products directly from one or more defendants for use or delivery in the United States during the period November 1, 2020 to the present. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and actual damages on behalf of the purported class. IREN LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ IREN Limited disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a putative securities class action remains pending. On December 14, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint naming the Company and certain of its directors and officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. An amended complaint in this action was filed on June 6, 2023, also naming as defendants the Company and certain of its directors and officers, as well as the underwriters of the Company's IPO. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on September 27, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion, dismissing the case without prejudice and with leave to file a further amended complaint. The lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint on November 12, 2024. The second amended complaint, which has substantial similarities to the prior complaint, asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired (a) Ordinary shares in the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and/or (b) Company securities between November 17, 2021 and November 1, 2022, both dates inclusive. It contends that certain statements made by the Company and certain of its officers and directors, including in the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, were allegedly false or misleading and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On January 21, 2025, the Company served a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. The lead plaintiffs served their opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 24, 2025, and the Company on May 9, 2025 served its reply in further support of its motion to dismiss. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending. JAYUD GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a shareholder has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of investors (the "Class") who purchased or acquired the securities of Jayud Global Logistics Limited ("Jayud" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JYD) between April 21, 2023 and April 30, 2025, inclusive. Should You Join This Class Action Lawsuit? -- Do you, or did you, own shares of Jayud Global Logistics Limited (NASDAQ: JYD)? -- Did you purchase your shares between April 21, 2023 and April 30, 2025, inclusive? Did you lose money in your investment in Jayud Global Logistics Limited? If you purchased or acquired Jayud securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Jayud Global Logistics Limited Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Investor Relations Manager Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. According to the lawsuit, Defendants made misrepresentations concerning the Company's business and were involved in an illicit "pump-and-dump" promotion scheme where impersonators touted Jayud in online forums, chat groups, and social media posts with sensational but baseless claims to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must file papers by January 20, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on other class members' behalf in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for sixteen consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. 2025 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Peter Allocco, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN] KEURIG DR PEPPER: Bruno Mislabeling Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as PERRY BRUNO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG DR. PEPPER INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-STCV-29705, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11027 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the marketing and labeling of the Defendant's products are false or misleading due to the presence of citric acid. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the presence of this substance renders the representation "All Natural" false or misleading. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things "[a]n order requiring Defendant to engage in corrective advertising," actual damages or restitution, punitive, and statutory damages. The Plaintiff alleges that he and each class member would not have purchased the Products, would have paid less for the Products, or would have purchased different products had the labels not been purportedly false or misleading. The Plaintiff also seeks "[a]ll reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs," injunctive relief, and "further relief, as may be just and proper. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. is a publicly traded American beverage and coffeemaker conglomerate with headquarters in Burlington, Massachusetts, and Frisco, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3804 Telephone: 1-206-359-8000 Facsimile: 1-206-359-9000 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Student DOE #1, et al., individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. Kristi NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02998-KSH-AME (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class, appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing the undersigned as class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IV6571 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. Michael R. Noveck, Esq. Ruth O'Herron, Esq. GIBBONS P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4500 E-mail: llustberg@gibbonslaw.com mnoveck@gibbonslaw.com roherron@gibbonslaw.com - and - Jeanne LoCicero, Esq. Farrin R. Anello, Esq. Molly K.C. Linhorst, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION 570 Broad Street, 11th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 854-1715 E-mail: jlocicero@aclu-nj.org - and - Jason Hernandez, Esq. Jessica Rofe, Esq. Rutgers Immigrant Community Assistance Project (RICAP) 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 LANE BRYANT: Smith Class Suit Removed to D. Md. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as KIMBERLY SMITH, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. LANE BRYANT BRANDS OPCO LLC, Defendant, Case No. C-24-CV-25-008480, was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03766-SAG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendant violated Maryland's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("MCEMA") by sending "emails about sales with fictional time limits, fake extensions, and more illusory special offers. The proposed class consists of "[a]ll Maryland residents to whom Lane Bryant sent, within four years before the date of the filing of this complaint until the date of trial, an email with a subject line that (a) states or implies that a particular promotion will end at a specified time, when the promotion will actually continue beyond the specified end time, or (b) states or implies that the recipient of the email will be given a free product." Lane Bryant Brands Opco LLC is and was a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal place of business in New Albany, Ohio.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: William J. Murphy, Esq. Sara Alpert Lawson, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 410-332-0444 Facsimile: 410 659 0436 E-mail: wmurphy@zuckerman.com slawson@zuckerman.com - and - Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 628-600-2250 Facsimile: 628-221-5828 E-mail: mbrooks@beneschlaw.com LATOYA HUGHES: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Watts Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY WATTS, v. LATOYA HUGHES, Case No. 3:25-cv-01243-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order as follows: -- Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests for documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed unless on order of the Court. -- Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been set for briefing. -- The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact (1) the date of any court appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mediation session or the mediation process (if applicable), (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Latoya Hughes is acting director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BwlIHD at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Discovery in Clay Suit Due June 10, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacqueline Clay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-06789-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Subramanian entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: The remote initial pretrial conference is canceled. The Court also grants the parties' agreed-upon class certification briefing schedule. Joinder of additional parties must be accomplished by Mar. 5, 2026. All depositions (including any expert depositions, see item 5(c) above) must be completed by June 10, 2026. All discovery is to be completed by June 10, 2026. Post-discovery summary judgment motions in the form prescribed by the Court’s Individual Practices shall be served by July 10, 2026, answering papers by Aug. 10, 2026 and reply papers by Aug. 31, 2026. Liberty is a global diversified insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hn8QKn at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Turner Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS TURNER, an individual, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL MEDICAL PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN RETIREMENT BOARD; LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC., a Massachusetts company; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts company; and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-11530-FDS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff will seek an Order certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff also asserts that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). The Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that: 1. Certifies a class action with the class defined as: "Former grandfathered employees of Safeco Corporation and subsidiaries who transitioned to Liberty Mutual on Jan. 1, 2009, who did not or will not receive full credit for their Safeco years for purposes of medical cost sharing under Liberty Mutual's plan." 2. Appoints the Plaintiff Thomas as the Class Representative; and 3. Appoints the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as class counsel. Liberty provides pension plans and benefit programs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JJdjB5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Blvd. La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net sball@einsurelaw.com - and - Gordon E. Meyer, Esq. GORDON E. MEYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 8 Winchester Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 482-2377 E-mail: gordon@gmeyerlaw.com - and - Michelle M. Meyers, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com LIFEMD INC: Continues to Defend Johnston Shareholder Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- LifeMD Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Johnston shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On August 27, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY") against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Schreiber, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Benathen, (collectively, the "Defendants"), captioned Johnston v. LifeMD, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-04761, alleging: (i) violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Defendants for making false and misleading statements; and (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual officer defendants as alleged control persons. On October 24, 2025, the EDNY granted the joint motion to transfer the class action complaint from the EDNY to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). On October 27, 2025, the plaintiffs filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the class action. LifeMD, Inc. -- https://lifemd.com/ -- is a publicly traded American telehealth company.[BN] LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Heckman Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation Entertainment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Heckman antitrust consumer class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company is a defendant in three putative antitrust consumer class actions alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, among other causes of action. In Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, et al., filed in the Central District of California in January 2022, the District Court denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration in August 2023. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in October 2024. In January 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted in part and denied in part in April 2025. Class certification briefing is underway. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the lawsuit and will continue to vigorously defend itself. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. LRW TRAFFIC: Joint Motion for Settlement Approval, Denied in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as EBONY HAYS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LRW TRAFFIC SYSTEMS LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-24-3306 (D. Md.), Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the parties' Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of Collective Action Settlement and Direction of Notice. The Court conditionally certified the FLSA collective action and preliminarily approved the settlement while denying final approval due to mootness concerns. Plaintiffs are construction flaggers who worked for LRW Traffic Systems and its President, Robert Scott-Coples (the "LRW Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege that the LRW Defendants contracted with Stella May Contracting and B. Frank Joy (the "General Contractor Defendants") to provide flaggers for various worksites. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not pay them sufficiently for their time. Several Plaintiffs also allege that the LRW Defendants retaliated against them for seeking the compensation allegedly owed to them. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs brought a collective action claim alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and class action claims alleging violations of Maryland labor law. Several Plaintiffs also brought retaliation claims under the FLSA and Maryland law.[1] The LRW Defendants have agreed to pay Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($760,000.00) to settle the claims in this action against both themselves and the General Contractor Defendants. The Settlement Agreement calls for: (a) Settlement payments to eligible current and former workers who wish to join the Settlement up to $420,000; (b) $5,000 service payments to each of the five Named Plaintiffs; (c) $95,000 retaliation damages to the nine Plaintiffs named for retaliation purposes, and (d) Plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses of $220,000. The costs of Settlement administration also will come from the Settlement funds.[1] The Court denied the parties' joint motion. The Court directed the parties' attention to a line of cases from this district, which provide that approval of an FLSA settlement prior to certification and notice is not appropriate. These cases raised two primary issues with the parties' desired procedure: (1) whether the process was fair to potential members of the collective who had not yet opted in as plaintiffs and (2) whether the process created a mootness issue that prevented the Court from acquiring jurisdiction over potential opt-in plaintiffs. The parties have now filed their Renewed Motion on this second basis. They assert that the Fourth Circuit's unpublished decision in Haskett v. Uber Technologies, 780 Fed. Appx. 25, 27 (4th Cir. 2019) is "reasoned authority," which persuasively supports their position.[1] Haskett does not resolve, nor even address, the mootness issue previously raised by the Court. The Court agrees with numerous courts around the country that have held that final settlement approval is not appropriate when non-party employees may still later opt in as plaintiffs and seek a portion of the settlement proceeds. If the Court grants final approval of an FLSA settlement at the same time that it certifies the collective, there is no longer a case or controversy for the potential plaintiffs to opt into. A named plaintiff in an FLSA collective action only represents his or her own interests. Thus, if a named plaintiff resolves her individual claims before anyone joins the lawsuit, then, a court's jurisdiction to entertain the rest of the case ends.[1] Although the Court is unable to certify the collective and grant final settlement approval at the same time, the Court can conditionally certify the collective and grant preliminary approval of the settlement. This approach solves multiple problems. First, because the Court is not granting final settlement approval, there is no mootness issue. Second, the parties explain that employees who receive notice cannot make a fully informed choice about opting in because the fairness of the settlement remains to be litigated. But if the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, these employees can make a more informed choice. Accordingly, the Court will conditionally certify the collective and preliminarily approve the settlement.[1] Plaintiffs have met their burden to conditionally certify the collective. Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits describing the policies that the LRW Defendants subjected them to. Plaintiffs were told to arrive at construction sites before their shift began; they did not receive lunch or rest breaks, but their time was still docked as if they took a break; they were not paid for travel time between work sites; and they were sometimes not paid for time that they spent at the LRW Yard waiting on standby. Plaintiffs averred that all construction flaggers at LRW were subject to these policies. Accordingly, the Court will conditionally certify a collective.[1] The Notice form attached to the Motion provides sufficient clarification. This form states that a person can join the lawsuit if they have worked as a construction flagger for LRW at any time between November 15, 2021 and [date of settlement approval] and were not paid for all hours worked. The Court finds that this collective is appropriately narrow and judicially manageable. Accordingly, the Court will conditionally certify the collective as described in the Notice form, except that the closing date will be the date that the opt-in period ends. The Court also finds the other terms of the Notice form to be appropriate. In particular, the 90-day opt-in period is reasonable. Thus, the Court will approve the Notice form and authorize dissemination of it.[1] To determine whether a bona fide dispute exists, the Court reviews the pleadings, the recitals in the Agreement, and other court filings in the case. When a case involves a disagreement about pay rates and hours worked, there is a bona fide dispute. Here, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that pay was improperly withheld, and several plaintiffs have attested to this in affidavits. Accordingly, this case involves a bona fide dispute.[1] The Court considers whether the settlement contains fair and reasonable terms. The most important factors are: (1) the extent of discovery that has taken place; (2) the stage of the proceedings, including the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the absence of fraud or collusion in the settlement; (4) the experience of counsel who have represented the plaintiff; (5) the opinions of class counsel; and (6) the probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits and the amount of the settlement in relation to the potential recovery. The parties state in their Joint Motion that informal discovery has occurred. That is sufficient to satisfy this factor. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion in this case. And in the absence of such evidence, the Court presumes there is no fraud or collusion. Plaintiffs' counsel is highly experienced. Plaintiffs' counsel opines that the settlement is fair and reasonable.[1] Payment to Plaintiffs for lost wages and liquidated damages will be $420,000. The total amount that they are allegedly owed in backpay and liquidated damages is approximately $1.8 million. Thus, their award is about 23% of their potential recovery. Because of LRW's troubled financial state, there is a chance that even if Plaintiffs were awarded a higher amount at trial, they would not be able to collect it. Based on the information before the Court at this early stage of the proceedings, particularly LRW's probable inability to pay a higher amount, the Court finds that a 23% recovery reasonably reflects the Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, this factor is satisfied.[1] Non-named plaintiffs only agree to a release of the federal and state wage-and-hour claims alleged in this lawsuit. The scope of this release is permissible because, by its clear terms, it only relates to the wage-and-hour issues alleged in the complaint. The named plaintiffs agree to a general release of any and all claims against the Defendants, including the federal and state wage-and-hour claims in this lawsuit. Each of the named plaintiffs will receive a $5,000 service award in additional consideration for this general release. Because the named plaintiffs will be independently compensated for the overbroad release; the release is reasonable.[1] The settlement agreement states that $220,000 will be awarded to Plaintiffs' counsel in attorneys' fees and costs. The Court is satisfied that it is reasonable. Plaintiffs' counsel expended significant time on this matter. Counsel conducted over 35 interviews with LRW employees, prepared several motions and responses to motions, spent significant time advocating for complete employee records, and developed a damages model based on these records. This case involved novel questions of Maryland wage law. Accordingly, the Court will approve the requested amount of $220,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.[1] For the foregoing reasons, the parties' Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of Collective Action Settlement and Direction of Notice (ECF No. 112) will be granted in part and denied in part. A separate Order follows. DATED this 18 day of November, 2025. James K. Bredar United States District Judge.[1] **Class Action Status Verification:** This is an FLSA collective action with conditional certification granted. Maryland state law class action claims are alleged but not certified in this Memorandum.[1] (Memorandum, United States District Court for the District of Maryland)[1] [1](https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/80270714/f029b082-3c7a-4160-817d-c270c31a783b/Hays_et_al_v_LRW_TRAFFIC_SYSTEMS_LLC_et_al__mddce-24-03306__0119.0.pdf) LULULEMON USA: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Berdugo Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- LULULEMON USA, INC. et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Alma Y. Berdugo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lululemon USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02252-SSS-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violation of California Labor Code. On Sept. 25, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes granted on Oct. 30, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Berdugo v. Lululemon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-7124, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 12, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 17, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 22, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ALMA Y. BERDUGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Justin Alexander Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT ERNEST WHEELER 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Defendants-Appellants LULULEMON USA, INC., et al. are represented by: Eden Edwards Anderson, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP Spear Tower 1 Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 - and - Betty Luu, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 MARA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Langer Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- MARA Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Langer securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On March 30, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against the Company and present and former senior management, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), arising out of the Company's announcement of accounting restatements on February 28, 2023. On March 29, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel. On June 4, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, styled as Langer et al. v. Marathon et al. The allegations in the amended class action complaint are substantially similar to those in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint. On August 5, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On December 6, 2024, the motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint was fully briefed. On March 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, while granting the Company's motion to dismiss, the court also granted the plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint to avoid a permanent dismissal. On April 2, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 2, 2025. On September 10, 2025, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully briefed. MARA Holdings, Inc. is a global leader in digital asset compute that develops and deploys innovative technologies to build a more sustainable future. MARDEN-KANE INC: Class Settlement in Suski Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SUSKI, et al., v. MARDEN-KANE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-04539-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and Attorney's fees. -- The Court awards $750,000 in attorneys' fees and $75,000 in litigation costs, but $100,000 of that amount will be held back pending further order, to be issued after counsel have filed the post distribution accounting required by the District’s Procedural Guidance on Class Action Settlements. The Court further awards $7,000 to each of the four named Plaintiffs. The Court will award up to $96,000 to the claims administrator Simpluris, Inc. upon a showing of Simpluris' costs. Marden Kane is a full service promotion marketing agency specializing in the development and implementation of sweepstakes, contests, and instant win games. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Umle2S at no extra charge.[CC] MARQETA INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------- Marqeta, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on November 3, 2025, a settlement was reached for "In re Marqeta, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 24-08874-YGR (N.D. Cal), in principle, with the lead plaintiff's counsel to resolve the Securities Actions for payments totaling $13.0 million. The settlement is subject to further documentation and judicial approvals. On December 9, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned "Wai v. Marqeta, Inc., et al.," Case No. 24-cv-08874 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuit asserted that defendants made false or misleading statements relating to its performance or revenue and gross profit expectations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. It seeks to recover damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of the company's common stock during their respective putative class periods. This has been consolidated into one consolidated securities litigation captioned "In re Marqeta, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 24-08874-YGR and the court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the matter. On April 10, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which alleges a putative class period of between February 28, 2024 and November 4, 2024. The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 15, 2025. Marqeta, Inc. creates digital payment technology vis-a-vis a modern card-issuing platform and payment card programs. MARTINEZ REFINING: Continues to Defend Piscitelli Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ PBF Holding Co LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company's subsidiary, Martinez Refining Company, continues to defend itself from the Piscitelli class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On August 16, 2023, in Joseph Piscitelli and Lara Zanzucchi v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, its subsidiary MRC was named as a defendant in a class action and representative action complaint which contains allegations of public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising from MRC's operations. MRC filed its answer to the complaint on October 31, 2023. The initial Court hearing to discuss discovery issues was held on January 2, 2024. At the hearing, the Court raised the issue of mediation and directed the parties to meet and confer and agree to stipulate to a mediation deadline. On January 9, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to consider private mediation by September 20, 2024. On January 17, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the class certification hearing for April 10, 2025. On April 4, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a First Amendment Complaint (the "Piscitelli FAC") to add plaintiff Malan and dismiss plaintiff Zanzucchi, which plaintiffs filed on April 10, 2024. On the same day, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion. MRC filed its answer to the Piscitelli FAC on April 23, 2024. On June 17, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Piscitelli. On December 20, 2024, plaintiffs' filed their motion for class certification. MRC's opposition to the motion was filed on February 14, 2025. On February 21, 2025, the Piscitelli, Cruz, and Frye judges issued an order for the parties to meet and confer and file a list of common core issues. On March 7, 2025, the Piscitelli plaintiffs’ filed their reply to MRC's opposition to the class certification motion. On March 19, 2025, the Piscitelli, Cruz, and Frye plaintiffs and MRC filed their list of common core issues. On April 10, 2025, the hearing on the Piscitelli plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held. The Court took the parties' arguments and briefs under submission. On April 15, 2025, the Court related the Piscitelli, Cruz, Frye, Saliba, Silvestri, and Manning cases under it for coordination of common core issues in the cases. On July 16, 2025, the Court granted MRC's motion to relate the Canning case to the Piscitelli, Cruz, Frye, Saliba, Silvestri, and Manning cases for coordination of common core issues in the cases. On September 30, 2025, the Court issued an order denying Piscitelli plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs did not appeal the order to the Ninth Circuit. On October 28, 2025, the Court held a case management conference regarding all the related cases and instructed the parties to meet and confer, further refine the common core issues, and report back to the Court at the next case management conference on December 16, 2025. The Company presently believes the outcome will not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Martinez Refining Company refines gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.[CC] MERCURY FINANCIAL: Settlement Class in Bailey Wins Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELITA BAILEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCURY FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00827-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Chasanow entered an order that: The court certified the following Settlement Class: "All Maryland residents with credit card accounts for credit cards issued by First Bank & Trust, Brookings SD ('FB&T') and serviced by Mercury on or after August 2018, and the borrower made one or more payments on the loan (each, a 'Class Member' and each such account, an 'Account')." Excluded from the class are all employees or representatives of Mercury, and all court personnel The eight (8) persons who have opted out of the Settlement Class, as reflected by the Settlement Administrator’s Declaration of October 16, 2025, are Shanna Macharsky, Hannah Christopher, Nadia Alkatiri, Rodney Solis, Deborah Fallon, Neale R. Bierer, Mitchell Feld, and Vanessa Hoffman. Any and all persons who opted out are not Settlement Class members. The court appoints Angelita Bailey as the Class Representative of the Settlement Class and finds that she meets the adequacy requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). The court appoints the following lawyers as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class and finds that these counsel meet the adequacy requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4): Richard S. Gordon and Benjamin H. Carney of the law firm Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd., 11350 McCormick Rd., Executive Plaza 1, Suite 1000, Hunt Valley, Maryland, 21031. Richard S. Gordon is appointed as Lead Counsel for the Class. Mercury is a financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eeIHe3 at no extra charge.[CC] MONARCH HEALTHCARE: Aguirre Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISETH AGUIRRE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Liseth Aguirre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Optum Health Plan of California, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01161-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In this putative class action, the Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On July 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Jesus G. Bernal granted on Oct. 24, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Aguirre v. Monarch Healthcare, A Medical Group, Inc., Case No. 25-7123, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 12, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 17, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 22, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LISETH AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Defendant-Appellee MONARCH HEALTHCARE, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC. is represented by: Chad R. Fuller, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 - and - Jessamyn Vedro, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Virginia Bell Flynn, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 301 S. College Street, Suite 3400 Charlotte, NC 28202 MP2 ENTERPRISES: Utah Certifies "Brandi-Vanmeter" Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rebecca Brandi-Vanmeter, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MP2 Enterprises, LLC; Bryant Peterson; Layne Peterson; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-DN-PK,(D.UTAH) District Judge David Nuffer of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. Plaintiff Rebecca Brandi-Vanmeter, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and Memorandum in Support. Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter argued that she, and 147 others similarly situated persons, either are, or were, employees of Defendants MP2 Enterprises (owned and managed by Defendants Bryant Peterson and Lance Peterson, collectively referred to as MP2), and MP2 willfully failed to pay the required minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). MP2, in response, relied on the central argument that Rule 23's threshold requirements cannot be met because employees are bound by an arbitration agreement that requires arbitration and waives an employee's right to join a class action. Additional briefing and precertification discovery was necessary and extended the briefing schedule for the Motion to Certify. The district court conditionally certified the collective action after the parties stipulated on May 15, 2024, and Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter's counsel sent notice to those who satisfied the collective-action class definition (more specifically, defined as delivery drivers who have worked at MP2 Pizza Hut stores dating back three years prior to the filing of the complaint, September 27, 2023). Including the original named Plaintiff (Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter) 148 delivery drivers consented to opting-in to the class. In response to the notices of consent, and Motion to Certify, MP2 objected to certification arguing that the putative class, except Plaintiff, had signed arbitration agreements where they agreed to binding arbitration and waived their rights to join a class action. Other than an unsigned arbitration agreement, MP2 did not provide any of the arbitration agreements as evidence of this defense. The unsigned arbitration agreement is a two-page document that includes both an English and Spanish version of the arbitration agreement. Significantly, the English version lists MP2, while the original Spanish version lists Pizza Hut and its affiliates. Without any arbitration agreements to review, and this clear discrepancy, precertification discovery of the 147 delivery drivers and their associated arbitration agreements was ordered. On February 13, 2025, MP2 produced the arbitration charts by state (Arizona, Utah, and Nevada) of employees with the following information: date of signature, employment start and end dates (month/year), and the exhibit associated to the employees' signed arbitration agreement. According to the CourtThe key difference between the pre and post litigation agreements is who the employee is agreeing to arbitrate with. In the Original Arbitration Agreement employees enter into an agreement with Pizza Hut, Inc. and its parents and affiliates, officers and directors (collectively, Pizza Hut). By contrast, in the Post-Litigation Arbitration Agreement employees enter into an agreement with MP2 Enterprises, LLC and MP2 Alaska, LLC and its parents and affiliates, officers and directors (collectively, MP2). Again, it is notable that the Spanish version of the Post-Litigation Arbitration Agreement was never changed but has always referred to Pizza Hut. The proposed class satisfies each of the four requirements under Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy -- and the class further meets the predominance and superiority standards required under Rule 23(b)(3). Commonality: The court stated: This requirement is satisfied when the class members' claims depend upon a common contention, the resolution of which will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Typicality: The court found: Typicality is met when the representative's claims arise from the same course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and are based on the same legal theory. Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter's claims are typical because, like the other class members, she was subject to Defendant's uniform wage and hour practices. Adequacy: The court explained: "This requirement focuses on two questions: (1) whether the named plaintiff and her counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) whether the named plaintiff and her counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. The Court observed that . Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter’s interests are fully aligned with those of the class—she seeks recovery for the same statutory violations and under the same factual circumstances. Her counsel has experience and expertise in wage-and-hour and class action litigation. Together, they will adequately represent the class’s interests MP2 acknowledged that the Original Arbitration Agreement does not expressly name them as a party, but argued that they are considered affiliates of Pizza Hut. In support of this assertion, MP2 provided in precertification discovery their franchise agreement with Pizza Hut. In its Amended Additional Briefing, MP2 relied on the general definitions of affiliate and control found in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah's corporation statutes, asserting that the Franchise Agreement contains provisions demonstrating Pizza Hut's control over MP2's operations, finances, and corporate structure that are sufficient to establish an affiliation. MP2 did not cite to any case law supporting this assertion. The Court found that a plain reading of the Arbitration Exhibits, when considered together with the Franchise Agreement, demonstrates that MP2 is not an affiliate of Pizza Hut; is not a party to the Original Arbitration Agreement; and therefore cannot enforce its terms against its employees. As to the Post-Litigation Arbitration Agreements, MP2 was ordered to produce any other relevant and responsive information pertaining to communications with potential class members. MP2's manager, Bryant Peterson, in his declaration explained that all current employees identified in a review of the arbitration agreements have since signed arbitration agreements as a matter of Company policy. Mr. Peterson further explained that this was done to ensure consistency in onboarding practices and not to influence this lawsuit in any way. Yet, this action departed from MP2's consistent and normal practices, and until this lawsuit employees had never signed arbitration agreements with MP2 before, only Pizza Hut. The Court found that by MP2's own admissions, all potential class members identified after litigation had begun were contacted and approached about signing the newer Post-Litigation Arbitration Agreement. The Court determined that there has been a compelling showing that the Post-Litigation Arbitration Agreements are misleading, improper, confusing, and coercive communications. The Court ordered that MP2 shall refrain from any further communication with Opt-in Plaintiffs regarding this lawsuit, until after the opt-in period has close. The central issue--whether Defendant's compensation policies and practices violated the FLSA by failing to pay employees minimum wage--is common to all proposed class members. Each member's claim arises from the same uniform policies and timekeeping procedures, cost keeping mechanisms, and their entitlement to unpaid wages turns on the same legal and factual determinations. A copy of the Court's decision dated November 17, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HamtkX from PacerMonitor.com NATERA INC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Calif. Patient Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of the settlement entered in the class action lawsuit filed by a patient in a California court. In February 2022, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Each suit was filed by an individual patient alleging various causes of action related to the marketing of Panorama and seeking, among other relief, class certification, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. These matters have been consolidated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit, which resulted in the plaintiffs filing an amended complaint in April 2023. The Company and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement of all claims. The proposed settlement has been submitted to the District Court for approval. NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Genetic Test Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit alleging various causes of action relating to the Company's preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidies pending in a California court. In October 2024, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by patients alleging various causes of action relating to the Company's preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidies. They request, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted on August 4, 2025, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. In August 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. NATERA INC: Court Certifies Class in Texas Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a court has certified a class in a securities class action lawsuit pending in a Texas court. In March 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its management in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding its Panorama test. The complaint sought, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. This matter was dismissed and the claims raised in this matter have been included in the purported class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain of its management in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint, filed in April 2022 and amended in October 2022 (to include, among others, the claims raised in the lawsuit discussed in the preceding paragraph), alleges, among other things, that the management defendants made materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about certain of the Company's products and operations. The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which was granted in part and denied in part. The Court has certified the class. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $42MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that thirty-five real estate companies agreed to pay more than $42 million to resolve class action lawsuit claims they violated antitrust laws by requiring home sellers to pay commissions to both the seller's and buyer's brokers. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) settlement benefits consumers who sold a home listed on a multiple listing service and paid a commission to a real estate brokerage in connection with the sale of the home. The settlement covers home sales that occurred between: -- Oct. 31, 2017, and Oct. 14, 2025, in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin or Wyoming; -- Oct. 31, 2018, and Oct. 14, 2025, in Arkansas, Kentucky or Missouri; or -- Oct. 31, 2019, and Oct. 14, 2025, anywhere else in the United States. According to the antitrust class action lawsuit, the National Association of Realtors and real estate companies violated federal antitrust laws by requiring home sellers to pay commissions to both the seller's and buyer's brokers. These practices allegedly inflated the total commissions paid by home sellers. The NAR is a trade association that represents real estate professionals. The association and other real estate companies have settled similar class action lawsuits for more than $1 billion. The defendants in the National Association of Realtors settlement are William Raveis, Howard Hanna, EXIT, Windermere, Lyon, Charles Rutenberg, My Home, Tierra Antigua and West USA. The defendants have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $42,787,500 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Class members can receive a cash payment from the home-selling fees settlement. Exact payments will vary depending on the amount each class member paid in commissions and the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the real estate commissions settlement is scheduled for Feb. 5, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 30, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who sold a home listed on a multiple listing service and paid a commission to a real estate brokerage in connection with the sale of the home. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase The claim form must include information pertaining to and/or evidence of the home sale and commissions paid. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline December 30, 2025 Case Name Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 23-CV-788-SRB and Keel v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 25-cv-00759, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Final Hearing 02/05/2026 Settlement Website RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com/Gibson3andKeel2 Claims Administrator Gibson, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al. c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91479 Seattle, WA 98111 info@RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com (888) 995-0207 Class Counsel Eric Dirks WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC Defense Counsel HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP WIGGIN AND DANA LLP STOEL RIVES LLP JENNINGS HAUG KELEHER MCLEOD WATERFALL LLP WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP [GN] NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE: Bagwa Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Harjot Bagwa, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. National Automotive Parts Association LLC, Case No. 25-00002-30048-0-KNT was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02280-RAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. National Automotive Parts Association LLC -- https://www.napaonline.com/ -- is a trusted source for automotive parts, accessories & know how for cars, trucks or SUVs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com The Defendant is represented by: Dailey Koga, Esq. Erin M. Wilson, Esq. Jeffrey M. Odom, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP (SEA) 1301 2nd Ave., Ste. 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 223-7000 Email: kogad@ballardspahr.com wilsonem@ballardspahr.com odomj@ballardspahr.com NAVY FEDERAL: Phlaum Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ BLANCHE PHLAUM, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Blanche Phlaum, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Navy Federal Credit Union, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00765-JGB-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is an action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to the Defendants' policy and practice to assess Overdraft or Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) Fees on items that had previously triggered NSF Fees. On Sept. 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC). On Nov. 4, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC, which Judge Jesus G. Bernal granted on Oct. 10, 2025. The SAC is dismissed without leave to amend. The appellate case is entitled Phlaum, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union, et al., Case No. 25-7070, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 7, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 17, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 16, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BLANCHE PHLAUM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Taras P. Kick, Esq. KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Defendants-Appellees NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al. are represented by: Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 920 5th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 - and - Sancho Accorsi, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 NCR ATLEOS: Continues to Defend "Hoak" -------------------------------------- NCR Atleos Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit styled Hoak, et al. v. Plan Administrator of the Plans of NCR Corporation. "Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, we share costs and liability equally with Voyix for certain pre-existing litigation matters known as of the Separation date. These matters are managed solely by Voyix, and we rely on information provided to us by Voyix to determine the amount of potential liability. "In November 2015, in Hoak, et al. v. Plan Administrator of the Plans of NCR Corporation, participants and beneficiaries of certain deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by NCR Corporation (collectively, the "Plan") filed a putative class action lawsuit against NCR and other defendants, alleging the defendants breached the plan agreements by, among other things, paying lump sum payments based on mortality tables and actuarial calculations upon termination of the Plan. The court certified a class in 2017. "On June 10, 2024, the trial court entered final judgment and ordered Voyix to calculate the "benefits due" to the Plan participants, including pre-judgment interest, based on the sum that would have been sufficient to allow each participant to purchase a replacement annuity using discount rates prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in effect as of the February 25, 2013 termination date. Voyix filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2024. "After hearing oral arguments on August 12, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the trial court judgment on August 26, 2025. Subsequent to the end of the quarter, on October 7, 2025, Voyix filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which remains pending. Voyix also reports that it intends to seek reimbursement of any final award from its insurance carriers to the extent of its coverage under applicable fiduciary liability insurance policies. "We evaluated the appellate opinion, judgment and order and, after consulting with Voyix, concluded that, as of September 30, 2025, a loss of up to $22 million, representing the Company's obligation to indemnify Voyix for 50% of any award, is probable and estimable and, therefore, recorded an accrual for this amount," the Company stated. NCR VOYIX: Continues to Defend Plan Participants' Suit ------------------------------------------------------ NCR Voyix Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in the class action lawsuit filed by participants and beneficiaries in five "nonqualified" deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by the Company. "In November 2015, several participants and beneficiaries in five "nonqualified" deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by the Company (collectively, the "Plans") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and other named defendants. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Company breached the terms of the Plan agreements when, upon termination of the Plans, the Company paid lump sum payments based on mortality tables and actuarial calculations. In September 2017, the court certified a class. "On February 6, 2024, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Company breached the terms of the Plans when it paid the lump sums in lieu of actuarially equivalent replacement life annuities and ordered that the Company provide class members the amount reflecting the difference between the lump sums they received and the cost of the replacement life annuities. The court further ordered the parties to brief as to what the appropriate relief should have been based on the benefits due to each Plan participant (the "Requested Relief Order"). On April 16, 2024, the Company filed its position on the Requested Relief Order. "On June 10, 2024, the Court ruled against the Company's position to the Requested Relief Order, entered a final judgment against the Company, and ordered the Company to calculate the "benefits due" to the Plan participants, including pre-judgment interest, based on the sum that would have been sufficient to allow each participant to purchase a replacement annuity using discount rates prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in effect as of the February 25, 2013 termination date. "The Company is contesting this matter vigorously. On July 2, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal. The parties stipulated to a $45 million supersedeas bond, which was filed on September 12, 2024 and a stay was issued. The appellate court heard oral arguments on August 12, 2025, and on August 26, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court. On October 7, 2025, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc. As of this filing, the Company's petition for rehearing remains pending with the appellate court. Any amount sustained following completion of the appeal of this matter and remand to the district court for a damages determination is subject to an indemnity obligation by NCR Atleos to contribute 50% of any award. The Company also intends to seek reimbursement of any final award from its insurance carriers to the extent of its coverage under applicable fiduciary liability insurance policies. As of September 30, 2025, the Company has recorded an accrual of $44 million, as well as a receivable from NCR Atleos for $22 million, in connection with this matter," the Company stated. NCR VOYIX: Guirguis Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as FADY GUIRGUIS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NCR VOYIX CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2025-01502090-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02578 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges causes of action for (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest period violations; (5) failure to pay wages due upon termination; (6) wage statement violations; (7) failure to provide payroll records; and (8) failure to provide personnel records, (9) failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, (10) unfair competition, and (11) civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act. NCR Voyix Corporation, previously known as NCR Corporation and National Cash Register, is a global software, consulting and technology company providing several professional services and electronic products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Mason J. Hattam, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: +1-213-612-2500 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2501 E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com mason.hattam@morganlewis.com NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Neumora Therapeutics, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a securities class action lawsuit in a New York court. "On February 6, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a lawsuit against us, certain executive officers, and certain underwriters in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-01072). "The complaint is a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") related to our initial public offering on September 15, 2023. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, as well as fees and costs. The complaint claims that our offering documents contained false and misleading statements and omitted material facts about the prospects of navacaprant. "We do not believe these allegations have merit and intend to move to dismiss," the Company stated. NEW YORK: Mule Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW MULE is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Andrew Mule, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yann Geron as Chapter 7 Trustee of Robert F.X. Sillerman, Defendant, Case No. 654984/2016, in the lower court of New York. The case type is stated as Civil Action – General. The appellate case is entitled Andrew Mule vs. Yann Geron, Case No. 25-07191, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on November 10, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Respondent YANN GERON as Chapter 7 Trustee of Robert F.X. Sillerman is represented by: Michael Burrows, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 801-6757 Email: burrowsm@gtlaw.com NEWELL BRANDS INC: Bertoletti Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newell Brands Inc. The case is styled as Patrick Bertoletti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc. doing business as Sunbeam Products, Case No. 1:25-cv-13934 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Newell Brands Inc. doing business as Sunbeam -- https://www.sunbeam.com/ -- offers heated throws, blankets, mattress pads, a pulse oximeter, irons, steamers, cordless heating, and everyday essentials.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett Robert Cohen, Esq. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com NEWS CORP: Awaits Final Court OK of Deal in OPIS Suit ----------------------------------------------------- News Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit against certain pipe converters, distributors and the Company's subsidiary, Oil Price Information Service, LLC ("OPIS"). Beginning in August 2024, a number of purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against certain pipe converters, distributors and the Company's subsidiary, Oil Price Information Service, LLC ("OPIS"), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In May 2025, the Company entered into a settlement which would resolve the complaints. The settlement received preliminary court approval in July 2025 but remains subject to final approval. In September 2025, a similar purported class action was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia alleging violations of certain provisions of Canadian law and claiming damages and costs among other relief. The Company is currently evaluating this action, and it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome. NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C., continues to defend itself in an antitrust class action lawsuit pending in a New York court. Beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "N.Y. District Court") against Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") and certain publishers, including the Company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C. ("HarperCollins" and together with the other publishers, the "Publishers"), alleging violations of antitrust and competition laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2023, the N.Y. District Court dismissed the complaints in one of the cases with prejudice and in March 2024, the court dismissed the complaint against the Publishers in the remaining case with prejudice. However, the plaintiffs' time to appeal the N.Y. District Court's decision to dismiss in the latter case does not expire until the complaint against Amazon in that case has been finally determined. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, HarperCollins believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. NORDSTROM INC: Osorio Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tomas Osorio, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01507436-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02552. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains nine causes of action for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, waiting time penalties, non-compliant wage statements, failure to timely pay wages at termination, violation of quota laws, and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nathan W. Austin, Esq. Raja A. Hafed, Esq. Keelia K. Lee, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 341-0404 Email: nathan.austin@jacksonlewis.com raja.hafed@jacksonlewis.com keelia.lee@jacksonlewis.com NORLITE LLC: Class Cert Bid in Hill Suit Due Dec. 15 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill, et al., v. Norlite, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00439 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 16, 2021), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe entered an order as follows: -- Dispositive motions are to be filed by Dec. 15, 2025 -- Class Certification Motion due by Dec. 15, 2025 -- Deadlines for filing responses to these motions will be Jan. 29, 2026. -- Deadline for reply briefs will be Feb. 16, 2026. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. Norlite is a manufacturer of lightweight aggregate materials.[CC] NORTHWEST PIPE: Camarillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Pipe Company. The case is styled as Jaime Camarillo, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Northwest Pipe Company, NWPX Infrastructure, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0016909 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Northwest Pipe Company -- https://www.nwpipe.com/ -- provide the highest quality products to the most exacting and challenging specifications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8010 Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEIt Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Norwood Financial Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in the MOVEIt data breach lawsuit. On February 20, 2024, the Company was notified of a Complaint (the "Complaint") entitled Ian Werkmeister vs. Wayne Bank, filed on February 12, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking class action status. The Plaintiff is seeking monetary recovery and other relief on behalf of themselves and one or more putative classes of other individuals similarly situated. The Complaint arises out of a widely reported data security incident involving MOVEit, a file sharing software used globally by government agencies, enterprise corporations, and financial institutions. In October of 2023, Wayne Bank was notified by its third-party information service provider of a cyber-incident that involved unauthorized access to Wayne Bank customer information in one of the vendor's file transfer applications. The incident involved vulnerabilities discovered in MOVEit Transfer, a file transfer software used by the Bank's vendor to support services provided by the vendor to Wayne Bank and its related institutions. MOVEit is a commonly used secure Managed File Transfer software, which supports file transfer activities used by thousands of organizations around the world, including government agencies and major financial firms. The vulnerability discovered in MOVEit did not involve any of Wayne Bank's internal systems and did not impact the Bank's ability to service its customers. The MOVEit cases have since been transferred and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") and are now entitled MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On July 23, 2024, on behalf of all of the Defendants (including the Company) in this case, an omnibus Motion to Dismiss the cases for lack of Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was filed with the Court. A hearing on this motion was held on October 9, 2024. On December 12, 2024, Judge Burroughs denied the defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion in large part. The Court has ordered that a bellwether process be used to test claims and defenses. Because Wayne Bank is not a bellwether defendant, its obligations will be much lessened but will include, among other things, modest discovery. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself against such Complaint. "While we continue to measure the impact of this cyber-incident, including certain remediation expenses and other potential liabilities, we do not currently believe this incident will have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, or financial results," the Company stated. NUSCALE POWER: Board Seeks Resolution of Delaware Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Nuscale Power Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company's Board of Directors has sought an early negotiated resolution of a purported class action lawsuit pending in a Delaware court. On December 10, 2024, a purported class action lawsuit titled Tucker v. NuScale Power Corporation, et al., Case No. 2024-1272-NAC (Del. Ch. Ct.) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit names the Company, eight current board members and one former board member as defendants. The lawsuit broadly alleges that the Company's corporate opportunity waiver provision contained in the Company's Certificate of Incorporation is overbroad and impermissibly waives certain fiduciary duties in contradiction to state statutory law. The named plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, certification as class representative, and costs and fees for a to-be certified class of plaintiffs. The Board determined that it was in the Company's best interest to seek an early negotiated resolution of the lawsuit without admitting liability, and before incurring significant litigation costs. NUSCALE POWER: Oregon Court Dismisses Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Nuscale Power Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an Oregon court has dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class action lawsuit. Multiple shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the Company and certain of its current or former officers, namely John Hopkins, Chris Colbert, Robert Hamady and Clayton Scott: (1) Sigman v. NuScale Power Corp., et al. (Case No. 23-1689, filed November 15, 2023), and (2) Ryckewaert v. NuScale Power Corp., et al. (Case No. 23-1956, filed December 26, 2023). These lawsuits asserted virtually identical allegations and claims and were consolidated before the same judge on February 2, 2024. The lawsuits assert claims under the federal securities laws and allege that the Company and members of management made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, and specifically about certain of the Company's agreements with customers. On July 1, 2025, after granting the Company's motion to dismiss, the court entered a judgment dismissing the consolidated case with prejudice. OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olaplex Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in a securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. On November 17, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Lilien v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-08395. A consolidated complaint was filed on April 28, 2023, which names as additional defendants the underwriters for the Company's IPO and various stockholders that sold shares of common stock of the Company in the IPO. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's IPO and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action seeks certification of the putative class, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief that the court determines is appropriate. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 19, 2023. The court held hearings on the defendants' motions to dismiss on October 16, 2023 and July 1, 2024. On August 23, 2024, the court issued an order staying the action pending the United States Supreme Court's resolution of the appeal in Facebook, Inc., et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, et al., No. 23-980. On November 22, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted, leading to the stay of the Lilien action being lifted. On February 7, 2025, the court issued a decision on the defendants' motions to dismiss, granting the motions in part and denying them in part. Specifically, the court granted the motions filed by the underwriter and stockholder defendants but denied the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and the director and officer defendants. On April 3, 2025, the court set a hearing on class certification for July 21, 2025, a pretrial conference for September 29, 2025 and a trial start date for October 14, 2025. The underwriter defendants previously notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted in this action. On July 2, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation notifying the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the action on a class-wide basis and requesting that the court vacate all further case deadlines. On July 16, 2025, the court vacated the class certification hearing, pretrial, and trial deadlines, and ordered the parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by August 1, 2025. On August 1, 2025, the parties executed a settlement agreement, and the lead plaintiff filed its motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On August 8, 2025, the court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and set the final approval hearing for December 1, 2025. The Company continues to expressly deny any charges or allegations of wrongdoing or liability arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged in the action. ONITY GROUP: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in PHH Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Onity Group Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of a settlement in a putative class action filed in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against PHH Corporation. "We continue to be involved in legacy matters arising prior to Onity's October 2018 acquisition of PHH Corporation, including a putative class action filed in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against PHH Corporation and related entities alleging that PHH Corporation's legacy mortgage reinsurance arrangements between its captive reinsurer, Atrium Insurance Corporation, and certain mortgage insurance providers violated RESPA. See Munoz v. PHH Mortgage Corp. et al. (Eastern District of California). In June 2015, the court certified a class of borrowers who obtained loans with private mortgage insurance through PHH's captive reinsurance arrangement between June 2007 and December 2009. PHH asserted numerous legal defenses against the claims. Following pre-trial developments in August 2020, the only issues remaining for trial were whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and whether the reinsurance services provided by PHH Corporation's captive reinsurance subsidiary, Atrium, were actually provided in order for the safe harbor provision of RESPA to apply. In January 2022, the Court denied a motion by the plaintiffs to enter new evidence and a motion by PHH to decertify the class, which motion PHH may renew if the case ultimately goes to trial. Following the entry of this order, at the request of the parties, the Court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing and entered judgment in favor of PHH. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in February 2023 that court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Following additional proceedings, on March 19, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation and on August 11, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. "We are currently going through the settlement administration process and the Motion for Final Approval is expected to be filed in the fourth quarter of 2025. Our current accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $27.7 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. At this time, Onity is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit if the court does not approve the settlement. If our efforts to defend this lawsuit are not successful, our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected," the Company stated. ONITY GROUP: Notice Process Concludes in "Weiner" ------------------------------------------------- Onity Group Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the notice process in the class action styled Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al., has concluded. Onity is a defendant in a certified class action in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California where the plaintiffs claim Onity marked up fees for property valuations and title searches in violation of California state law. In May 2020, the court ruled that plaintiff's recoverable damages are limited to out-of-pocket costs, i.e., the amount of marked-up fees actually paid, rather than the entire cost of the valuation that plaintiffs sought. In October 2023, the parties reached a tentative settlement to resolve the lawsuit prior to trial. On March 29, 2024, the district court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement and directing notice to the settlement class. The notice process began on April 29, 2024 and concluded on September 29, 2025. On October 10, 2024, the Court entered an order approving the settlement. OPEN LENDING: Texas Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Open Lending Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiff in a shareholder class action pending in Texas voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. "In May 2025, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and our three former Chief Executive Officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The class action was purportedly brought on behalf of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about our business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants: (1) misrepresented the capabilities of the Company's risk-based pricing models; (2) issued materially misleading statements regarding the Company's profit share revenue; (3) failed to disclose the Company's 2021 and 2022 vintage loans had become worth significantly less than their corresponding outstanding loan balances; (4) misrepresented the underperformance of the Company's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. "Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff were due on June 30, 2025, and a lead plaintiff was appointed on July 17, 2025. "On October 10, 2025, the lead plaintiff gave notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit, and on October 16, 2025, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice," the Company stated. OPPFI INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- OppFi Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit filed by a stockholder in a Delaware court. On July 20, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0737) on behalf of a purported class of Company stockholders naming certain of FGNA's former directors and officers and its controlling stockholder, FG New America Investors, LLC (the "Sponsor"), as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of FGNA stemming from FGNA's merger with OppFi-LLC and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption rights, and attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2025, the complaint was amended to name Todd Schwartz, the Company's Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Theodore Schwartz, a director of the Company, Schwartz Capital Group, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and a former investment banker of the Company, alleging such parties aided and abetted the breaches of the previously named defendants. The Company is not a party to the lawsuit. The Company and OppFi-LLC are obligated to indemnify certain of the defendants in the action. The Company and OppFi-LLC have tendered defense of this action under their respective directors' and officers' insurance policies. Due to the early stage of this case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in "Alleman" -------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in the putative class action lawsuit styled captioned Alleman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. On March 25, 2022, a customer of the Bank filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in a case captioned Alleman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank breached its account agreements by charging certain overdraft fees. The complaint seeks a refund of all allegedly improper fees, damages in an amount to be proven at trial, attorneys' fees and costs, and an injunction against the Bank's allegedly improper overdraft practices. This lawsuit is similar to lawsuits filed against other financial institutions pertaining to overdraft fee disclosures. On December 31, 2024, the Bank entered into a classwide settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement provides for a payment by the Bank to the purported class in the amount of $478 thousand, in exchange for a mutual release of claims against all parties, and a stipulation that the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. The Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing by the Bank. The Bank has agreed to settle the case in order to avoid the cost, risks and distraction of continued litigation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the Settlement Agreement is subject to final court approval. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Pryde" ----------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has won partial dismissal without prejudice of the putative class action lawsuit styled Pryde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. On March 6, 2025, a customer of the Bank filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, in a case captioned Pryde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PUTPCPL) and was unjustly enriched when charging certain overdraft fees. The complaint seeks a refund of all allegedly improper fees, damages in an amount to be proven at trial, treble damages for violations of the PUTPCPL, attorneys' fees and costs, and an injunction against the Bank's allegedly improper overdraft practices. On April 14, 2025, the Bank removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"). On November 5, 2025, the Court granted the Bank's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E claims without prejudice. If the plaintiff does not amend his complaint within 21 days of the decision, the plaintiff's PUTPCPL claim and state law claim for unjust enrichment will be remanded to state court. PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Producers ------------------------------------------------------ Packaging Corporation of America disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the purported class action lawsuit filed against U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers. On July 29, 2025, PCA and seven other U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, Artuso Pastry Foods Corp v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al, No. 1:25-cv-08856, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to raise prices of containerboard and restrict containerboard capacity, and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of containerboard products during the period of November 1, 2020, to the present. The complaint was filed as a purported class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of containerboard products during such period. The complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees. PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend this lawsuit vigorously. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Cupat Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cupat securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 15, 2022, October 25, 2022, and November 4, 2022, putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02384, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v. Palantir Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02805, and Shijun Liu, Individually and as Trustee of the Liu Family Trust 2019 v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02893, respectively, naming the Company and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants. The suits allege false and misleading statements about our business and prospects, and purport to allege claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and seek unspecified damages and remedies under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. These three actions subsequently were consolidated as Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Lead Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02834-CNS-SKC, consolidated with civil actions 1:22-cv-02805-CNS-SKC and 1:22-cv-02893-CNS-SKC. On March 31, 2024, the Court dismissed the Cupat matter without prejudice. On May 24, 2024, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On April 4, 2025, the Court dismissed the Cupat matter with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants on the same day. On May 2, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the final judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Palantir Technologies Inc. builds and deploys software platforms that serve as the central operating systems for its customers. PARTS AUTHORITY: Class Cert Briefing Sched Set for Jan. 13, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY, et al., v. PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02659 (D.D.C., Filed Sept. 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order setting a briefing schedule for any class certification and summary judgment motions after the Court's contempt hearing for DAO Logistics scheduled for January 13, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant operates as a distributor of automotive and truck parts to the aftermarket auto parts industry.[CC] PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Co LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cruz class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On December 15, 2023, in Alena Cruz and Shannon Payne vs. PBF Energy Inc., et. al, the Company and its subsidiaries PBF Western Region and MRC were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed by Alena Cruz and Shannon Payne, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint contains allegations of Clean Air Act ("CAA") violations, claims for medical and environmental monitoring, liability for ultrahazardous activities, negligence, and public and private nuisance from MRC's operations. The proposed class is all individuals who reside and/or work in the City of Martinez, including the surrounding communities of Alhambra Valley and Franklin Canyon, as well as El Sobrante, Hercules, Benicia, and Richmond, who have allegedly been exposed to elevated levels of spent catalyst discharged from MRC's operations during the period November 24, 2022 to the present. On December 21, 2023, plaintiffs granted an extension until February 5, 2024 for MRC to respond to the initial complaint. On February 5, 2024, MRC filed a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. In response, on February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a First Amendment Complaint (the "Cruz FAC"). On February 29, 2024, MRC filed a motion to dismiss the Cruz FAC on the pleadings. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on March 14, 2024. MRC filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on March 21, 2024. At the motion hearing on April 4, 2024, the Court granted MRC's request to dismiss all wrongly named PBF entities and plaintiffs' CAA and Medical Monitoring causes of action. The Court ordered the Cruz and Piscitelli plaintiffs to meet and confer on a joint discovery schedule and report back to the Court by the end of April 2024. On May 17, 2024, MRC filed its answer to the Cruz FAC. On June 5, 2024, the Court stayed the case, pending the outcome of the class property damage claim in the Piscitelli case. On January 23, 2025, the Court issued an order setting a joint status conference for February 5, 2025 before the Piscitelli, Cruz, and Frye Judges. On February 21, 2025, the Piscitelli, Cruz, and Frye judges issued an order for the parties to meet and confer and file a list of common issues. On March 19, 2025, the parties filed their list of common issues. On April 15, 2025, the Piscitelli Court related the Piscitelli, Cruz, Frye, Saliba, Silvestri, and Manning cases under it for coordination of common core issues in the cases. On July 16, 2025, the Piscitelli Court granted MRC's motion to relate the Canning case to the Piscitelli, Cruz, Frye, Saliba, Silvestri, and Manning cases for coordination of common core issues in the cases. On October 28, 2025, the Piscitelli Court held a case management conference regarding all of the related cases and instructed the parties to meet and confer, further refine the common core issues, and report back to the Court at the next case management conference on December 16, 2025. The Company presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. PBF Holding is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PBF Energy company LLC. PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of, and owner of an equity interest representing approximately 99.3% of the outstanding economic interest in, PBF LLC as of June 30, 2023. PBF Investments LLC, Toledo Refining company LLC, Paulsboro Refining company LLC, Delaware City Refining company LLC, Chalmette Refining, LLC, PBF Energy Western Region LLC, Torrance Refining company LLC, Torrance Logistics company LLC and Martinez Refining company LLC are PBF LLC's principal operating subsidiaries and are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of PBF Holding. PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Goldstein ESP Explosion Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Co LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Goldstein ESP explosion related class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries, PBF Western Region and Torrance Refining and the manager of its Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation ("ExxonMobil") were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil. The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to its acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef. On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef. On July 5, 2022, the Court issued a final order ruling that plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Navarro as Class Representative was denied and decertifying both of plaintiffs' proposed Air and Ground Subclasses. The order provided that the case will proceed with Navarro as the sole plaintiff. On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. On February 27, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's trespass claim with prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to amend his nuisance claims in conformity with the order if he can do so consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. On March 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint relating to the remaining nuisance claims. On May 23, 2023, the Court denied its motion to dismiss on the pleadings for plaintiff's failure to establish standing to bring the nuisance claims. After completing further discovery, on August 28, 2023, it filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 18, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion, adjudged that plaintiff take nothing, and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The order also allows the Company to recover the costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs. On October 30, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit regarding the Court's order granting summary judgment. The Court granted plaintiff extensions of approximately 90 days to file his opening brief, which was filed on May 27, 2024. After being granted a similar 90-day extension, it filed its answering brief on September 25, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply brief on January 21, 2025. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on plaintiff's appeal for March 24, 2025, and took the parties briefs and arguments under submission. On April 14, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling and reversed the Court’s dismissal on the pleadings of plaintiff's individual trespass claim and vacated its decertification of the Ground Subclass for reconsideration. The Ninth Circuit, however, affirmed the Court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's individual nuisance claims, and as a result, it did not reach Navarro's appeal of the decertification of the Air Subclass because Navarro's nuisance claim is dismissed. The Company filed a petition for reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on May 5, 2025 and plaintiff filed his opposition to its petition on June 26, 2025. On August 5, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying its petition for reconsideration and issued an amended memorandum disposition consistent with its April 14, 2025 ruling. On August 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case with its ruling back to the District Court. The parties are currently waiting for the District Court to issue an order or hold a hearing regarding the next phase in the litigation. The Company presently believes the outcome of this litigation will not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. PBF Holding is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PBF Energy company LLC. PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of, and owner of an equity interest representing approximately 99.3% of the outstanding economic interest in, PBF LLC as of June 30, 2023. PBF Investments LLC, Toledo Refining company LLC, Paulsboro Refining company LLC, Delaware City Refining company LLC, Chalmette Refining, LLC, PBF Energy Western Region LLC, Torrance Refining company LLC, Torrance Logistics company LLC and Martinez Refining company LLC are PBF LLC's principal operating subsidiaries and are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of PBF Holding. PINNACLE DIETARY: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joanna Jackson, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. PINNACLE DIETARY GLOBAL, L.L.C., and THEODORE RAMIREZ, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-06312 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis and scheduled Plaintiff to work forty hours each week. However, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to clock in early and/or stay late, thereby requiring Plaintiff to work hours outside of her scheduled shifts, all of which were over forty hours in a week. However, Defendants automatically deducted a thirty-minute meal break from Plaintiff's total hours worked during each shift regardless of whether Plaintiff actually took a break, which she almost never did, and did not pay Plaintiff at all for this time worked. Thus, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at her overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for all hours that she worked over forty in a week, in violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL, and further took unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's earned wages, in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for as a lead cook at multiple locations in Brooklyn, New York, from May 20, 2025, until August 1, 2025. The Defendants is a New Jersey limited liability company that provides dietary management assistance to nursing homes, long-term and assisted living facilities, and hospitals throughout the eastern United States, as well as its Regional Manager and day-to-day overseer of its New York business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 PLAINVILLE GAMING: $4.175MM Settlement OK Hearing Set December 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a $4,175,000 class action settlement ends litigation that alleged that Plainville Gaming and Redevelopment LLC, doing business as Plainridge Park Casino, unlawfully neglected to provide rewards card members with monthly statements detailing their total bets, wins, and losses, or a notice informing them where they could obtain this information. The Plainridge Park Casino settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 6, 2025. The class action settlement covers about 130,000 Plainridge Park Casino rewards card members who played there between August 25, 2017 and November 30, 2023 after visiting the casino in the previous two years. The court-approved website for the Plainridge Park Casino settlement can be found at PlainridgeParkCasinoSettlement.com. Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive a cash payment, though they should visit this page on the settlement website to select a payment method. Class action settlement payments will be distributed either electronically or by physical check, the website says. Class members can log in to the settlement website using the class member ID found on the Plainridge Park Casino class action settlement notice. Each eligible class member is entitled to receive a cash payout of approximately $21.50, the settlement website states. If a class member does not select a preferred payment method within 30 days of final approval, the settlement administrator will determine the most appropriate payment method on their behalf. A final approval hearing for the Plainridge Park Casino settlement is scheduled for December 17, 2025. Class members can expect to receive their benefits within 45 days after the court grants final approval to the deal and any appeals have been resolved. [GN] RAISING CANE'S: Xatruch Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ELIZABETH XATRUCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. RAISING CANE'S USA, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0014868, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03341-SCR to the proceeding. The case docket notes Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations as cause. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks damages, penalties, and equitable relief on behalf of a putative class for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages at termination (waiting time penalties); (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) unfair business practices. The Plaintiff alleges all causes of action individually and on behalf of a putative class defined as "All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly, 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." Raising Cane's USA, LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability Company in Plano, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: +1-714-830-0600 Facsimile: +1-714-830-0700 E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com RELAX & WAX: Perales Seeks to Recover Wax Specialists' Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAOMI PERALES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELAX & WAX AUTHENTIC BRAZILIAN WAX INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03064-X (N.D. Tex., November 10, 2025) is a civil action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in many seven-day workweeks as an employee of Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all such hours worked over 40 per seven-day workweek in violation of the FLSA. Relative to Plaintiff's final workweek of employment with Defendant from August 12-18, 2025, she worked 44.67 hours and earned tips and commissions. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any wages or tips for that final workweek in violation of the FLSA's minimum wage, overtime wage, and tip provisions, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately March 11, 2025 to August 16, 2025 as a wax specialist. Relax & Wax Authentic Brazilian Wax Inc. is a hair removal salon business with numerous salons in Texas and states other than Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Another TCPA Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that Rocket Mortgage is no stranger to TCPA litigation. They have been sued repeatedly for unwanted solicitations and alleged robocalls. In a suit filed consumer Hillary Wissart of Florida claims Rocket continued to call and text her after she said "Stop." The complaint–available here: Wissart v Rocket Mortgage LLC -- alleges Plaintiff asked Rocket to "stop" but it continued to call and text. The case is interesting because it will test whether: i) SMS messaged are subject to the TCPA's DNC rules; and ii) whether a request that SMS "stop" also requires calls to cease. There is case law favorable to the plaintiff on both issues, but neither is fully resolved. Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes: The National Stop Class All persons in the United States who (1) are not Rocket customers, (2) sent Rocket an opt-out text message, and (3) thereafter Rocket called more than once within a 12-month period, (4) in the four years from the filing of this action through the date of class certification. The Florida Stop Class All Florida residents who (1) are not Rocket customers, (2) sent Rocket an opt-out text message, and (3) thereafter Rocket called, (4) in the four years from the filing of this action through the date of class certification. Plaintiff alleges there are at least 10,000 class members– meaning at least $15MM is at issue in the case. We'll keep an eye on this one. [GN] ROSE PAVING: Trivino Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lee Roy Trivino, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROSE PAVING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28652 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10886. The Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges that Rose Paving failed to pay overtime. the Plaintiff's second cause of action alleges that Rose Paving failed to pay minimum wage. The Plaintiff's third cause of action alleges that Rose Paving failed to provide a meal period, the penalty for which is "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided." The Plaintiff's fourth cause of action alleges that Rose Paving failed to provide adequate daily rest periods, the penalty for which is "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided." The Plaintiff's fifth cause of action alleges that Rose Paving failed to pay Plaintiff all wages earned prior to resignation or termination. The Plaintiff's sixth cause of action alleges that Rose Paving adopted "policies and practices that resulted in their failure, at times, to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members with accurate itemized statements that accurately reflect, among other things, gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages earned; and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate, among other things." The Plaintiff's seventh cause of action alleges that Rose Paving failed to timely pay Plaintiff wages during employment under Cal. Labor Code. The Plaintiff's eighth cause of action alleges that Rose Paving failed to reimburse or indemnify Plaintiff for business expenses "that included, without limitation: using cellular phones for work-related purposes."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth M. Jones, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 255-6100 Facsimile: (310) 255-6200 Email: kenneth.jones@saul.com SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 2, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00986-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Dishman entered an amended specialized scheduling order: Event Deadline Motions to join additional Parties or to April 30, 2026 otherwise amend the pleadings: Fact discovery completed by: June 15, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert disclosures required July 15, 2026 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including expert reports due: The Defendant's expert disclosures required Aug. 14, 2026 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including expert reports due: Expert depositions completed by: Oct. 15, 2026 The Plaintiff's deadline to file class Nov. 2, 2026 certification motion and briefing: The Defendant's deadline to file class Dec. 1, 2026 certification motion and briefing: The Plaintiff's deadline to file reply Dec. 15, 2026 brief regarding class certification: Class certification hearing: To be scheduled SandRidge is an independent natural gas and oil company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qoSFbC at no extra charge.[CC] SHARECARE HEALTH: Walters Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOSHUA WALTERS and SUZETTE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. SHARECARE HEALTH DATA SERVICES, LLC f/k/a BACTES IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 502025CA010375XXXAMB, was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-81430 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of a putative class of Florida patients, for Defendant's violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"). The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under FDUTPA, including an unjust enrichment count, as well as attorney's fees and costs. The putative class is defined as: "For the period from four years before the filing of this action through the date of entry of judgment herein (the "Class Period"), any person or any person's legal representative who, in violation of Florida law, was charged an excessive amount to obtain access to health care records by Defendant, SHARECARE." Sharecare Health Data Services offers Release of Information, Audits and Reviews, Revenue Cycle Support and EHR Indexing services to medical practices, hospitals and health systems.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sky Emison, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 215, East Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 820-0248 Facsimile: (561) 655-8719 E-mail: sky.emison@troutman.com - and - Thomas J. Cunningham, Esq. Florida Bar No. 121977 TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue Suite 900 – Office Number 920 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 722-4911 Facsimile: (561) 655-8719 E-mail: thomas.cunningham@troutman.com SMITH COUNTY, TX: $1.5MM Class Settlement in Hughes Gets Initial No ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LADARION HUGHES, et al., v. SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS, Case No. 6:23-cv-00344-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Kernodle entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of settlement: The Court accepts the parties' stipulated class definitions and certifies the Settlement Class, as defined: "All individuals who were detained at the Smith County Jail between July 11, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2024, and who (1) were convicted of a felony offense; (2) completed their custodial felony sentence at the Smith County Jail; and (3) were not released within two days following the completion of their custodial felony sentence." The Court approves and appoints American Legal Claim Services LLC as the Settlement Administrator for this action, and to thereby perform and execute all such responsibilities as set forth in the settlement agreement. The Named Plaintiffs have demonstrated themselves to be well-suited to adequately represent the proposed Settlement Class. Nothing in the record suggests that any potential conflict exists among the Named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, or the proposed Settlement Class Members. Further, proposed Class Counsel have provided substantial evidence demonstrating that they are adequately able to serve as class counsel and protect the interests of absent Class Members, including securing a favorable settlement for the Class. The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy requirement. The Settlement Fund in this case, which totals $1,500,000, will pay for (1) the notice and administration costs incurred by the Settlement Administrator; (2) the incentive award to Named Plaintiffs; (3) all attorneys' fees and costs; and (4) valid claims of Settlement Class Members. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement. Docket No. 64. Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that Defendant Smith County, Texas, violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights for failing to timely release them from imprisonment. Smith County is located in northeastern Texas fifty-eight miles from the eastern state boundary A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DYtlZp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Meg Gould, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: gould@loevy.com jon@loevy.com - and - Nathan Fennell, Esq. Camilla Hsu, Esq. DEASON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM CENTER SMU Dedman School of Law Dallas, TX 75275 Telephone: (214) 768-6973 E-mail: nfennell@smu.edu camillah@smu.edu - and - Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Esq. 355 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (929) 266-3971 E-mail: dami@animashaun.me SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal: Documents and testimony that have been designated as Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order that the Plaintiff intends to submit as part of the class certification motion and brief and the summary judgment motion and brief. Those portions of the Plaintiff's class certification motion and brief and the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion and brief that reference documents and testimony that have been designated as Confidential by Solstice and UCCI. Solstice offers dental and vision plans for individuals and families. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ePj6gh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Barry J. Blonien, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 203 N. La Salle Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com - and - Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC 6550 Lakeshore Street West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 562-1320 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification: The Plaintiff renews its request that the Court certify a class of fax recipients alleging that defendant, Solstice Benefits, Inc., sent them an "unsolicited advertisement" by fax in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification on Sept. 19, 2025, finding the proposed class did not satisfy the requirements of ascertainability and predominance. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a narrower class: All persons and entities: (1) who were sent a fax in April 2018 stating, "Solstice is happy to announce that The National Association for Medical and Dental, Inc./Healthcare National Marketing, Inc. has selected us as their carrier," "This group has over 25,000 members," and "We look forward to continuing to promote your practice through our growing membership base!"; (2) whose fax number was on a dental provider list Solstice obtained through a network access agreement with United Concordia Companies, Inc. ("UCCI"); and (3) whose only "Associated Network" in Solstice's records was UCCI. Solstice offers dental and vision plans for individuals and families. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q4iTNF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Barry J. Blonien, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com - and - Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC 6550 Lakeshore Street West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 562-1320 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com SONDER USA: Fails to Provide Advance Layoff Notice, Hosein Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SHALANE HOSEIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONDER USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09397 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees who suffered an "employment loss" without the required advance written notice as required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant ordered a mass layoff and/or plant closing at one or more of its facilities affecting Plaintiff and the Class without providing at least 60 calendar days advance written notice required by the Federal WARN Act and without providing at least 90 calendar days advance written notice required by the NY WARN Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a full-time Hospitality Agent from November 2022, until her termination on November 10, 2025. Sonder USA Inc. is a technology-based hospitality company which operates at least 13 facilities in New York, including locations in New York City, Long Island City, and Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Nettle, Esq. NETTLE LAW LLC 3119 Newtown Avenue, Suite 502 Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (646) 992-9213 Facsimile: (888) 583-9968 E-mail: geno@nettle-law.com - and - Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 SONDER USA: Herring Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice -------------------------------------------------------- RASHEEDA HERRING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONDER USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01369-UNA (D. Del., November 10, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff, and on behalf of other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant on November 10, 2025 and within 30 days of that date, or thereafter and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act and the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated employees she seeks to represent were terminated as part of the shutdown or mass layoff ordered by the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant and reported to the San Francisco Facility until her termination, which occurred on November 10, 2025, or within thirty days of that date or thereafter. Sonder USA Inc. is a technology-based hospitality company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-1112 Facsimile: (302) 888-1119 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10078 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 SR AUTOMOTIVE: Villa Sues Over Unpaid Compensation -------------------------------------------------- Ivan Villa, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. SR AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV33181 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2025), is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code 2698 ("PAGA") as a result of unpaid compensations. The Defendants' violation Of the Labor Code based on Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to pay overtime wages at the proper overtime rate Of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; failure to pay accrued and vested vacation and/or paid time-off (PTO) wages; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly position from September 2023, until April 30, 2025. AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Eric D. Tims, 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 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jldein@lelawfirm.com etims@lelawfirm.com STATE ESCHEATOR: Schramm Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER SCHRAMM, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Walter Schramm, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brenda Mayrack, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01443, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The Plaintiffs are a group of individuals who argue the Defendants unconstitutionally claimed their property, including securities, as abandoned and co-opted it for the State's general use under Delaware's Unclaimed Property Law. The complaint alleged constitutional violations of the Fifth Amendment takings and Fourteenth Amendment due process clauses under 42 U.S.C. On Nov. 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Maryellen Noreika entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have long maintained that the Defendants have improperly escheated their property. But they fail to establish, on the undisputed record, their standing to challenge those supposed violations nor the timeliness of their claims. For that, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. The appellate case is entitled Walter Schramm, et al. v. State Escheator Delaware, et al., Case No. 25-3136, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WALTER SCHRAMM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Martin D. Haverly, Esq. MARTIN D. HAVERLY, ATTORNEY AT LAW Brandywood Plaza 2500 Grubb Road, Suite 240-B Wilmington, DE 19810 Telephone: (302) 529-0121 Email: martin@haverlylaw.com - and - William W. Palmer, Esq. PALMER LAW GROUP, PLC 907 Westwood Blvd., No. 218 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 984-5074 Email: wpalmer@palmercorp.com Defendants-Appellees STATE ESCHEATOR DELAWARE, et al. are represented by: Arthur G. Connolly, III, Esq. Max B. Walton, Esq. Christina M. Thompson, Esq. CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP 1201 N. Market St., 20th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 757-7300 Email: aconnolly@connollygallagher.com mwalton@connollygallagher.com cthompson@connollygallagher.com STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Salabaj v. StubHub Holdings, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:25-cv-09776) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired StubHub Holdings, Inc. ("StubHub" or the "Company") (NYSE: STUB) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's September 2025 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). StubHub investors have until January 23, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR STUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC. (STUB) INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On September 17, 2025, StubHub conducted its IPO, selling approximately 34 million shares of Class A common stock at $23.50 per share. On November 13, 2025, after the market closed, StubHub issued a press release announcing financial results for the third quarter 2025, which ended September 30, 2025. The press release revealed free cash flow of negative $4.6 million in the quarter, a 143% decrease from the Company's free cash flow in the year ago period, which was positive $10.6 million. The press release further revealed the Company's net cash provided by operating activities was only $3.8 million, a 69.3% decrease from the year ago period, where the Company reported $12.4 million in net cash provided by operating activities. On the same date, the Company filed its Form 10-Q for the same quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, with the SEC. The quarterly report revealed that this year-over-year decrease "primarily reflects changes in the timing of payments to vendors." On this news, StubHub's stock price fell $3.95 per share, or 20.9%, to close at $14.87 per share on November 14, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading as low as $10.31 per share, a nearly 56% decline from the $23.50 per share IPO price. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Registration Statement was materially false and/or misleading, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was experiencing changes in the timing of payments to vendors; (2) those changes had a significant adverse impact on free cash flow, including trailing 12 months ("TTM") free cash flow; (3) as a result, the Company's free cash flow reports were materially misleading; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us to Participate or Learn More: If you purchased StubHub common stock, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please click HERE or contact us at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] STURGIS HOSPITAL: Minor Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL MINOR, on behalf of his minor child A.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STURGIS HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01233 (W.D. Mich., October 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard approximately 77,771 individuals' personally identifying information and personal health information, including names, contact information, Social Security numbers, financial account information, health insurance information, and medical information, including prescriptions and treatment records. In approximately December, 2024 and again in June, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Sturgis Hospital's network systems and accessed and acquired files containing the PII/PHI of Sturgis Hospital's patients, including Plaintiff's minor child and Class members. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's minor child's and Class members' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's minor child's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of his minor child, A.M., and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the data breach, which Sturgis Hospital discovered in approximately December, 2024 and again in June, 2025. Sturgis Hospital is a hospital located in Sturgis, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Mills, Esq. GRUEL MILLS NIMS & PYLMAN PLLC 99 Monroe Avenue NW, Suite 800 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 235-5500 Facsimile: (616) 235-5550 E-mail: bwmills@gmnp.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMIE STANLEY, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS CT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, PRINCIPLE DISTRIBUTION ARIZONA LLC, a Texas limited liability company; PRINCIPLE DISTRIBUTION LLC; a Texas limited liability company; DOES 1 to 1000 and ROE entities I to L, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01958-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., October 14, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, by classifying drivers as independent contractors, Defendants denied them protections under the FLSA, including payment of overtime wages, and imposed on drivers the costs of business expenses that are ordinarily borne by employers. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Members routinely worked over 40 hours in a given workweek and were not compensated by Defendants with overtime wages, says the suit. Subcontracting Concepts CT LLC is a third party administrator and payment processor for the transportation industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sagar Raich, Esq. Brian Schneider, Esq. RAICH LAW PLLC 2280 E. Pama Ln. Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (702) 758-4240 Facsimile: (702) 998-6930 E-mail: sraich@raichattorneys.com - and - John M. Orr, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER, PLLC 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite #1250 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (725) 286-2801 E-mail: jorr@ohagnameyer.com SUNRUN INC: Class Cert. Bid in Luckau Suit Due Feb. 25, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY LUCKAU, v. SUNRUN, INC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01661-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order a scheduling order: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the Dec. 5, 2025 Pleadings: Fact discovery cut-off: June 5, 2026 Expert disclosures: June 12, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Aug. 14, 2026 Dispositive motions due: Sept. 11, 2026 Class certification motion due: Feb. 25, 2027 Class certification opposition due: March 25, 2027 Class certification reply due: April 15, 2027 Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for residential customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M0OfhD at no extra charge.[CC] SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Banks Due Sept. 28, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EGGY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-07877-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered a joint stipulation and order to amend scheduling order: Event Deadline Expert disclosures: Jan. 16, 2026 Dispositive motion hearing: Aug. 27, 2026 Last day to file motion for class Sept. 28, 2026 Certification: Last day to file opposition to class Nov. 2, 2026 Certification: Last day to file reply in further support Nov. 30, 2026 of class certification: Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for residential customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Po97jY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com - and - Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855)384-3262 Facsimile: (888)570-2021 E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydyre.com SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Joo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sysco San Francisco, Inc. The case is styled as Joel Joo, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc., Case No. 25CV154482 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sysco San Francisco -- https://sysco.com/ -- is the largest food distributor in the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com TAYLOR COUNTY, KY: Abbott Appeals Court Order to Ky. Ct. of Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------------- BEVERLY ABBOTT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Beverly Abbott, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Taylor County Hospital District Health Facilities Corporation d/b/a Taylor Regional Hospital, Defendant, Case No. _______. The case type is stated as Civil. The appellate case is entitled Beverly Abbott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et. al. vs. Taylor County Hospital District Health Facilities Corporation d/b/a Taylor Regional Hospital, Case No. 25-1425, in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, filed on November 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BEVERLY ABBOTT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Evan Mize, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Nashville, TN 37203 Defendant-Appellee TAYLOR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT HEALTH FACILITIES CORPORATION D/B/A TAYLOR REGIONAL HOSPITAL is represented by: John D. Bertram, Esq. John C. Miller, Esq. BERTRAM COX & MILLER LLP 321 E. Main St. Campbellsville, KY 42719 TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Morgan Files Class Suit in C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Techtronic Industries Company, Limited, et al. The case is styled as Lauren Morgan, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated v. Techtronic Industries Company, Limited, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-02307-MWF-KES (C.D. Cal., October 13, 2025). The case is brought against the Defendants over alleged personal injury claims demanding $5,000,000 in damages. The suit is assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Techtronic Industries Company, Limited is a multinational company that designs, produces, and markets power tools, outdoor power equipment, hand tools, and floor care appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW PC 1 Old Country Road Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Facsimile: (516) 747-5024 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com TRON FOUNDATION: Bid to Compel Production of SEC Docs Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY HARDIN and CHASE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRON FOUNDATION, JUSTIN SUN, and ZHIQIANG (LUCIEN) CHEN, Case No. 1:20-cv-02804-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lehrburger entered an order As discussed at the discovery conference held on November 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs' request to compel production of the so-called SEC documentation in connection with class-certification discovery is denied. Tron provides software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S1aDuE at no extra charge.[CC] TUFF SHED: Green Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Tuff Shed, Inc., a Colorado corporation. The suit is styled as Cassandra Danielle Green, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. Tuff Shed, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Defendant, Case No. 25CECG04836 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., October 14, 2025). The case is brought over alleged employment law violation. A case management conference is set before Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan on February 24, 2026. Tuff Shed, Inc. is a manufacturer and installer of storage buildings and garages in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 5743 Corsa Ave, Ste 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 E-mail: roman@olfla.com TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twist Bioscience Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Peters securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) ("Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the "Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws. The Securities Class Action's claims are based in large part on allegations made in a report issued on November 15, 2022 by Scorpion Capital ("Scorpion Report") concerning, among other things, the Company's DNA chip technology and accounting practices. The initial complaint filed in the Securities Class Action alleges that various statements that the Defendants made between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 were materially false and misleading in light of the allegations in the Scorpion Report. The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 and sought damages as well as certain other costs. On July 28, 2023, the Court appointed a new plaintiff, not the original plaintiff who filed the case, as lead plaintiff in the case and appointed a new law firm as lead counsel. On October 11, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between December 20, 2018 and November 15, 2022. The amended complaint alleges that certain statements regarding, among other things, the Company's DNA products and accounting practices were false and misleading. On December 6, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on November 13, 2024. On September 3, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff leave to further amend by September 24, 2025. The plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint. The Company is engaged in discovery and intends to continue vigorously defending the remaining claims under this action in all respects. Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform. ULTA SALON: Mulanena Class Suit Removed to D. Md. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as TINAYIA MULANENA, ALYIAH JACKSON-MULANENA, CHRISTIE LEDESMA, KENYA AMAKER, ALEXANDRIA AUFFARTH, SHALEICE WOOD, and DANIELLE NELSON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. C-10-CV-25-000828, was removed from the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03753-JRR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs in this complaint are residents of Maryland. They bring this lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of "[a]ll Maryland residents who received an email from or at the behest of Defendant that contained a subject line stating or implying that a 'free gift' or 'free' item was being offered to the recipient, with no purchase requirement or any conditions or exclusions." The Plaintiffs allege that commercial emails to Maryland citizens sent by Ulta violated Maryland's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("MCEMA") because they allegedly contain false or misleading information in their subject lines. Plaintiffs further allege that Ulta has initiated or conspired to initiate the transmission of "hundreds" and "thousands" of emails to the Named Plaintiffs, "typically more than five emails every week," such that they had to delete emails "to conserve the finite space available in their email inbox." The Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest on all sums awarded, and attorneys' fees and costs. Ulta Beauty, Inc., formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. and before 2000 as Ulta3, is an American chain of cosmetic stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Edward Buxbaum, Esq. Aaron Nichols, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP 100 Light Street, Suite 2700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 951-5871 Facsimile: (410) 951-5879 E-mail: Edward.Buxbaum@icemiller.com Aaron.Nichols@icemiller.com UNITED PARKS & RESORTS: Mouzer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parks & Resorts, Inc. The case is styled as Allison Mouzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Parks & Resorts, Inc. doing business as: SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 9:25-cv-81410-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. United Parks & Resorts -- https://unitedparks.com/ -- offers educational resources and activities, and your visit supports animal rescue and conservation work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Employees' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimDepot reports that employees who worked as registered nurses, physician assistants or expanded-function dental auxiliaries at the Department of Veterans Affairs at any time since Aug. 23, 2012, and did not receive premium pay for night or Saturday shifts, regularly scheduled overtime hours on days they took annual, sick or other types of leave or received an excuse from work due to a holiday may qualify to claim compensation from a class action settlement. The United States agreed to pay a significant settlement to resolve allegations that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to pay required premium pay to eligible employees during certain periods of leave or excused absences. This settlement follows a court ruling stating the government must pay retroactive premium pay to affected employees. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are a current or former Department of Veterans Affairs employee. -- They worked as a registered nurse, physician assistant or expanded-function dental auxiliary. -- They did not receive premium pay for night or Saturday shifts, regularly scheduled overtime hours on days when they took annual, sick or nine other types of leave or received an excuse from work due to a holiday. -- They worked in these roles at any time from Aug. 23, 2012, to the present. If the original recipient of the notice is deceased, a surviving spouse, child or parent may have the right to opt in. How much is the Veterans Affairs payout? Class members may receive retroactive premium pay for: -- Night or Saturday shifts -- Regularly scheduled overtime hours on days they took annual, sick or other specified types of leave -- Periods received an excuse from work due to a holiday The covered period is from Aug. 23, 2012, to the present. The exact amount each class member will receive depends on their individual employment records and the amount of premium pay they should have received but did not. The settlement covers: -- Saturday premium pay (25% premium for weekend shifts) -- Overtime additional pay (50% premium for overtime) -- Nighttime differential pay (10% premium for night shifts) How to claim a settlement payment To participate in the settlement and receive compensation, eligible individuals must submit an opt-in form online using the claim ID and PIN from their settlement notice. The deadline is Dec. 22, 2025. Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Dec. 22, 2025 When is the Ysla v. United States payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the claims process is complete and the court approves the final distribution. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged the United States, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, failed to pay the required premium pay to registered nurses, physician assistants and expanded-function dental auxiliaries for night or Saturday shifts, regularly scheduled overtime hours on days when they took certain types of leave or received an excuse from work due to a holiday. The court determined the government must provide retroactive premium backpay to eligible class members, leading to the settlement. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: December 22, 2025 [GN] UNITED STATES: Doe Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is styled as Jane Doe, and all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01942-RMM (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., Nov. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Military Pay – Retirement. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tacy F. Flint, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 Email: tflint@sidley.com UNITED STATES: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. U.S. Department of Labor, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12653 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order allowing assented to motion for extension of time to Dec. 1, 2025, to file motion to dismiss and response to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Administrative Procedure Act. Department of Labor (DOL) administers federal labor laws to guarantee workers' rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Fails to Secure Private Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON ROSENBAUM, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06357 (E.D. Pa., November 10, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, UPenn obtained and stored the personal information of its students, applicants, and faculty, including the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, UPenn assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. However, on October 31, 2025, UPenn identified unauthorized remote access to several UPenn owned email accounts. A series of mass emails were sent to students, faculty, alumni, and parents from accounts linked to the Graduate School of Education. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals including Plaintiff, says the suit. The complaint contends that the Defendant breached its duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, steal, misuse, and/or view it. University of Pennsylvania is a private institution of higher learning located within the city and county of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. UPenn offers academic degrees in a variety of disciplines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 408 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Ransom Sues Over Data Security Incident ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Hughes Ransom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA d/b/a THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:25-cv-06438 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 13, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant owes Plaintiff and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this PII against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendant utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. Defendant owes Plaintiff and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this PII against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendant utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. The Defendant's following systems were accessed by the hackers: "Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system (Salesforce), file repositories (SharePoint and Box), a "9 reporting application (Qlikview), as well as Marketing Cloud." But for Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect PII, the Data Breach would not have occurred. The Defendant is well-aware that it is at high risk of attempted cyberattack due to the high value of the sensitive data. Despite Defendant's awareness of both the value and sensitivity of the data it safeguarded and serious risk presented by insufficient security practices, Defendant did not take sufficient steps to ensure that its systems were secure. Defendant knew or should have known about the risk to the data it stored and processed, and the critical importance of adequate security measures in the face of increasing threats. The Data Breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their PII to Defendant. The Defendant is an Ivy League University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that "offers students an unparalleled education informed by inclusivity, intellectual rigor, research, and the impetus to create new knowledge to the benefit of individuals and communities around the world."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen F. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-609-6910 Fax: 267-609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Sarmiento Sues Over Unprotected Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELISA SARMIENTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06355 (E.D. Pa., November 10, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against Defendant arising from its failure to properly secure, safeguard, and protect sensitive personal information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. As part of its operations, UPenn collects and stores large amounts of students, alumni, faculty, staff, and conference attendees' private information including, but not limited to, Social Security numbers, financial information, and other sensitive conference registration and participation data. On October 31, 2025, UPenn's computer systems were infiltrated by the ransomware group known as "the hackers," which encrypted company files and exfiltrated sensitive user data. By collecting and storing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, UPenn assumed legal and equitable duties to secure, maintain, and protect that information against unauthorized access and disclosure using reasonable and appropriate data security measures, says the suit. UPenn breached those duties by failing to implement and to follow basic security procedures, including adequate network segmentation, access controls, and ransomware protection. As a direct and proximate result of UPenn's wrongful actions and omissions, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is in the hands of cybercriminals, the suit alleges. The University of Pennsylvania is a university that owns and operates over 100 extensive educational and research facilities throughout Pennsylvania and surrounding states. The company is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and has employed thousands of individuals affiliated with the University throughout its campus facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Hike Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eric Hike, on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25CV027473 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Werner Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.werner.com/ -- is an American transportation and logistics company, serving the United States, Mexico and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent Bradbury, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY 2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180 Roseville, CA 95661-4219 Phone: 916-245-0122 Email: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com WINCO FOODS: Haskins Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ARLIN HASKINS, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-30464-7 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02304 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a single claim against the Defendant under the Washington Noncompetition Act. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "WinCo's practice of prohibiting its employees who earn less than twice the applicable minimum wage from working second jobs with other large retail grocery stores violates the WNCA." WinCo Foods, LLC is an employee-owned low price supermarket chain.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. Matthew R. Kelly, Esq. Kate Bradley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Telephone: (206) 393-4058 E-mail: knelson@seyfarth.com mrkelly@seyfarth.com kkbradley@seyfarth.com WINN WINN: Leonard Must Make Settlement Demand by June 15, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LEONARD, et al., v. WINN WINN LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00716-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order: The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on Nov. 17, 2026, and indicated their preference that the Court issue a Preliminary Pretrial Order without a conference. Accordingly, the Nov. 24, 2025 preliminary pretrial conference is vacated. Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than Jan. 15, 2026. Motions for class certification must be filed by Oct. 15, 2026. The following motions are pending: -- Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed Aug. 26, 2025 -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, filed Oct. 29, 2025 The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by June 15, 2026. The Defendants shall respond by July 15, 2026. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The parties understand that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement conference in August 2026. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act by improperly withholding their tip income. Defendants deny liability and that the FLSA applies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2GUPaa at no extra charge.[CC] XLPR INFRASTRUCTURE: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPLR Infrastructure LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. XPLR, NEE, certain former executives of XPLR and certain current and former directors of XPLR are the named defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in July 2025 that seeks unspecified damages alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding XPLR's business model, XPLR distributions and arrangements relating to noncontrolling Class B members' interests under certain limited liability company agreements to which XPLR and certain of its subsidiaries are or were a party. The alleged class includes all persons or entities other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR securities between September 27, 2023 and January 27, 2025. The defendants are vigorously defending against the claims in this proceeding. XPLR acquires, owns, and manages contracted clean energy projects in the U.S., including a portfolio of contracted renewable generation assets consisting of wind, solar, and battery storage projects. The Company also owns contracted natural gas pipeline assets. The Company changed its name from "NextEra Energy Partners, LP" to "XPLR Infrastructure, LPâ€ in January 2025.[BN] ZYNEX INC: Continues to Defend Heid Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Zynex Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Heid class suit in the California Superior Court, San Diego County. On March 4, 2023, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the California Superior Court, San Diego County, captioned Heid v. Zynex Medical, Inc., No. 37-2023-11832, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), California Unfair Competition Law, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and seeking class certification. The complaint seeks class certification, damages and restitution, statutory damages, and costs. The Company has reached a preliminary settlement with the plantiffs that is pending court approval. The Company recorded an accrual related to this matter which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2025. Zynex is a medical device manufacturer that produces and markets electrotherapy devices for use in pain management and physical rehabilitation. The Company's products are small, battery powered electronic devices which deliver electric pulses via wires and electrode pads. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] ********* 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 ***