251202.mbx

251202.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 2, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 240 Headlines 12556901 CANADA: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers 363 FIRST AVENUE: Brown Sues Over Discrimination on Premises 3M AUTOMOTIVE GROUP: Fountain Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California 6795 SW 40 ST: Pinero Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACTIVEHOURS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Huynh Alleges AIP LLC: Revere Sues Over Sherman Act Violations AISERA INC: Faces Kunkel Suit Over TCPA Breach ALBERT EINSTEIN: Court OKs FLSA Conditional Certification Bid ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Colon Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Holloway Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Lyster Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ANTIGO CONSTRUCTION: Kubacki Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ARCHERY TRADE: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Tapia Suit Says ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHICS: Campbell Sues Over Data Breach ARRAY DIGITAL: Settlement in Stockholder Suit Has Court Approval ASTON HEALTHCARE: Court Extends Class Cert Filing Deadline AUBREY'S INC: Sofsky Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AVIS BUDGET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Edwards Alleges BARBOUR INTERNATIONAL: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BATH & BODY WORKS: Jean Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Coronel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BHP HOLDING: Kerns Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages BIRD AND 87TH AVENUE: Gonzalez Sues Over Disability Discrimination BISCUITS & BATH: Molinas Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation BJH HOLDINGS: Faces Tanner Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info BLUE MOUNTAIN: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLUE SHIELD: Roiz Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices BOBOSLW INC: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BODY FIRM: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BOSLEY INC: Sisti Suit Transferred to C.D. California BRITISH AIRWAYS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Aboriginal Title Ruling BS BLEECKER: Dunston Sues Over Inaccessible Property BSN SPORTS: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BUILD-SOURCE CORP: Faces Pena Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. BYHEART INC: Pilato Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices BYHEART INC: Schneider Sues Over Recalled Infant Formula Products C.F.C. RECYCLING: Pham Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Compensation CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Edlin Suit Over Fresh Egg Monopoly CENERGY INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fitch Says CERNER CORP: Peterson Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info CITADEL SECURITIES: Engaged in Spoof Trading of Shares, Suit Says CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid for Leave to File Amended Complaint Tossed CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Investors' Suits COASTAL WASTE: Skinner Seeks Unpaid OT for Waste Disposal Drivers COMMUNITY COUNSELING: Kholamian Sues Over Unpaid Earned Wages CONCENTRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Security Breach Suit CONCORD MANAGEMENT: Starstone Seeks Declaratory Judgment & Relief CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cozzolino Says CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Day Alleges CONMEBOL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Copa America Suit for $14MM CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 20, 2026 CONTINENTAL TIRE: Must Address Standing in Privacy Class Action CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Delaware Court Dismisses Stockholder Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Salisbury Sues Over Deceptive Tequila Labels CREDIT KARMA: Faces Suit Over Improper Access of Credit Reports CTG AUTO LLC: Fountain Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CUSTOM BUILDING: Garcia Wage Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CYFLARE SECURITY: Court Partially Dismisses "Moeller" DANGER COFFEE: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users DAVID A. NOVER: Urban Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info DAVISON DESIGN: Miller Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages DEACONESS HEALTH: Court Dismisses Eavesdropping Statute Claim DECOR-WARE INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website DELTA STAR: Class Cert Hearing in Wilson Suit Due Dec. 18 DERMARITE INDUSTRIES: Pitre Balks at Sale of Contaminated Products DNATA US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sefo Suit Alleges DOCTOR ALLIANCE: Hobbs Files Suit in N.D. Texas DOCTOR ALLIANCE: Weathers Files Suit in N.D. Texas EATON CORPORATION: Smith Bid to Defer Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ELLAFI FEDERAL CREDIT: Manuel Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Sealing in PPI OK'd ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Sealing Procedure in Copeland OK'd ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Sealing Procedure in Schuman OK'd ENVASES USA INC: Null Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EVANS FITNESS CLUB: Lanium Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing EXACT CARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 7, 2026 FATHOM REALTY: $2.85MM TCPA Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Feb 6 FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Narrows Class Certification in "Macci" FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK: Almond Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California FISERV INC: Lombard Sues Over Exchange Act Violation FORD MOTOR: Faces Terrell Suit Over Undisclosed Seatbelt Defects FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Reed Sues Over Share Price Drop GEMINI GROUP: Faces Peruski Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info GEN DIGITAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Karwowski" GERON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Wins Final OK GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend HIV Drugs Suit GLOBAL UPRISING: Vogeney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Tracks Users' Communications, Thele Claims GRINDR INC: Israeli Suit Remains Pending GUILD HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Tennessee HAC FUNDING LLC: Samo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Baby Food Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York HALAL GUYS: Class Cert Bid Mooted Due to Settlement HALEON US: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HARBOR BEHAVIORAL: Williams-Diggins Files Suit in N.D. Ohio HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Securities Suit HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Maui Windstorm Tort Suits HEALTH MATCHING: Mainini Balks at Savings Account Fraud Scheme HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Levin Sedran Named Lead Counsel in "Hall" HEAVEN HILL: Sylvain Sues Over Lunazul Tequila's Agave Azul Label HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues Over Website's Access Barriers HERITAGE FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Suit for $635,000 HERITAGE HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hellwege Says HUDDLE TICKETS: Baker Class Suit Removed to S.D. Ga. HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Haynes Sues Over Data Breach INMOBI PTE: Caldwell Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Host FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Host Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Host Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JETOBRA INC: Faces Wang Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info JMJ PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Alleges JOHN MILES CHEVROLET: Turner Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Class Cert Denial Remains Pending JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Dixon" in Missouri JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Zigler" KEYSTONE ELECTRONICS: Faces Quinones Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. KHAN & ASSOCIATES: Faces Choi Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info KLA CORPORATION: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Secure Information KLA CORPORATION: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII KM-T.E.H. REALTY: Violates Merchandising Practices Act, Suit Says KRISPY KREME: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suits KRISPY KREME: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in North Carolina KRISTI NOEM: ACR Bid for Preliminary Injunction Partly OK'd LAST BRAND: Faces Mandel Suit Over Products' False Ads LAUNDRY MANAGEMENT: Russo Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting LEICA CAMERA INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LHNH LAVISTA: Lanz Allowed Leave to File Second Amended Complaint LIFESTATION INC: Dec. 8 Initial Case Management Conference Canceled LINCOLN NATIONAL: Appeal from "Glover" Deal Approval Remain Pending LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Angus" LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Grink" LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Laurino" LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Morgan" LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX Suit Remains Stayed LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Suit Remains Stayed LOOP RECRUITING: Flora Sues Over Illegal Background Check LULULEMON USA: Brown Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices MANLY BANDS: Faces Nadal Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit MAYS LANDING: Property Inaccessible to the Disabled, Dennis Says MEAD JOHNSON: Choudhry Suit Removed to S.D. New York MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Suit in Alabama Dismissed MEDRITE LLC: Faces Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MELISSA DATA: Aufrichtig Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. METRO ONE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hager Suit Due Jan. 16 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Iverson Sues Over Defective Chainsaws MITO LIC: Faces Mendoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. NAKED WHEY: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metal, India Says NEW WORLD: Rousch Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements NORDVPN SA: Faces Tio Suit Over Inflated Autorenewal Charges OGLETHORPE INC: Fails to Protect Health Info, Schmidt Alleges ONE BROOKLYN: Mismanages 403(b) Plan, Rosen Suit Alleges OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim OK OPTICSPLANET INC: Plaintiff Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed OSHKOSH CORPORATION: Philadelphia Sues Over Inflated Prices PAPA JOHN'S: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement PATRICIA NASH: Randolph Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store PINE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Desposati Says PIONEER BANCORP: Cloud Payroll Suits Remain Stayed PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in "Felipe" PLAYTIKA HOLDING: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Bar-Asher" PORTAGE WORLD-WIDE: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PRIMO BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Patane" Suit QUIDELORTHO CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending QUOTEWIZARD INC: Faces Another TCPA Suit After $19MM Settlement RAISING CANE'S: Xatruch Wage Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. RASEVIC COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Reyes Alleges READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Merger Suit READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Suit READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend UDF IV Merger Suit REDWIRE CORP: Court OKs Settlement in "Lemen" REEVES DDS: Garcia filed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RELX INC: Class Settlement in Trama Suit Gets Initial Nod RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ROSEBUD SIOUX: Gary Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in McCarrell Due Feb. 23, 2026 SALESFORCE INC: Milton Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit SCARPA NORTH: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SELECTQUOTE INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending SHIFT ROBOTICS: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SINCLAIR INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Klassen SONDER HOLDINGS: Herring Balks at Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice SPF SCREENS & AWNINGS: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia SPORTS BASEMENT: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STAKE CENTER LOCATING: Bowles Sues to Recover Compensation STARBUCKS CORP: Court Declines to Dismiss Putative Class Action STRIDE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 12 STRIDE INC: MacMahon Files Securities Class Suit STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 23 SUBURBAN BOWERY: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California. SYRACUSE HAULERS: "Sims" Referred to Mediation Program TACKLE TECHNOLOGY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Cole Alleges TAYLOR KIA OF FINDLAY: Tulley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio TELEFLEX INC: Delaware Court Dismisses "Harrison" TELEPHONE AND DATA: Wins Court OK of Settlement in Stockholder Suit TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Thomas Sues Over Decline of Stock Price TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Crocker Sues Over Unpaid Wages TENNESSEE: Filing to Amend Class Bid Extended to Feb. 27, 2026 TERRACARE ASSOCIATES: Sanchez Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. TOM HOMAN: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid in Venegas Suit by Dec.3 TRACTOR SUPPLY: Lupo Sues Over Contaminated Feed Products TRINITY HEALTH: Mason Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TRUE RELIGION: Faces Neil Suit Over Fake Product Sales, Discounts TWIN VEE: Continues to Defend "Youseph" in Delaware U.S. SILICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Farmer Suit Alleges UNITED STATES: Sutherland Sues Over Securities Market Manipulation UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Lukens Suit Over Data Breach UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Lachs Sues Over Unprotected Info UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: O'Hara Sues Over Data Breach US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Faw Suit WEFIX-APPLIANCE LLC: Wohlstein Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida WH PIKE: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Maurer Says ZIROZI INCORPORATED: Joseph Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois ********* 12556901 CANADA: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. 12556901 CANADA, INC. and 12556995 CANADA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-25261 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2025) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He encountered architectural barriers at Defendants' commercial property that has each denied or diminished his ability to visit the commercial property and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, which is set forth below, has likewise posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, says the suit. 12556901 CANADA, INC., is the owner and operator of the commercial property in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com 363 FIRST AVENUE: Brown Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ------------------------------------------------------------ Altaune Brown, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. 363 FIRST AVENUE CLEANERS LLC, and WATSON CHUNGLUM YIP, Case No. 1:25-cv-09587 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought seeking equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal damages; along with attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") due to the Defendants' discrimination on their Premises. The Defendants' Premises is a commercial space as defined by the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL because, inter alia, a portion of the building and structure thereof used or intended to be used as a business, office, and commerce. On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises, which operates a well-established and neighborhood trusted laundromat, dry cleaners, and tailor. Defendants' Premises is less than 1.9 miles from Plaintiff's home and has developed a reputation as a quality tailor/dry cleaner that can assist with Plaintiffs zipper on his coat. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public accommodations within Defendants' Premises. The Defendants denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the services or accommodations offered within Defendants' Premises because of his disability has caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact. The Plaintiff intends on immediately returning to Defendants' Premises once the barriers to access are removed and Defendants' Premises are ADA compliant. The Defendants' failure to comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, et seq. impedes upon the rights of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated disabled individuals, to travel free of discrimination and independently access Defendants' Premises, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. First Avenue Cleaners is a domestic limited liability company authorized to conduct business within the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H New York, NY 1002 Phone:(646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com 3M AUTOMOTIVE GROUP: Fountain Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Automotive Group LLC. The case is styled as Kimberley Fountain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Automotive Group LLC doing business as: Nissan of Tustin, Case No. 8:25-cv-02543 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Automotive Group LLC doing business as Nissan of Tustin -- https://www.nissanoftustin.com/ -- is an award-winning dealership proudly serving Orange County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com 6795 SW 40 ST: Pinero Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ------------------------------------------------- Emilio Pinero, and the others similarly situated v. 6795 SW 40 ST, LLC and BIRDROADSUBARUCOLLISION&SERVICES L.L.C, Case No. 1:25-cv-25339-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA"), and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the unlawful barriers. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Premises and intends to return to utilize the goods, services, and accommodations offered to the public. However, he is deterred from returning while the discriminatory barriers and non-compliant policies described herein persist. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Subject Premises, preventing him from enjoying the goods and services offered therein. These denials are caused by the physical barriers, including those outlined in this Complaint, and will continue until the barriers are removed. The Plaintiff has suffered harm and injury as a result of personally encountering barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and she will continue to suffer harm due to the Defendants' failure to address the ADA violations described herein. The Plaintiff has experienced direct and indirect injury as a result of the physical barriers and ADA violations at the Subject Premises and the Defendants' actions or inactions in remedying these violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a double-leg amputee from above the knee, which limits his major life activities including but not limited to walking, and requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility purposes. The Defendant is an automotive repair and service center located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Phone: 844-702-8867 Email: WassenbergL@gmail.com ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABF Freight System, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Spencer Lewis, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ABF Freight System, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 25CV027574 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." ABF Freight -- https://www.abf.com/ -- provides industry-leading services across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com ACTIVEHOURS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Huynh Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KIENSANG HUYNH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC., d/b/a EARNIN, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-09796 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. The Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. Because of the Defendant's Data Breach, the sensitive PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was placed into the hands of cybercriminals -- inflicting numerous injuries and significant damages upon Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. Activehours, Inc., doing business as Earnin, designs and develops application software. The Company offers a smartphone-based application that enables users to get paid for the hours worked when they need it. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com AIP LLC: Revere Sues Over Sherman Act Violations ------------------------------------------------ City Of Revere, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIP, LLC, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS CAPITAL FUND IV, LP, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS CAPITAL FUND IV (PARALLEL), LP, AIP/CHC HOLDINGS, LLC, OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-13462 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought recover damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as any and all equitable relief afforded under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Because Defendants fraudulently concealed their unlawful conduct, the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs' arising from the conspiracy alleged herein has been tolled and suspended. In addition, Defendants engaged in continuing overt acts that restarted the statute of limitations with each occurrence. Throughout the Class Period, Manufacturer Defendants repeatedly fixed prices, exchanged confidential information, and sold fire trucks to Plaintiff and Class members at unlawfully inflated prices. The Defendants' overt acts were new, independent acts that perpetuated and adapted their unlawful scheme to current market conditions. They were not mere reaffirmations of Defendants' prior conduct. By continuously renewing and refining their unlawful scheme, Defendants caused ongoing and cumulative harm to Plaintiff and Class members. Each sale of fire apparatus to Plaintiff restarted the statutory period, regardless of whether Plaintiff was aware of earlier violations. Every sale of a fire truck at a supracompetitive price constitutes a distinct cause of action for purposes of the statute of limitations, says the complaint. The City of Revere is a city located in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, directly bordering the city of Boston, with a population of roughly 62,000. REV Group is the largest manufacturer of fire apparatus in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Uehlein, Esq. David C. Strouss, Esq. Michael A. Lesser, Esq. Brian J. Freer, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 84 State Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 720-1333 Email: dstrouss@tenlaw.com mlessser@tenlaw.com cuehlein@tenlaw.com bfreer@tenlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. David Seidel, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Ronnie Spiegel, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com dseidel@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com - and - Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq. Brandon Sadowsky, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 AISERA INC: Faces Kunkel Suit Over TCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KUNKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AISERA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-09696 (N.D. Cal., November 11, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making pre-recorded calls to cellular telephone numbers without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses pre-recorded calls to reach businesses and consumers en masse to find businesses who are willing to uses its AI platform. It also places cold calls to consumers to generate business. Neither Plaintiff nor the members of the proposed class ever consented to receive the telephone calls at issue. In response to these calls, Plaintiff Kunkel brings this case seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the TCPA, and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs. Aisera, Inc. operates an AI platform that uses AI-generated agents for different organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com ALBERT EINSTEIN: Court OKs FLSA Conditional Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RINALDYS CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE INC., MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, and MONTEFIORE MEDICINE ACADEMIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00984-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order granting motion for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA). The Court further entered an order: (2) directing the Defendants to promptly identify all potential collective members; (3) directing the issuance of the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form to all such persons; and (4) granting equitable tolling. Albert is a medical school located in the Bronx, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=89NTEp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Erin Kelley, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com ekelley@fbfglaw.com - and - Shane Seppinni, Esq. Megan Jones, Esq. SEPPINNI LAW 40 Broad St., 7th Fl. New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 859-5085 E-mail: shane@seppinnilaw.com megan@seppinnilaw.com ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Colon Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Monique Colon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE USA, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02584 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former call center employees under various job titles, such as customer service representatives or member experience associates, or similar positions ("CSRs"), who were compensated on an hourly basis. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its CSRs for all pre-, mid and post- shift off-the-clock work. The Defendant further maintained a corporate policy and practice of imposing a strict "no overtime" policy on CSRs; requiring them to clock out at the end of the shift to log out of all programs. As a result, CSRs routinely worked off-the-clock each week to complete their work and avoid discipline, with Defendant's knowledge and for its benefit. The CSRs routinely worked 42.5 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. Thus, when CSRs worked their regular scheduled workweek, their off-the-clock work was uncompensated overtime work because they worked over 40 hours in the workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant remotely as a Customer Service Representative from July 2023 to November 2024. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Orange, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Holloway Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Holloway, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY and BRI ROBINSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00166-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., Nov. 13, 2025), is brought against Defendants for their violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter the "FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation he and all others similarly situated have been deprived of, plus interest (pre judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. While employed, Plaintiff typically and customarily performed compensable duties for the benefit of Defendants and their customers with an official work schedule of Monday through Saturday, working on an average total of 100 hours a week. During the relevant period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the proper overtime compensation under the law by failing to pay him at least one-and-a-half times his regular rate for all time spent performing labor in excess of 40 hours of his regular workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the State of Mississippi during the period of about September 2017 up to the present. The Defendant is a business entity formed under the laws of Mississippi with a primary office located in 1C, Flowood, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Herrington, Esq. CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON PLLC 120 N. Congress Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 326-0820 Facsimile: (601) 948-8010 Email: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com - and - Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423-2327 Office: (718) 412-2421 Cellular: (917) 807-7819 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Lyster Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- CAYLA LYSTER, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09423 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2025) arises from the widespread Amazon's policies and practices toward Plaintiff and similarly situated employees that constitute disability discrimination, retaliation, and interference under the Americans with Disabilities Act; disability discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law; and retaliation for lawful absences under the New York Labor Law. This case arises out of Amazon's policy of punishing employees who seek to exercise their legal right to reasonable accommodations. According to the complaint, Amazon's absence control system does not just punish employees for unexcused absences. It punishes them for absences that are protected by federal and New York State law. This happened to Plaintiff Lyster when Amazon forced her to stay home while awaiting necessary accommodations for her disability, then punished her for missing work. Amazon deducts Unpaid Time Off balance from those employees who miss work pending a disability accommodation, thereby subjecting them to discipline and possible termination because of their accommodation request, says the suit. The Amazon's policy of threatening employees who have negative UPT balances with termination regardless of whether their absences were legally protected also applies to all Amazon hourly employees across New York. The Plaintiff now seeks individual injunctive relief and damages for these violations. Plaintiff Lyster is a current employee of Amazon and resident of Rome, New York. She has been an employee since on or about September 7, 2022, and was first hired to work at the WNY3 RSR Delivery Station in Frankfort, New York. On or about May 18, 2023, she transferred to the SYR1 Fulfillment Center, located in Liverpool, New York, where she continues to work. Amazon is a multinational company and the country's second-largest private employer. Amazon operates hundreds of logistics facilities and employs about 1.1 million workers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Greenberg, Esq. Shyamala Ramakrishna, Esq. A BETTER BALANCE 500 7th Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY l0018 Telephone: (212) 430-5982 E-mail: kgreenberg@abetterbalance.org sramakrishna@abetterbalance.org - and - Maia Goodell, Esq. VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C. 111 Broadway, Suite 1505 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 403-7300 E-mail: mgoodell@vladeck.com ANTIGO CONSTRUCTION: Kubacki Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin R. Kubacki, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANTIGO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01824-BBC (E.D. Wis., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought to seek relief for the consequences of Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information; its failure to reasonably provide timely notification to Plaintiff and Class members that his Private Information had been compromised; and for Defendant's failure to inform Plaintiff and Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their Private Information. Antigo collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal and medical information belonging to its customers and employees, including, but not limited to their full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account numbers (collectively, "personally identifying information" or "PII"), and health insurance information and other protected health information ("private health information" or "PHI"), (PII and PHI collectively, "Private Information"). Between June 1, 2025 and June 11, 2025, Antigo experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"). Ultimately, Antigo failed to fulfill this obligation, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached Antigo's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to Antigo's customers and employees, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Data Breach--and the successful exfiltration of Private Information--were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of Antigo. As a result of Antigo's negligent, reckless, intentional, and/or unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy its contractual, statutory, and common-law obligations, Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Kubacki was a former employee at Antigo. Antigo Construction, Inc. is a construction company that operates throughout the United States and across the globe, including the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Belgium, and other nations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Krishna K. Motta, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com kmotta@caffertyclobes.com ARCHERY TRADE: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Tapia Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID TAPIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS INC.; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; NEUINTEL, LLC; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; and TRACKSTREET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01462 (W.D. Tex., November 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, and state consumer protection and deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of archery products, purchased from one or more of the Manufacturer Defendants and/or Retailer Defendants from January 1, 2014, through the present. According to the complaint, the Defendants exchanged competitively sensitive, non-public information concerning, inter alia, seasonal sales numbers, prices, output, percentages of sales by product type, capacity, demand, sales volume, and future sales strategies to carry out their price-fixing conspiracy. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have sustained antitrust injury and damages. Archery Trade Association, Inc. is a trade group focused on the sports of archery and bowhunting with its primary place of business in New Ulm, Minnesota. Bowtech, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Eugene, Oregon. BPS Direct, LLC is a retail company with its primary place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Cabela's LLC is a retail company with its primary place of business in Sidney, Nebraska. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a retail company, headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. Hoyt Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. Jay's Sports, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Clare, Michigan. Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc. is an archery distributor with its primary place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Mathews Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Sparta, Wisconsin. Neuintel, LLC is a software company based in Irvine, California. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Tucson, Arizona. Trackstreet, Inc. is a software company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Montano, Esq. GUERRA LLP 345 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (726) 336-7693 Email: mmontano@guerrallp.com - and - Francisco "Frank" Guerra, IV, Esq. Sommer Hazel, Esq. GUERRA LLP 875 East Ashby Place, Suite 1200 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 447-0500 Email: fguerra@guerrallp.com shazel@guerrallp.com ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHICS: Campbell Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Gene Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHICS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00750 (E.D. Va., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"1) and Protected Health Information ("PHI", and collectively, "Private Information) and that were compromised in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant experienced a security incident impacting its network. Upon learning of the Data Breach, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On October 9, 2025, Defendant issued a public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letters ("Notice") to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is an architectural branding and signage manufacturer based in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com ARRAY DIGITAL: Settlement in Stockholder Suit Has Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Array Digital Infrastructure, 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 stockholder class action has obtained court approval. On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and Array and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. An Amended Complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, which names TDS, Array, and certain current Array officers and directors as defendants, and alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the potential class period) regarding, among other things, Array's business strategies to address subscriber demand, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified money damages. On November 1, 2024, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On February 28, 2025, the parties reached a settlement in principle. On April 25, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 4, 2025, the court approved the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice. ASTON HEALTHCARE: Court Extends Class Cert Filing Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH EUBANKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ASTON HEALTHCARE, LLC, and WOODSIDE OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01041-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Frazier entered an order granting the opposed motion to extend class certification deadline. The deadline to file a motion to certify class is extended to Dec. 31, 2025. The Plaintiff presented good cause for her request. The Plaintiff claims that additional discovery will allow her sufficient information to file a motion to certify class. While the Defendant contends that any motion to certify class will be futile, at this stage in the litigation, the Court will not foreclose the Plaintiff's opportunity to file such a motion. The Plaintiff claims that she served discovery requests on the Defendants in August 2025 and the Defendants produced no documents and objected to every interrogatory. After conferring with the Defendants' counsel, the parties could not resolve the discovery disputes. As a result, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. The Plaintiff claims that without the information from these discovery requests, the Plaintiff cannot move for class certification. Aston is a provider of primary healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=97PrsG at no extra charge.[CC] AUBREY'S INC: Sofsky Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Sofsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AUBREY'S, INC., Case 3:25-cv-00563 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought against Defendant to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant paid Plaintiff and those he seeks to represent a tipped hourly wage less than the statutory $7.25 per hour for all regular hours worked in a workweek (and $10.88 per hour minimum overtime wage for hours worked over 40 in a workweek) under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA (hereafter, "Tip Credit Employees"). The Defendant, however, failed to satisfy the requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum-wage and overtime obligations to their Tip Credit Employees by: failing to provide Tip Credit Employees with the required notice before taking the tip credit; requiring Tip Credit Employees to work dual jobs—one job that involves tipped work and another job that involves non-tipped work—all while paid at the lower, tipped hourly rate; and shifting business expenses to Tip Credit Employees by requiring them to purchase uniforms and an apron. As a result of these violations, Defendant is not permitted to rely on the "tip credit" to satisfy its minimum wage and overtime obligations under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its Aubrey's, Greenville, Tennessee restaurant location from September of 2025 to October of 2025, and worked as a server. The Defendant owns and operates 16 Aubrey's restaurants throughout East and Middle Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com AVIS BUDGET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Edwards Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- TYNETTA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17432 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Edwards was employed by the Defendant as a fleet service clerk. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC operates and franchises vehicle rental services. The Company offers new and used car. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com BARBOUR INTERNATIONAL: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Moran, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BARBOUR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09635 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.bayouclassic.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. BARBOUR INTERNATIONAL, INC., operates the Bayou Classic online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Michael@Gottlieb.legal BATH & BODY WORKS: Jean Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. The case is styled as Stacy Jean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., Case No. CACE25017707 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 18, 2025). Bath & Body Works, Inc. -- https://www.bathandbodyworks.com/ -- is an American specialty retail company based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th St. Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: +1 844-542-7235 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Coronel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Behavioral Health Practice Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Margarita Coronel, on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Behavioral Health Practice Services LLC, Lifestance Health, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25CV027454 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Behavioral Health Practice Services LLC offer services including medication management, counseling, TMS treatment, and other outpatient behavioral health needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com BHP HOLDING: Kerns Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Kerns, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BHP HOLDING PARTNERS, LTD, a California corporation doing business as BEVERLY HILLS PORSCHE; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV33411 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendants failure to comply with the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed to pay overtime wages; failed to pay minimum wages; failed to provide meal periods; failed to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failed to timely pay wages; failed to indemnify; unfair competition; civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act (2004) for violations of Labor Code Sections 210, 226.3, 558, 1174.5, 1197.1, AND 2699, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee as a Porter, with duties that included, but were not limited to, customer service. BHP is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State Of California and doing business in the County Of Los Angeles, State Of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aspen Paxson, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: aspen@tomorrowlaw.com BIRD AND 87TH AVENUE: Gonzalez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Gonzalez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. BIRD AND 87TH AVENUE SUPERMARKET, INC, d/b/a Sedano's Supermarket #38, and HECHT BIRD ROAD PROPERTY, LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-25383-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff personally visited the "Sedano's Supermarket #38", to inquire and/or use of their services, and to test for compliance with the ADA/ADAAG, but because he perambulates with the assistance of a wheelchair, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access, and enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and amenities, because of the architectural barriers met at the Subject Property. Based on the access barriers Plaintiff encountered, Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access, in violation of Title III of the ADA. As a result of the joint and several discriminations by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered loss of dignity, mental anguish and other tangible injuries and has suffered an injury-in-fact, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is disabled with neuropathy and nerve damage due to radiation and utilizes a wheelchair for mobility. Bird And 87th Avenue Supermarket, Inc, is the owner and operator of the "Sedano's Supermarket #38."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220, Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com BISCUITS & BATH: Molinas Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA MOLINAS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BISCUITS & BATH PET SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09457 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the law by (i) failing to pay commissions; (ii) failing to pay overtime, (iii) failing to provide the notice and acknowledgement of payrate and payday, and (iv) failing to provide an accurate wage statement. The Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant fired her in retaliation for her protected wage-related complaints in violation of the state and federal laws. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a groomer from July 11, 2022 to December 2022, and as a senior groomer from January 2023, until her alleged termination on July 31, 2025. Biscuits & Bath Pet Services operates a chain of 18 dog grooming, training, and boarding facilities throughout New York City.[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 10170 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com frank@lipskylowe.com BJH HOLDINGS: Faces Tanner Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMI TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJH HOLDINGS III CORP and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01956-GMB (N.D. Ala., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between July 24, 2025 and August 10, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. BJH Holdings III Corp is the parent company of Jack's Family Restaurants, LP, headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Jack's Family Restaurants, LP is a service chain restaurant operator, headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PTTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, PC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com BLUE MOUNTAIN: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Mountain Construction Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Gabriel Lopez, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Mountain Construction Services, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 25CV026981 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Blue Mountain Construction Services -- https://bluemountainair.net/ -- is a construction and property management company.[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 BLUE SHIELD: Roiz Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Jenniffer Roiz, Claudine Castillo, Candyce Marto, and Kevin Maedel on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., and HUMAN AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 4:25-cv-09978 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants' unfair competition and deceptive business practices by knowingly publishing inaccurate and misleading provider directories. The Defendants engaged in deceptive business practices by: a robust provider network is attractive to potential customers; a seemingly robust directory of providers gives Defendants the appearance of compliance with state and federal network adequacy laws (without the costs associated with creating and maintaining an adequate network and accurate directory); and when members forego care after a time consuming and frustrating provider search, Defendants do not have to pay for the care they would have received. The Plaintiffs' insurance policies claim to cover mental health care with robust networks of available mental health providers made available by Defendants. In reality, those networks are threadbare: there are very few mental health providers in California who actually take the insurance, are in-network, and accept new patients. Thus, the promised coverage is largely non-existent. The failure by an insurance company or health care service plan to have an adequate network to meet members' needs is itself a violation of federal and state network adequacy laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff were enrolled in enrolled with Blue Shield. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company is a stock corporation incorporated and headquartered in Oakland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Steve Cohen, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 337-5361 Email: Scohen@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob Gardener, Esq. WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP 250 Vesey St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 335-2965 Email: jgardener@wmhwlaw.com BOBOSLW INC: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BOBOSLW INC. The case is styled as Daissy Gutierrez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOBOSLW INC. DBA BOBOS LYNWOOD, Case No. 25STCV33319 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Boboslw Inc. -- https://boboshamburgers.com/ -- is a simple counter-serve joint serving breakfasts, burritos & burgers, plus a range of shakes & sundaes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com BODY FIRM: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Body Firm Aerobics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13864 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://vasafitness.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Body Firm Aerobics, LLC, doing business as VASA Fitness, operates as a fitness center. The Company provides health clubs, basketball courts, massage, kidcare, spas, indoor pool, and other physical fitness facilities, as well as group classes and training services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Telephone: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BOSLEY INC: Sisti Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alexander Sisti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bosley, Inc., Bosley Medical Group, Case No. 4:25-cv-06614 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 6, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10669-JFW-DFM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Bosley, Inc. -- https://www.bosley.com/ -- offers high-density hair transplant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Aleeza Straus, Esq. Saman M. Rejali, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY AND BACON L. L. P. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 285-8330 Fax: (424) 204-9093 Email: rstraus@shb.com srejali@shb.com BRITISH AIRWAYS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against British Airways plc. The case is styled as Selene Padilla Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. British Airways plc, Case No. 25STCV33588 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." British Airways plc -- https://www.britishairways.com/ -- is the flag carrier of the United Kingdom and is the second largest UK-based carrier, based on fleet size and passengers carried.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Aboriginal Title Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Pawson of CBC News reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses the federal and B.C. governments of keeping property owners in the dark amid the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title ruling. The lawsuit -- filed in B.C. Supreme Court -- appears to be the first separate civil suit to emerge from a groundbreaking decision that found that Aboriginal title co-exists with so-called fee simple title on about 150 pieces of private property in Richmond, B.C. The proposed class action alleges the federal and B.C. governments failed to "properly defend the rights of property owners" caught up in Justice Barbara Young's ruling, which awarded Quw'utsun (Cowichan) Nation Aboriginal title to between 300 and 325 hectares of land just east of the Massey Tunnel, where the nation once had a traditional village. The decision has resulted in confusion and uncertainty over what it means for the status and validity of private ownership, despite Indigenous leaders calling how the City of Richmond and the province have reacted to it fear-mongering and a barrier to reconciliation. Young's ruling doesn't invalidate individual property rights, but the judge said the Crown would have to work with the Quw'utsen to "negotiate and reconcile" the co-existence of Aboriginal title and private property rights. She suspended her ruling for 18 months to allow governments time to understand the decision and figure out how to proceed with it. The province and the City of Richmond are both appealing Young's decision, as are the other parties to the ruling. Misfeasance claim The new legal action claims misfeasance, which in this case means the wrongful exercise of legal authority. Filed on Nov. 21, it alleges the two senior levels of government misled property owners by continuing to assure the public that private property was "safe, marketable and free from material qualification" despite having knowledge of potential risks posed by unresolved Indigenous land claims. It also claims the governments "caused economic and psychological harm" to the plaintiffs and any future class members by collecting taxes, fees and charges "based on inflated or misinformed property values." The lead plaintiff is Jasjeet Rampee Grewall, who the claim says owns a hazardous material removal company in Burnaby. It also lists a Richmond property owner as a second plaintiff under the name "John Doe," a legal term often used as a placeholder in class action proceedings before actual people have been found. The suit seeks relief -- potentially for all private property owners in B.C. -- in several ways, including general damages "for loss of property value and mental distress," along with "restitution or disgorgement of taxes and fees collected under misrepresented conditions." It also seeks a declaration from the province and federal governments that their "conduct was unlawful and contrary to their duties of good faith and candour; a declaration requiring full disclosure of known risks affecting registered property in British Columbia." None of the claims have been proven in court, and the proposed class action will require certification from a judge before it can proceed. B.C. to protect property rights, says ministry In a statement, B.C.'s Ministry of Attorney General said it is aware of the claim, but has not been served. The ministry would not commenting directly on the contents of the proposed class action, but said the province's approach "has always been to protect private property, both in litigation and negotiation. "Our legal team is using the strongest legal arguments available to protect the rights of private property landowners in the Cowichan case," it said. "We believe fee simple property rights in B.C. must be protected." The province said land titles in Richmond and across B.C. remain valid and the Quw'utsun Nation's claim is to "a very specific area." The ministry said it recognizes that the court's decision has caused "real uncertainty." It said the province is engaging with residents and small business owners in the impacted area to provide information and hear feedback, which could be used as part of the province's appeal of the court decision with permission. CBC News has contacted the federal government for comment. The governments have 21 days to file legal responses from the time of being served with the claim. [GN] BS BLEECKER: Dunston Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------- Natosha Dunston, and other similarly situated v. BS Bleecker LLC and Bagel World of Dekalb Avenue, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06390 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the Defendants inaccessible property. On March 2025, and again on October 31, 2025, the Plaintiff, in subject property. On each of these occasions, the Plaintiff's ability to ambulate through the entrance of the Subject Property was constrained, hindered, and thwarted by the structural barriers, to wit; a significant concrete barrier steps that which prevented access to the public accommodation due to impingement between the caster and front rigging of his wheelchair against the entrance's barrier step, this contiguity between the wheelchair and step obstructing any entry. After coming upon the architectural barrier, it was found by Plaintiff to be entirely untraversable, thus preventing Plaintiff from accessing the public services therein. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Property which forms the basis of this lawsuit on multiple occasions, and was denied access to the restaurant by discriminatory barriers and a continued policy of deliberate indifference to such barriers that Defendants are fully aware are unlawful under Title III of the ADA. Therefore, Defendants knowingly and wantonly discriminate against Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in their refusal to remediate (for purposes of nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities) to the minimum guidelines of the law, which are both feasible and readily achievable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a left above-the-knee amputee, uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. BS BLEECKER LLC, is a domestic limited liability company which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria-Costanza Barducci, Esq. BARDUCCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 5 West 19th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 433-2554 Email: MC@BarducciLaw.com BSN SPORTS: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BSN SPORTS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Salatiel Penaloza Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BSN SPORTS, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV027604 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." BSN Sports, LLC -- https://www.bsnsports.com/ -- is the leading marketer, manufacturer & distributor of sporting goods apparel & equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com BUILD-SOURCE CORP: Faces Pena Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ JORGE NEPTALI MORA PENA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. BUILD-SOURCE CORP., and PHIL PAVICH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09471 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the federal and state laws, he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime premiums, due to fixed salary payments without overtime premiums for hours worked over forty; (2) unpaid wages, due to a failure to compensate for Plaintiff's eleven weeks of employment; (3) compensation for late payment of wages, (4) statutory penalties; (5) liquidated damages; and (6) attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint further alleges that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a laborer for Defendants at the Bronx-Lennox hospital in New York in March 2018 until his termination in December 2024. Build-Source Corp. is a general contractor based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BYHEART INC: Pilato Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mariah Pilato, and Ashley Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BYHEART, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09550 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the Defendant's infant formula products throughout the United States (hereinafter the "Products"). The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, also known as infant botulism. The Plaintiffs certainly expect that the infant baby formula products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause severe disease and even be life threatening. Unfortunately for consumers, including Plaintiffs, the infant formulas Products they purchased contain Clostridium botulinum. The Defendant is using a marketing and advertising campaign that omits from the packaging that the Products contain, or risk containing, Clostridium botulinum. Knowing of the presence of Clostridium botulinum is material to reasonable consumers. The presence of Clostridium botulinum was solely within the possession of Defendant, and consumers could only obtain such information by conducting by sending the products off to a laboratory for extensive testing. This omission leads a reasonable consumer to believe they are not purchasing a product with a known bacterium such as Clostridium botulinum when in fact they are purchasing a product that is indeed contaminated with the dangerous bacterium Clostridium botulinum. Consumers like Plaintiffs trust manufacturers like Defendant to sell products that are safe and free from harmful known substances, including Clostridium botulinum. Plaintiffs and other Class Members certainly expect that the food products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause disease. Unfortunately for consumers, including Plaintiffs, the baby infant Products they purchased contained, or were at risk of containing, Clostridium botulinum. Defendant's own recall and other testing confirmed and demonstrated the presence of the dangerous bacterium Clostridium botulinum in the Plaintiffs' products, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Products. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Markowitz, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Russell Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (919) 926-7948 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu, III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Str Ste. 650 No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-839-7077 Facsimile: 888-410-0415 Email: brittany@skclassactions.com BYHEART INC: Schneider Sues Over Recalled Infant Formula Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAX SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYHEART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09543 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2025) is a consumer class action brought on behalf of purchasers of ByHeart infant formula products which were subject to a nationwide recall announced after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported a link between cases of infant botulism and the consumption of ByHeart formula. According to the complaint, in response to the FDA's findings, Defendant ByHeart instructed consumers to immediately discontinue use and discard all ByHeart infant formula products, rendering the purchased products useless. The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased ByHeart infant formula believing it to be safe, nutritionally adequate, and fit for consumption by infants. The recall and associated safety concerns destroyed the value of those products and deprived consumers of the benefit of their bargain, says the suit. The Plaintiff bring this action to recover damages for economic losses suffered by consumers nationwide who purchased recalled ByHeart infant formula products. ByHeart, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, New York, and is engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of infant formula products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madeline Sheffield, Esq. Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: Madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com Israel.david@davidllc.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com C.F.C. RECYCLING: Pham Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Pham, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. C.F.C. RECYCLING, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00069 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to recover underpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff, as well as for all similarly situated current and former employees who worked for CFC within three years of the filing of this Complaint. When Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in a workweek, CFC paid him overtime compensation at 1.5 times his hourly rate of pay for recorded hours, generally either $22.50 or $25.50 per overtime hour. CFC likewise paid the members of the Putative Collective overtime compensation at 1.5 times their hourly rates of pay for recorded hours worked over 40 in a workweek. CFC also paid Pham bonuses for attending safety meetings, ranging from $20 to $60 per week. CFC did not include the bonuses for attending safety meetings in Pham's regular rate of pay for determining his overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for CFC on November 16, 2023, as a Nonferrous Materials Processor. CFC has been regularly engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Fax: (615) 250-2020 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Edlin Suit Over Fresh Egg Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW EDLIN, 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.; HILLANDALE FARMS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC.; EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC.; UNITED EGG PRODUCERS; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00946 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs (referred to here as "Conventional Eggs" or simply "eggs") from at least as early as January 1, 2022, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist ("Class Period"). Several factors to support the plausible inference that Defendants are members of a per se unlawful price fixing cartel, include: (1) Defendants' exchange of competitively sensitive information; (2) a price-verification scheme; (3) a motive to conspire; (4) opportunities and invitations to collude; (5) an increasingly concentrated market; (6) high barriers to entry; and (7) a commodity product. The Defendants' violations of the antitrust laws caused Plaintiff and members of the Classes to pay higher prices for eggs than they would have in the absence of Defendants' illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy, and, as a result, the Plaintiff and members of the Classes have suffered damages in the form of overcharges paid on their Conventional Egg purchases, says the suit. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. offers poultry products. The Company produces, cleans, grades, packs, and sells fresh shell eggs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com - and - Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew Chan Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com CENERGY INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fitch Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ALLYSA FITCH; JAKIRA POINDEXTER; TASHIBA HARRIS; TYSHAUN MOULTRIE; RYAN DICKERSON; and ADE ANIMASHAUN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENERGY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02318-DJP-JVM (E.D. LA., Nov. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as helicopter deck assistants. Cenergy International Services LLC provides logistics services. The Company offers marine, air, and ground transportation as well as energy personnel, vendor management, and safety and inspection solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Most, Esq. Caroline Gabriel, Esq. Most & Associates 201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 2500, # 9685 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (985) 441-9355 E-mail: caroline.gabriel.ma@gmail.com CERNER CORP: Peterson Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- DORA PETERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC., and HAMILTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00320-WMR (N.D. Ga., November 11, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of Plaintiff's sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants. According to the complaint, Cerner Corp. lost control over its affiliated entity and client's patients' highly sensitive personal information, including HMC. HMC chose to allow Cerner access and control over its patients' highly sensitive personal and health information. The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the data breach made patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their sensitive information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are patients and victims of Defendants' negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendants with their sensitive information. But Defendants betrayed that trust and failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the data breach, the suit asserts. Cerner is a healthcare software-as-a-service company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH, LLC 1708 Peachtree St., Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4509 Facsimile: (678) 490-3668 E-mail: JAlonso@alonsowirth.com DWirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: Sam@straussborrelli.com Raina@straussborrelli.com CITADEL SECURITIES: Engaged in Spoof Trading of Shares, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GENIUS GROUP LIMITED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITADEL SECURITIES LLC; and VIRTU AMERICAS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09546 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a broker-dealers' manipulative and illegal trading in the securities of Genius, an educational technology company that delivers AI-powered training and tools to six million students in more than 100 different countries. For years, the Defendants repeatedly, and on a massive scale, placed and executed manipulative trades that were designed to, and did, artificially deflate the price of Genius stock. This fraudulent scheme, known as "spoofing," enriched the Defendants while devastating the Plaintiff and its investors. By manipulating the market price in this manner, the spoofer seeks to benefit his own positions in the security, says the suit. Citadel Securities LLC operates as a capital markets firm. The Firm offers liquidity across a range of asset classes such as equities, options, fixed income, and foreign exchange. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abe Alexander, Esq. Timothy Clark B. Dauz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (610) 722-8501 Email: aalexander@gelaw.com tdauz@gelaw.com - and - James W. Christian, Esq. CHRISTIAN ATTAR 1177 W. Loop South, Suite 1700 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (713) 659-7617 Facsimile: (713) 659-4641 Email: jchristian@christianattarlaw.com CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid for Leave to File Amended Complaint Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOOMIS SAYLES TRUST COMPANY, LLC, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered an order denying the Plaintiff motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add ten new plaintiffs. Citigroup is a financial services subsidiary of Citigroup that provides institutional brokerage, investment banking, capital markets, and advisory services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lj4Hft at no extra charge.[CC] CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Investors' Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Citizens & Northern 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 class action lawsuits filed by investors in a purported Ponzi scheme. On March 27, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas by investors in a purported Ponzi scheme operated by two individuals, one of whom maintained accounts at C&N Bank. The plaintiffs have sued C&N Bank, along with another bank, and additional law firm and accounting firm defendants. The case is styled Goldovsky, et al. v. Rauld, et al. Plaintiffs asserted claims against C&N Bank and the other bank for aiding and abetting alleged violations of the Texas Securities Act, and additional claims against the legal and accounting professionals for statutory fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty. C&N Bank filed motions to dismiss the Texas case for wont of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs responded to those motions. By order of the District Court judge dated March 27, 2025, C&N Bank's motion to dismiss for wont of personal jurisdiction was granted. Plaintiffs filed an application for certification of the Texas suit as a class action. On October 16, 2025, the District Court in Texas issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2025, C&N Bank was served with a complaint filed by Goldovsky, et al in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint is predicated upon Texas securities law, alleging substantially the same facts and asserting the same legal arguments as in the Texas case. C&N Bank filed motions to dismiss the Pennsylvania case. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as class action. C&N Bank filed its response brief in opposition to class certification in the Pennsylvania case on October 22, 2025. C&N Bank believes that it has substantial defenses against the action, and it intends to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations. Based on the information available to the Corporation, the Corporation does not believe at this time that a loss is probable in this matter, nor can a range of possible losses be determined. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded for this litigation matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The Corporation's estimate may change from time to time, and actual losses could vary. COASTAL WASTE: Skinner Seeks Unpaid OT for Waste Disposal Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SKINNER and NORMAN CREWS, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COASTAL WASTE & RECYCLING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-81395 (S.D. Fla., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Skinner and Crews were employed by Coastal Waste as waste disposal drivers in Florida from approximately January 2021 to May 2024 and from approximately April 2024 to October 2024, respectively. Coastal Waste & Recycling, Inc. is a full-service solid waste company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 North Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 Email: pbotros@forthepeople.com COMMUNITY COUNSELING: Kholamian Sues Over Unpaid Earned Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicoline Kholamian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Nicole Teltoe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTERS OF CHICAGO, INC., an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, KERRI BROWN, individually, KELLI PERKINS, individually, JENNIFER FORBES, individually, DIANA CASTILLO, individually, and JAMILEH MCKNIGHT, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-13942 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 13, 2025), is brought for unpaid earned wages, including but not limited to regular and overtime wages, brought by employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). This case arises from Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees their earned wages while inducing those same employees to continue working. The Defendants have failed to properly pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for work performed or, in some instances, the Defendants have paid the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees beyond the deadlines mandated by the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant. The Defendant C4 provides mental health counseling services at four locations in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-201-0575 Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bomrslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A1-Dajani, Esq. Jacob L.V. Armstrong, Esq. KERKONIAN DAJANI, LLP 1555 Sherman Avenue. Suite 344 Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: 312-416-6180 Email: ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com jarmstrong@kerkoniandajani.com CONCENTRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Security Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Concentra Group Holdings Parent, 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 class action lawsuit captioned In re Perry Johnson & Associates Medical Transcription Data Security Breach Litigation. During the first quarter of 2024, the Company became aware of six putative class action lawsuits filed against PJ&A and the Company related to the data breach. Five of the putative class action lawsuits have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and consolidated with the one class action lawsuit pending there. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on August 19, 2024 against PJ&A, Concentra, Select Medical Holdings Corporation and other unrelated defendants under the caption In re Perry Johnson & Associates Medical Transcription Data Security Breach Litigation ("Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages under theories of negligence, breach of contract, and failure to comply with statutory duties, including duties under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Federal Trade Commission guidelines and industry standards, and various state consumer protection and deceptive trade practice laws. In March 2025, pursuant to a Case Management Order ("Court Order"), five of the named plaintiffs in the Consolidated Complaint filed an amended Direct-Filed Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Pursuant to this Court Order, the Direct-Filed Class Action Complaint will be remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas after the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. The Company is working with its cybersecurity risk insurance policy carrier and does not believe that the data breach or the lawsuits will have a material impact on its operations or financial performance. However, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the timing and outcome of these matters. CONCORD MANAGEMENT: Starstone Seeks Declaratory Judgment & Relief ----------------------------------------------------------------- STARSTONE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCORD MANAGEMENT LTD; RIVER RIDGE APARTMENTS, LTD; WATERVUE PARTNERS, LLC; MARLENE BARBAN; and JAY ALAN DURRANCE, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02145 (M.D. Fla., November 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory judgement and other relief regarding its rights and obligations under real estate services professional liability policy number H74815221APL ("StarStone Policy") issued to Concord Management, Ltd ("Concord") in reference to the lawsuits styled Marlene Barban on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Concord Management LTD (the "Barban Lawsuit") and River Ridge Apartments, LTD; Jay Alan Durrance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Concord Management LTD and Watervue Partners (the "Durrance Lawsuit"). The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory relief that the Starstone Policy is not implicated by the Barban Class Action and the Durrance Class Actions and there is no duty to defend with respect to these class actions. Furthermore, the Starstone Policy has no obligation to indemnify Concord and River Ridge with respect to the Barban Lawsuit and the Durrance Lawsuit. Starstone Specialty Insurance Company is an insurance firm based in Cincinnati, Ohio. Concord Management Ltd is a property management firm based in Maitland, Florida. River Ridge Apartments, Ltd is a property management firm based in Orlando, Florida. Watervue Partners, LLC is a property management firm based in Polk County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rory Eric Jurman, Esq. Eli M. Marger, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1450 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 467-7900 Facsimile: (954) 467-1024 Email: rjurman@hinshawlaw.com emarger@hinshawlaw.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cozzolino Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK COZZOLINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17382 (D.N.J., Nov. 12, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of the Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breached this 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, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Due to the Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come, says the suit. Conduent Business Services, LLC provides business process services. The Company offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Day Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIN DAY; and LATISHA SEALS-BLAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION D/B/A BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17373 (D.N.J., Nov. 12, 2025) is class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated persons addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information, and health insurance information (the "Private Information") from hackers. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed to properly monitor and to properly implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had Defendants properly monitored its networks and those belonging to third-party vendors, they would have discovered the Breach sooner. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of the Defendants' negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendants collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. Conduent Business Services, LLC provides business process services. The Company offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Spitz, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105 PMB #161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Tel: (717) 967-5529 Email: jspitz@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com atolentino@sirillp.com CONMEBOL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Copa America Suit for $14MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Carlisle of ESPN reports that a settlement was reached Monday, November 24, in the class action lawsuit that was filed by fans in the wake of the chaotic 2024 Copa America final between Argentina and Colombia held at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida. Because of crowd trouble prior to kickoff, some fans with tickets were not able to enter the venue, while others left early out of concern for their safety. These fans are expected to form the bulk of those filing claims. CONMEBOL, Concacaf, Best Security, and South Florida Stadium LLC, which owns and operates Hard Rock Stadium, were listed as defendants in the lawsuit. According to terms of the settlement, those defendants will collectively pay upwards of $14 million into a fund that can be accessed by fans who were impacted by crowd trouble at the final, though the final payout is dependent on the number of people who submit claims. Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs and class counsel, attorney Jeff Newsome of the firm Varnell & Warwick PA, said, "This case was about standing up for the fans. The Named Plaintiffs and the entire Class Counsel team are proud to deliver real relief to the class members of the Copa American Class Action lawsuit." Newsome added, "We look forward to presenting the settlement to the Court." A Concacaf spokesperson declined to comment. Hard Rock Stadium didn't provide a comment to ESPN. CONMEBOL didn't respond to a request for comment. An attempt to reach Best Security for comment wasn't successful. The final between Argentina and Colombia was delayed by 82 minutes when fans without tickets broke through security barriers in order to get into the venue. Stadium personnel responded by locking down the venue in a bid to regain control. But when dangerous conditions developed, with some fans in danger of getting crushed against the gates outside the stadium, the venue was reopened, allowing some fans to enter whether they had tickets or not. When the stadium reached capacity, the stadium gates were closed again, preventing some fans with tickets from entering. Miami-Dade Police stated that there were 27 arrests and 55 ejections, while Miami-Dade Fire Rescue told ESPN that they responded to 120 incidents at the stadium, 116 of which were medical-related. According to the terms of the settlement, portions of which have been viewed by ESPN, plaintiffs can be placed into one of two categories. The first is for fans who were "denied entry" into the stadium due to the crowd trouble. These fans will be able to receive a maximum refund of $2,000 per person. While some fans paid more than $2,000 for their tickets on the secondary market, the settlement is designed to cover the majority of fans for the cost of their tickets. If the fan in question paid less than $2,000 for their ticket, they can also submit a claim for reimbursement for up to $300 in travel-related expenses, so long as the $2,000 maximum isn't exceeded. The other category is for fans who were "denied full access, and enjoyment of Hard Rock Stadium facilities or to specific seats purchased.'" This includes the purchasing of concessions or merchandise, which were shut down due to the overcrowded conditions. That amount will be capped at $100 per person. Fans impacted by the chaos at the final will need to file claims, and among the items they must submit with the claim are a time-stamped photo or proof of identification, as well as proof of purchasing tickets, and an affirmation that they were either denied entry or denied full access to the stadium. They must also affirm that they haven't received a refund for any portion of the out-of-pocket funds claimed. Fans looking to take part in the settlement will be able to find instructions at FinalMatchSettlement.com. [GN] CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RISING PHOENIX ROYALTY FUND III LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CONTANGO RESOURCES, LLC and CONTANGO RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00238-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Klosterman entered an order granting the Parties' fourth joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines: Event Deadline Documents previously produced by parties Jan. 23, 2026 shall be deemed authenticated under FED. R. EVID. 901 except as to those objected to by this date: Fact Discovery for class certification Feb. 2, 2026 discovery deadline (not including expert discovery): The Plaintiff's class certification July 20, 2026 Motion: The Defendant's class certification Aug. 28, 2026 Response: The Plaintiff's class certification Sept. 28, 2026 reply: In Person Class Certification Hearing: Oct. 14, 2026, at 2:00 PM Given the complex nature of this case and the sheer volume of discovery it entails, the Court finds good cause exists for the requested extensions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). The Motion is GRANTED. Contango is an independent oil and natural gas company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7cOmAo at no extra charge.[CC] CONTINENTAL TIRE: Must Address Standing in Privacy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kaelynn Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-CV-1928-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing on the question of standing. On September 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in Illinois state court against Defendant, alleging violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. 513/1 et seq. She alleged that Continental Tire, her former employer, violated her privacy rights (and those of similarly situated individuals) by requiring employees seeking workers' compensation benefits to provide their family medical history in violation of GIPA. On October 20, 2025, Continental Tire removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). It then filed an answer to Thompson's complaint on November 12, 2025. The Court addressed the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Article III standing is an unwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite for bringing a case in federal court. To have standing to bring suit in federal court, a plaintiff must have suffered (1) a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury (an injury in fact) (2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The injury-in-fact requirement is not satisfied by the violation of a statute alone; even where a legislature authorizes suit for some legal violation, a plaintiff must show it caused her some harm beyond the violation itself. A plaintiff's harm does not constitute an injury in fact unless it is sufficiently concrete. Qualifying harms are those with a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts. Intangible harms qualify as a concrete injury in fact only when the harm bears a close relationship to a traditional harm given redress in courts at common law. Thompson alleges that Continental Tire violated GIPA and thus invaded her privacy. She also states that a plaintiff is not required to prove, or even allege, actual injury from the improper practice, as the mere violation of the plaintiff's statutory rights inflicts sufficient injury to assert a claim. The Court noted that in Illinois state court that may well be true. In federal court, however, it is insufficient. Whichever party seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing Article III standing. Continental Tire invoked federal jurisdiction when it sought removal and thus must establish that Thompson has Article III standing to bring this case. Neither Continental Tire's Notice Regarding Removal nor its Answer address the question of standing or injury in fact. Accordingly, the Court ordered that on or before December 22, 2025, Continental Tire shall file a supplemental brief explaining why Thompson has standing under Article III to bring this case. On or before January 9, 2026, Thompson may file a response to Continental Tire's supplemental brief, if she so chooses. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGaN9Z from PacerMonitor.com CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Delaware Court Dismisses Stockholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., 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 a Delaware court has dismissed a purported former stockholder filed against the Company. In June 2023, a purported former stockholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company's disclosures issued in connection with the Merger were materially misleading in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is captioned Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. v. Cornerstone Building Brands et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00701 (D. Del.). The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and officers issued misleading disclosures, which caused stockholders to approve the Merger at an unfair price. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorney's fees, expenses and costs. On December 8, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint, and, in the alternative, to stay in litigation. On September 30, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 15, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the defendants again moved to dismiss or stay on November 26, 2024. On June 23, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal. On June 24, 2025, the court entered the parties' stipulation to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Salisbury Sues Over Deceptive Tequila Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON SALISBURY, PHILLIP ASPHY, KARL STEINBERG, TESHA GAMINO, LEROY DAVIS, STUART BERGMAN, JORDAN LEVENTHAL, KATHRYN TRAINOR, CYNTHIA REESE, CHAD FORESTER, MICHAEL MATHENGE, PATRICIA BAILEY, AND DALIT COHEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02277 (W.D. Wash., November 14, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, as a nationwide class under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and various state law classes, seeking to hold Costco accountable and recover financial losses sustained by them and other consumers who were misled by Defendant's false and misleading advertising of its Kirkland Signature brand tequila. Seeking to capitalize on consumer demand for authentic, high-quality tequila, Costco labels every bottle of Kirkland Signature brand Blanco, Reposado, Anejo, Anejo Cristalino, and Extra Anejo tequila as "100% de Agave." Costco also represents on the face of its bottles that the Kirkland Brand Tequila Products are made "using 100% Blue Agave." These designations tell consumers that Kirkland Tequila Products are made solely from the Blue Weber agave plant, with no other sugars or non-agave sources used in the fermentation process. But scientific testing using established and accepted testing methodologies, including nuclear magnetic resonance and isotope testing, reveals the significant presence of non-agave sugars in Kirkland Tequila Products. These findings contradict Costco's "100% de Agave" or "100% Blue Agave," representations and confirm its tequilas are adulterated. By falsely branding Kirkland Tequila Products as "100% de Agave," or "100% Blue Agave," Costco misled consumers, distorted the premium tequila market, and profited from a deception that violates the core principles of consumer protection law, says the suit. Costco Wholesale Corporation is a membership warehouse club The Company sells all kinds of food, automotive supplies, toys, hardware, sporting goods, jewelry, electronics, apparel, health, and beauty aids, as well as other goods. Costco Wholesale serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shelby Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com shelby@hbsslaw.com - and - Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 594 Dean Street, Suite 24 Brooklyn, NY 11238 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 E-mail: nathant@hbsslaw.com - and - Roland Tellis, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. Isaac Miller, Esq. BARON & BUDD P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com dfernandes@baronbudd.com imiller@baronbudd.com CREDIT KARMA: Faces Suit Over Improper Access of Credit Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Courtney Hladik filed a Credit Karma class action lawsuit against Credit Karma LLC. Why: Hladik claims Credit Karma improperly accessed her credit report and provided it to an unauthorized user. Where: The Credit Karma class action lawsuit was filed in Virginia federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Credit Karma of improperly accessing a woman's credit report and providing it to an unauthorized user -- her ex-husband. Plaintiff Courtney Hladik claims Credit Karma provided her credit report to her ex-husband, who she argues was not authorized to access her credit information. Hladik argues Credit Karma violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent unauthorized access to consumer credit reports and by providing her credit information to her ex-husband without a permissible purpose. Hladik wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who were the subject of a consumer report furnished by Credit Karma to a third party within five years before the filing of the complaint, where the consumer had previously informed Credit Karma that they had not opened a Credit Karma account. Plaintiff never opened a Credit Karma account, class action alleges Hladik claims Credit Karma continued to allow her ex-husband to access her credit reports even after she informed the company that she had never opened a Credit Karma account or authorized anyone to do so on her behalf. "Because of Credit Karma's conduct, Ms. Hladik has suffered actual damages, including invasion of privacy, stress, fear, anxiety, and other emotional distress," the Credit Karma class action lawsuit says. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In other FCRA violations, TransUnion has agreed to a $2.5 settlement to resolve claims it violated the consumer rights by failing to delete consumer information from its databases. The plaintiff is represented by Kristi C. Kelly, Andrew J. Guzzo, Casey S. Nash, J. Patrick McNichol and Matthew Rosendahl of Kelly Guzzo PLC. The Credit Karma class action lawsuit is Hladik v. Credit Karma LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00148, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. [GN] CTG AUTO LLC: Fountain Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CTG Auto, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberley Fountain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CTG Auto, LLC doing business as: Nissan of Costa Mesa, Case No. 8:25-cv-02557 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CTG Auto, LLC doing business as Nissan of Costa Mesa -- https://www.nissanofcostamesa.com/ -- specializes in providing a luxury buying & service experience to all who walk through our door.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com CUSTOM BUILDING: Garcia Wage 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-cv-03333-SCR 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 CYFLARE SECURITY: Court Partially Dismisses "Moeller" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Edward J. Koeller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cyflare Security, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00410-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court further ordered that the Defendant shall have the prescribed time to file its responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The matter arose out of two phone calls Plaintiff Edward J. Koeller received on a phone that he uses only for personal residential purposes. Plaintiff listed this telephone number on the Do Not Call Registry since August 2007. On February 10, 2025, one of Defendant Cyflare Security Inc.'s employees called Plaintiff to solicit the purchase of the Defendant's cybersecurity products. Plaintiff told the caller that he was not interested, and informed him that he had called a personal number. Despite this information, the same employee called Plaintiff once more for the same purpose on March 26, 2025. Plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which provides a private right of action for a person who has received more than one telephone call by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection. One such regulation is 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2), which states that no person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal Government. A successful TCPA plaintiff can seek an injunction, monetary relief, or both. With respect to monetary relief, plaintiffs can receive the actual monetary loss from such a violation or $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater. Additionally, treble damages are available if the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations prescribed under this subsection. Plaintiff sought monetary relief, injunctive relief, and treble damages on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. In response, the Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, failure to put forth sufficient allegations to sustain treble damages, and for a lack of standing to pursue injunctive relief. The Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the TCPA because Plaintiff's phone is not, in fact, a residential phone line, and the regulation applicable to Plaintiff's claims does not apply to business-related telephone numbers. To prove its point, the Defendant directed the Court to deposition testimony taken during a previous lawsuit, which, according to the Defendant, demonstrates that (1) Plaintiff extensively sends and receives calls and texts to co-workers using the number at issue, and (2) his employer provides Plaintiff with a stipend for his phone for work purposes. The Court noted that when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), courts limit their analysis to the factual allegations in the complaint and may not consider evidence outside the complaint. Because the deposition testimony that the Defendant appended to its motion is neither necessarily embraced by the pleadings nor a matter of public record, the Court declined to consider it at this stage. The Court found that excluding these matters is appropriate at this time, especially given the fact-intensive nature of the residential-vel-non question at issue and the limited record before the Court. With these extrinsic matters properly excluded, the Court was left only with the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which state a plausible claim for relief under the TCPA. The Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to put forth sufficient allegations it willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA. As a result, according to the Defendant, treble damages are unavailable in this matter, and the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claim for treble damages pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court found this argument misplaced because treble damages, like punitive damages, are a form of relief and thus not a claim subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. After all, the amount of damages to be recovered is based upon the proof, not the pleadings. Accordingly, the Court declined to foreclose Plaintiff's request for treble damages at this time. The Defendant argued that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief because Plaintiff's Complaint omits any allegation supporting a particular and concrete risk of future injury. The Court noted that the equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that plaintiff will be wronged again. It is the plaintiff's burden to establish standing to pursue injunctive relief by demonstrating that, if unchecked by the litigation, the defendant's allegedly wrongful behavior will likely occur or continue and that the threatened injury is certainly impending. Past wrongs do not in themselves amount to that real and immediate threat of injury. Courts applying this principle in the context of the TCPA have generally found that allegations of past TCPA violations do not establish standing to pursue injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleged that he was called by the Defendant's employee twice in the span of nearly three months. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that one additional consumer complained of cold calling in or around July 2024, almost a year before the Defendant's employee called Plaintiff. The Court found the trouble for Plaintiff is that these allegations are limited to past instances of unlawful conduct, and on their own, such allegations are insufficient to confer the standing that Plaintiff requires. The Court granted the Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oTl0z5 from PacerMonitor.com DANGER COFFEE: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANGER COFFEE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09420 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.dangercoffee.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 23, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Medium Roast Whole Bean Remineralized 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 Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Danger Coffee, Inc. operates the website that offers coffee products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 DAVID A. NOVER: Urban Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN URBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID A. NOVER, M.D., PC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06380 (E.D. Pa., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in approximately June 3, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. David A. Nover, M.D., PC is a psychiatry and psychotherapy services provider based in Warrington, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., 20th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 267-0100 Email: raphael@janove.law - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, PA 520 S. Dixie Hwy., #240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 Email: rachel@dapeer.com DAVISON DESIGN: Miller Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Heather Miller, on behalf of herself, and a Class of Washington residents similarly situated v. Davison Design & Development, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00459 (E.D. Wash., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) as a result of the Defendant unsolicited text messages. CEMA prohibits companies from sending commercial text messages to Washington residents without consent. The Plaintiff received two commercial text messages from Davison earlier this year. She never gave permission for Davison to send these messages. The Defendant's unsolicited spam was intrusive and annoying to the Plaintiff. To hold the Defendant accountable for its illegal practices, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a putative class of Washington residents similarly situated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received text messages from Davison. Davison is a company that provides research and development services for people wanting to bring an idea to market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Alvord, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 450 Alaskan Way S Suite 200 #1823 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (385) 440-4127 Email: thomas@thehqfirm.com DEACONESS HEALTH: Court Dismisses Eavesdropping Statute Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joel Juenger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deaconess Health System, Inc., Deaconess Illinois Red Bud Regional Hospital, Inc., and Red Bud Illinois Hospital Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-CV-2332-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois reconsidered sua sponte and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim under the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute. On September 30, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed on four of the 12 claims he had asserted, namely negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, 720 ILCS 5/14, et seq. (Count VIII), and violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1), et seq. (Count IX). The Court now reconsidered this ruling, sua sponte, as to Count VIII. This action is one of two cases pending before the Court that allege the improper capture and disclosure of private information through tracking technologies embedded on hospital websites. These technologies allegedly recorded individuals' browsing activity, such as their searches for doctors with specific medical specialties and their activity in online patient portals. The Defendant allegedly then disclosed this information to third parties for marketing purposes. The Court reviewed its decisions on the motions to dismiss that were filed in both cases and identified an inconsistency in its treatment of claims under the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute. In the related case Doe v. Deaconess Illinois Union County Hospital, No. 3:24-cv-02284-NJR, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Illinois Eavesdropping Statute claim but found that a nearly identical claim survived the motion to dismiss in this case. To address this inconsistency, the Court reconsidered its holding as to Count VIII of the Plaintiff's complaint and concluded that it must be dismissed. The Illinois Eavesdropping Statute prohibits five forms of eavesdropping as explained in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(5) of 720 ILCS 5/14-2. The Court found that the Plaintiff had stated a claim for relief under subsection (a)(2), which makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly and intentionally use an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation. A private conversation is defined in relevant part as any oral communication between 2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means. The Plaintiff's complaint, at its core, claims that the Defendant improperly captured and disclosed his private information when they recorded his browsing activity on their websites. It does not allege that the Defendant surreptitiously recorded phone calls or in-person conversations between the Plaintiff and his care providers. It is thus apparent that the Plaintiff's Illinois Eavesdropping Statute claim cannot proceed under subsection (a)(2) because the Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a private conversation. The Plaintiff's Illinois Eavesdropping Statute claim fares no better under subsection (a)(3), which prohibits the surreptitious interception of a private electronic communication. Although a private electronic communication is defined in relevant part as any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, and thus likely covers the Plaintiff's browsing activity, liability under subsection (a)(3) is foreclosed because it is limited to the interception of communications by nonparties to the communication. Here, the Defendant was a party to the Plaintiff's electronic communications. It was the Defendant's websites that the Plaintiff visited in connection with his healthcare needs, thus making the Defendant the intended recipient of the data and information he provided. Accordingly, the Court found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute. For these reasons, the Court sua sponte reconsidered its denial of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Count VIII of the Plaintiff's Complaint. Count VIII is dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iR6RRi from PacerMonitor.com DECOR-WARE INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECOR-WARE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13868 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.dwhome.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Decor-Ware International Inc. was founded in 1999. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of non-durable goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Telephone: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law DELTA STAR: Class Cert Hearing in Wilson Suit Due Dec. 18 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beeler entered an order approving the joint stipulation continuing the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. 1. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be on Dec. 18, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's counsel has a personal conflict with the Dec. 4, 2025 hearing date. 3. The parties have met and conferred and agreed to continue the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Dec. 18, 2025. On Nov. 1, 2024, the Court granted the parties' joint stipulation to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification, to be filed on Dec. 6, 2024, to allow the Defendant additional time to produce the timekeeping data. On June 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DLdbVi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 13000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com - and - R. Patrick Bolling, Esq. Raven C. Burks, Esq. WOODS ROGERS 101 West Main Street 500 World Trade Center Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (540) 330-9132 E-mail: patrick.bolling@woodsrogers.com DERMARITE INDUSTRIES: Pitre Balks at Sale of Contaminated Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ YOLANDA PITRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERMARITE INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09826 (N.D. Cal. November 14, 2025) seeks to remedy the deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices of the Defendant related to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its skin care, wound care, nutritional, and infection control products throughout the United States and California. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and failing to disclose on its packaging and in its advertising that the Products are contaminated with, or at risk of being contaminated with, a dangerous microbial contamination identified as Burkholderia cepacia complex. As a result of Defendant's deceptive practices, the Plaintiff and other consumers were led to believe they were purchasing safe and effective products for skin and wound care. In reality, they were sold products contaminated with BCC, a group of bacteria that can cause serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences, including respiratory infections and sepsis, particularly in vulnerable individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied on Defendant's labeling and marketing, which omitted the presence of BCC. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known the truth -- that the Products were contaminated with BCC -- they would not have purchased them or would have paid substantially less for them. DermaRite Industries, LLC manufactures personal care products. The Company offers skin and wound care, as well as nutritional products including hand wash, soap, skin cleansers, and protactants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 E-mail: tkashima@bryson.com - and - Nick Suciu, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@bryson.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. Nicole Maruzzi, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com DNATA US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sefo Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JUDEAN SEFO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV33020 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 12, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Sefo was employed by the Defendants as a dispatcher. Dnata US Inflight Catering LLC provides catering services. The Company offers in-flight food and event catering services, as well as operates restaurants and cafes in airport lounges. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com DOCTOR ALLIANCE: Hobbs Files Suit in N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctor Alliance. The case is styled as Martha Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Doctor Alliance, Case No. 3:25-cv-03110-E (N.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Personal Injury for Personal Injury. Doctor Alliance -- https://www.doctoralliance.com/ -- is a premiere healthcare network providing physicians and their agencies revolutionary solutions to manage their paperwork and administration tasks while boosting revenue and profits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com DOCTOR ALLIANCE: Weathers Files Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctor Alliance. The case is styled as Harold Weathers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Doctor Alliance, Case No. 3:25-cv-03109-O (N.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Personal Injury for Personal Injury. Doctor Alliance -- https://www.doctoralliance.com/ -- is a premiere healthcare network providing physicians and their agencies revolutionary solutions to manage their paperwork and administration tasks while boosting revenue and profits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com EATON CORPORATION: Smith Bid to Defer Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW SMITH, JASON THOMAS, PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, LLC, GORDON KIRK, TAUNI DOSTER, STEVE WATKINS, and WILLIAM DOHERTY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EATON CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00157-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Story entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to deny or defer ruling on summary judgment. The Court defers consideration of Eaton's motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs are permitted to depose Mr. Lanson Relyea, Mr. Ryan Thomas Covington, and Mr. Louis Grahor before responding to Eaton's motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs shall file their response to Eaton's motion for partial summary judgment no later than 70 days from the entry of this order. Eaton argues that the proposed discovery is "wholly unrelated" to the issues presented by its motion for partial summary judgment. The Court agrees in part. The Plaintiffs seem to seek information on many assorted topics, but the key question for partial summary judgment is whether Eaton's AFCIs comply with the NEC such that the safe harbors under the Consumer Protection Statutes apply. This question may involve inquiry into which models of Eaton's AFCIs were UL certified, when they were certified, and whether that certification shows compliance with the NEC. The Plaintiffs do not respond to the merits of Eaton’s motion for partial summary judgment. Instead, Plaintiffs move under Rule 56(d) and ask that the Court deny or defer ruling on Eaton’s motion "until discovery is complete." They argue that "seven months remain until fact discovery of class certification issues closes" and that they need more time to obtain facts to “respond fully to Eaton's motion." The Plaintiffs have met their burden here. Several considerations impel the Court to exercise its discretion to let Plaintiffs conduct limited discovery before responding to Eaton's motion for partial summary judgment. These considerations include the case’s complexity, the seven months remaining in the discovery period, the lack of depositions taken so far, and the fact that two of Eaton's declarants (Mr. Relyea and Mr. Grahor) are Eaton's own employees that are within its control. Further, the Plaintiffs identify specific facts they seek to discover that are relevant to rebutting Eaton’s evidence. Eaton is a power management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hoPoPs at no extra charge.[CC] ELLAFI FEDERAL CREDIT: Manuel Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ellafi Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Christian Manuel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ellafi Federal Credit Union f/k/a Seasons Federal, Case No. MMX-CV25-6047689-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Middletown Cty., Nov. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Misc - All Other." Ellafi Federal Credit Union -- https://www.ellafifcu.org/ -- provides a variety of banking services to anyone who lives, works, worships or attends school in or around Middlesex County, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Sealing in PPI OK'd -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC. et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order setting omnibus sealing procedure in connection with plaintiffs' motions for class certification: 1. The parties may provisionally file under seal their entire briefs, declarations, exhibits, and any other supporting materials submitted in connection with briefing on the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. 2. To do so, the party shall file a one-page interim sealing motion that cites this Order and attaches the documents to be filed provisionally under seal. The party shall contemporaneously file an otherwise blank page stating "DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL" on the public docket in place of the document that is provisionally under seal. 3. Any party provisionally filing under seal a document or part of a document that has been designated as confidential by a nonparty shall, within three business days, (1) notify each affected nonparty regarding any of its confidential information that has been filed under seal and (2) serve a copy of this Order on the nonparty. 4. By May 1, 2026 (14 days after the close of briefing on the Motions), the parties shall meet and confer with each other and any nonparties whose materials have been provisionally filed under seal, and the parties shall file one joint omnibus motion to seal for each class certification motion. 5. The omnibus sealing motions shall list every location where material appears in the Motion and supporting documents that any party or nonparty seeks to maintain under seal. 6. Any party may file a response to any other party or Nonparty's request to seal in conjunction with the omnibus sealing motion. Any responses shall be due by May 8, 2026. 7. The parties shall file public-facing versions of the documents they filed provisionally under seal consistent with the Court's order on the omnibus sealing motions within 14 days of the order. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BHQZEx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna Evans, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Sarah Grossman-Swenson, Esq. Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Sealing Procedure in Copeland OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order setting omnibus sealing procedure in connection with plaintiffs' motions for class certification: 1. The parties may provisionally file under seal their entire briefs, declarations, exhibits, and any other supporting materials submitted in connection with briefing on the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. 2. To do so, the party shall file a one-page interim sealing motion that cites this Order and attaches the documents to be filed provisionally under seal. The party shall contemporaneously file an otherwise blank page stating "DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL" on the public docket in place of the document that is provisionally under seal. 3. Any party provisionally filing under seal a document or part of a document that has been designated as confidential by a nonparty shall, within three business days, (1) notify each affected nonparty regarding any of its confidential information that has been filed under seal and (2) serve a copy of this Order on the nonparty. 4. By May 1, 2026 (14 days after the close of briefing on the Motions), the parties shall meet and confer with each other and any nonparties whose materials have been provisionally filed under seal, and the parties shall file one joint omnibus motion to seal for each class certification motion. 5. The omnibus sealing motions shall list every location where material appears in the Motion and supporting documents that any party or nonparty seeks to maintain under seal. 6. Any party may file a response to any other party or Nonparty's request to seal in conjunction with the omnibus sealing motion. Any responses shall be due by May 8, 2026. 7. The parties shall file public-facing versions of the documents they filed provisionally under seal consistent with the Court's order on the omnibus sealing motions within 14 days of the order. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cAIdoB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna Evans, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Sarah Grossman-Swenson, Esq. Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Sealing Procedure in Schuman OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order setting omnibus sealing procedure in connection with plaintiffs' motions for class certification: 1. The parties may provisionally file under seal their entire briefs, declarations, exhibits, and any other supporting materials submitted in connection with briefing on the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. 2. To do so, the party shall file a one-page interim sealing motion that cites this Order and attaches the documents to be filed provisionally under seal. The party shall contemporaneously file an otherwise blank page stating "DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL" on the public docket in place of the document that is provisionally under seal. 3. Any party provisionally filing under seal a document or part of a document that has been designated as confidential by a nonparty shall, within three business days, (1) notify each affected nonparty regarding any of its confidential information that has been filed under seal and (2) serve a copy of this Order on the nonparty. 4. By May 1, 2026 (14 days after the close of briefing on the Motions), the parties shall meet and confer with each other and any nonparties whose materials have been provisionally filed under seal, and the parties shall file one joint omnibus motion to seal for each class certification motion. 5. The omnibus sealing motions shall list every location where material appears in the Motion and supporting documents that any party or nonparty seeks to maintain under seal. 6. Any party may file a response to any other party or Nonparty's request to seal in conjunction with the omnibus sealing motion. Any responses shall be due by May 8, 2026. 7. The parties shall file public-facing versions of the documents they filed provisionally under seal consistent with the Court's order on the omnibus sealing motions within 14 days of the order. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dMcOf1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna Evans, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Sarah Grossman-Swenson, Esq. Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENVASES USA INC: Null Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Null, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ENVASES USA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02487-JJH (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant for Defendant's willful failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages as well as its willful failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"). The FLSA requires companies such as Defendant to pay all non-exempt employees at least one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. The Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the State Law Class were also hourly, non-exempt employees entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the position of general laborer from December, 2021 until January, 2025. The Defendant is "one of the major players in metal and plastic packaging for food, beverages, and general use" and provides packaging solutions for these industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Phone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Phone: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (440) 846-1625 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com EVANS FITNESS CLUB: Lanium Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing -------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Lanium, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVANS FITNESS CLUB, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00281-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing. To promote its services, Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited telemarketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Defendant utilizes aggressive marketing to push its products and services without regards to consumers' rights under the TCPA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Richmond County, Georgia. The Defendant is a fitness facility, engaged in selling gym memberships and personal training services to consumers based out of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com EXACT CARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 7, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA EVERETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-KMN (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Neary entered an order that: 1. Exact Everett's motion to amend the case management deadlines is granted. 2. Everett shall file her motion for class certification no later than Wednesday, Jan. 7th, 2026. ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3qahyN at no extra charge.[CC] FATHOM REALTY: $2.85MM TCPA Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Feb 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers who received more than one text message within a 12-month period from or on behalf of Fathom Realty's former agent Marcus Edwards between Aug. 15, 2021, and Dec. 15, 2024, while their phone number was on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days, may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $48 per message from a class action settlement. Fathom Realty FL LLC and Fathom Realty Holdings LLC agreed to pay up to $2.85 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit claimed that Marcus Edwards, a former Fathom Realty agent, sent unsolicited text messages or had them sent on his behalf to individuals whose phone numbers are included on the National Do Not Call Registry. Who is eligible for a TCPA settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They received more than one text message within a 12-month period from or on behalf of Marcus Edwards, a former Fathom Realty agent. -- They received the text messages between Aug. 15, 2021, and Dec. 15, 2024. -- They listed their telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days before Edwards sent the messages. How much is the class action payment? Pro rata cash payment per text message: Eligible class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment of up to $48 per text message they received during the qualifying period. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a claim form by Jan. 7, 2026. They can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Fathom TCPA Settlement, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 Required claim information -- All class members must provide the telephone number that received the text messages on their claim form. -- To file a claim online or by mail, class members must provide the unique ID from their settlement notice. Payout options Valid claimants will receive a check mailed to the address provided on the claim form. $2.85 million TCPA settlement fund The $2,847,456 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $20,000 (class counsel will pay any additional costs) -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: $854,236.80 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $10,000 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds -- Any remaining funds after all payments are issued: Returned to Fathom Important dates -- Claim deadline: Jan. 7, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: Jan. 7, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Feb. 6, 2026 When is the Fathom Realty TCPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible claimants approximately 90 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleges that Fathom Realty, through its former agent Marcus Edwards, violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages to individuals whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. Fathom denies all allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $48 per text message Deadline: January 7, 2026 [GN] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Narrows Class Certification in "Macci" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Peter Macci, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. Federal Express Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-04325 (SJB) (LGD), United States Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York((E.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the Complaint, Defendant Federal Express Corporation is the world's largest express transportation company and is based in Memphis, Tennessee. Plaintiff Peter Macci was employed as a FedEx driver on Long Island for approximately 25 years. Specifically, Plaintiff was a Shuttle Driver (DOT) in the FedEx location in Hicksville from 1996 to 2019, and then a Courier Driver (DOT) in the FedEx location in Melville (the FRG Location) from 2019 until his termination in June 2022. According to Plaintiff, his roles included, but were not limited to, operating a FedEx Express vehicle; delivering packages to FedEx Express customers, and picking up packages from FedEx Express customers; and meeting on road with other drivers mid-shift to pick up additional packages. Plaintiff contended that FedEx violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law due to FedEx's alleged failure to properly pay overtime wages due to commonly-applicable policies of time-shaving and unpaid off-the-clock work. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that he was required to perform work-related tasks during his break periods and argued that FedEx Express's policy of automatically deducting purported breaks from Plaintiff's paid time amounted to unlawful time shaving because Plaintiff was never actually afforded uninterrupted, bona fide breaks, and was in fact required by FedEx Express to work during the so-called breaks. Plaintiff further contended that FedEx employees were required to wear their uniforms at all times and were not permitted to clock into work unless dressed in uniform, and may not remove their uniforms until after they finish working and clock out and improperly were not compensated for their time spent on compensable off-the-clock time spent donning and doffing. Defendant denied these allegations of any improper time shaving or unpaid off-the-clock work. According to the Complaint (which was filed on June 18, 2024), Plaintiff sought to bring this case as a collective action on behalf of all drivers (including, but not limited to the following positions and classifications: Courier (DOT), Courier, Driver Courier (DOT), Driver Courier, Delivery Driver (DOT), Delivery Driver, and Shuttle Driver (DOT)) employed by FedEx Express in the State of New York, on or after the date that is six (6) years before the filing of the Complaint in this action. Section 216(b) of the FLSA provides employees with a right of action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. In considering whether employees can bring a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, the Second Circuit applies a two-step test: the first step involves the court making an initial determination to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs who may be similarly situated to the named plaintiffs with respect to whether a FLSA violation has occurred. Judge Dunst added:In considering this first step, Plaintiffs should make a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. Documents that may be considered to establish such a showing include plaintiffs' own pleadings, affidavits, declarations, or the affidavits and declarations of other potential class members. At this stage, district courts examine pleadings and affidavits, but do not resolve factual disputes, decide substantive issues going to the ultimate merits or make credibility determinations. In determining whether members of an action are similarly situated, district courts typically review several factors, including (1) the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to the defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations. Applying the above standard to the record, the Court found that Plaintiff had demonstrated that conditional certification was warranted but not to the extent sought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's submissions in this case were sufficient to establish the modest factual showing that he and potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. According to the court "Applying this lenient evidentiary standard, the evidence suggested at this early stage of the case that certain FedEx drivers worked under similar conditions and were likely victims of a common policy or plan that may have violated the FLSA. The Court found that Plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing to grant conditional certification of a collective as to Plaintiff and certain FedEx drivers. However, as set forth herein, Plaintiff failed to meet his burden as to the expansive geographic scope and time period for the proposed collective that he sought in the pending motion. The Court found sufficient facts at this stage to show Defendant may have employed an improper break policy in violation of the FLSA - to wit, Defendant required Plaintiff to work during breaks - and Plaintiff did not receive proper pay as a result. Plaintiff's reliance on his affirmation (which included references to other employees who were subject to this policy) was sufficient to satisfy the modest factual showing at this stage. The regional breadth of the proposed collective action had evolved from the entire State of New York, as set forth in the Complaint, to (1) Nassau County, (2) Suffolk County, (3) New York City (including all five counties therein), and (4) Westchester County, as set forth in the Motion. Defendant argued that Plaintiff had not met his burden to seek certification of such a broad geographic collective. The Court agreed. Plaintiff worked only at the FRG Location on Long Island after 2019 and did not work at any FedEx location in New York State. Plaintiff's affirmation included references to other FedEx drivers (a few by their full name and most by their first name only), but lacked sufficient information about where they actually worked (other than some vague details about three employees). Notably, Plaintiff had submitted no declarations from any other FedEx drivers, let alone anyone who worked anywhere other than the FRG Location. Finally, Plaintiff had the opportunity to amend the Complaint to address these deficiencies, but failed to do so since he filed the Complaint more than seventeen months ago. Thus, even under the lenient evident standard at the conditional certification stage, Plaintiff's barebones submission failed to satisfy his burden to certify a collective action for all eight counties in the New York metropolitan area. The Court therefore limited the geographic scope of the collective action to just FedEx's FRG Location where Plaintiff was employed. Plaintiff sought to certify an action dating back to June 18, 2018 (six years prior to filing of the Complaint) through the present. Defendant objected and argued that the action should be limited to a three-year lookback period. The Court agreed with Defendant. As set forth in Defendant's submission, the growing trend in this district appears to be limiting the notice period to three years. Courts have held that overall efficiency concerns also warrant limitation of claims to a three-year statute of limitations. The Court was not convinced by Plaintiff's argument about the limited burden associated with certification of the longer six-year notice period. The Court therefore limited the certification to the three-year time period prior to the filing of the complaint -- from June 18, 2021, through the present. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify FLSA Collective Action as follows: (1) Conditional certification of this action as a representative class action pursuant to the FLSA on behalf of all FedEx drivers employed at the FedEx FRG location only from June 18, 2021 to the present; and (2) The parties shall submit a proposed notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs by January 5, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ly2DIo from PacerMonitor.com FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK: Almond Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Federal Savings Bank. The case is styled as James Almond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Federal Savings Bank, Case No. 1:25-cv-01557-JLT-EPG (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Federal Savings Bank -- https://www.thefederalsavingsbank.com/ -- offers VA loans, mortgages, and home financing options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. Carly Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com FISERV INC: Lombard Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Sandra Lombard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FISERV, INC., MICHAEL LYONS, and ROBERT HAU, Case No. 2:25-cv-01786 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Fiserv common stock during the period from July 23, 2025 through October 28, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the "Class") for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts. After Defendant Lyons assumed the role of CEO in May 2025, he assured investors on July 23, 2025 that Fiserv's 2025 guidance had been adequately "refined" to reflect the fact that some "launches and initiatives are taking longer than we had planned." As a result, Defendants slightly lowered Fiserv's full year organic revenue growth guidance to approximately 10%, the lower end of its previous guidance of 10 to 12%, but assured investors that Fiserv remained on-track for growth. Investors were unaware that Defendant Lyons had not fully evaluated Fiserv's financial outlook and ability to meet those expectations. In an earnings call on the same date, Defendant Lyons stated that "financial surprises" emerged in the start of the third quarter, that "prompted not just the annual strategic planning process, but this much more rigorous review into our financials." Defendant Lyons admitted that Fiserv had embedded unrealistic assumptions in its guidance regarding volume growth, sales activity and broad productivity improvements, "all of which would have been objectively difficult to achieve, even with the right investment and strong execution." On this news, the price of Fiserv's common stock collapsed by about 44%, or $55.57 per share, from a closing price of $126.17 per share on October 28, 2025 to $70.60 per share on October 29, 2025. This was Fiserv's largest one-day fall on record and a seven-year low for its stock price, erasing $30 billion in market value. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Fiserv common stock during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. Fiserv is a leading global provider of payments and financial services technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Sarah E. Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: jeff@blockleviton.com jake@blockleviton.com sarah@blockleviton.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Terrell Suit Over Undisclosed Seatbelt Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- EFFREY TERRELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13633-BRM-KGA (E.D. Mich., November 14, 2025) arises from Ford's failure to disclose to Plaintiff and other consumers of the Class Vehicles that they are subject to a defect with the seatbelt system in the second row of the vehicle, which is deficient and prone to failure. According to the complaint, each of the Class Vehicles rolled off the assembly line, and was initially sold, with the Second Row Seatbelt Defect, which is a defective latching system that causes the seatbelts to come undone and release unintentionally, or to become stuck closed, and which triggers the airbag warning light on the dashboard. The failure of the seatbelts exposes occupants of the Class Vehicles, as well as others who share the road with them, to an increased risk of accident, injury, or death, says the suit. As a result of Ford's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in value. Ford conducted these unfair and deceptive trade practices in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances. Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known of the defect at the time of purchase, they would not have bought the Class Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff purchased a certified pre-owned 2017 Ford Explorer XLT from Ford of Queens New York, a certified Ford dealership, in 2022. The Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wright, Esq. Todd A. Walburg, Esq. Steven A. Haskins, Esq. Scott B. Baez, Esq. McCUNE LAW GROUP 31 W. Stuart Avenue, Suite 300 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 E-mail: dcw@mccunelawgroup.com taw@mccunelawgroup.com sah@mccunelawgroup.com sbb@mccunelawgroup.com - and - Kevin C. Riddle, Esq. FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & HARRINGTON, P.C. 19390 West 10 Mile Road Southfield, MI 48075-2463 Telephone: (248) 355-5555 E-mail: k.riddle@fiegerlaw.com FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Reed Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------- Richard Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Freeport-McMoran Inc.; Kathleen L. Quirk; Richard C. Adkerson; and Maree E. Robertson, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04243-GMS (D. Ariz., November 13, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Freeport securities between February 15, 2022 and September 24, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 15, 2022, the Company filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. Attached to the 2021 Annual Report were signed certifications pursuant the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 signed by Defendants Adkerson and Quirk attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. According to the complaint, the statements contained in the report were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Freeport did not adequately ensure safety at the Grasberg Block Cave mine in Indonesia; (2) the lack of proper safety precautions constituted a heightened risk that could foreseeably lead to the death of Freeport's workers; (3) this constituted an undisclosed heightened risk of regulatory, litigation, and reputational risk; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Freeport-MoMoRan's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Freeport-McMoran Inc. is an American multinational metals and mining company headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNET P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com GEMINI GROUP: Faces Peruski Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PERUSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEMINI GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13624-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., November 13, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information and that was impacted in a cyber incident. The Plaintiff and Class Members, who are current and former employees and clients of Defendant, entrusted their private information with the reasonable belief that Defendant would safeguard and maintain the confidentiality of their private information. According to the complaint, a notorious ransomware group Rhysida infiltrated Defendant's IT network and stole nearly 2TB of highly sensitive data. To date, the Defendant has yet to issue any public disclosure about the data breach. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals, 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. Gemini Group, Inc. represents a large family of manufacturing companies with more than 1,400 employees strategically located across 18 North American locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com GEN DIGITAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Karwowski" ------------------------------------------------------ Gen Digital Inc. 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 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal order in the putative class action styled Karwowski v. Gen Digital Inc. et al. On December 12, 2022, a putative class action, Lau v. Gen Digital Inc. and Jumpshot Inc. (later restyled as Karwowski v. Gen Digital Inc. et al.), was filed in the Northern District of California alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, statutory larceny, unfair competition and various common law claims related to the provision of customer data to Jumpshot. The claims related to Jumpshot, and Jumpshot, Inc. as a defendant, were dismissed on July 9, 2024, as a result of a Motion to Dismiss brought by the Company. The remaining claims were then voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, by the Plaintiffs. Judgment was entered by the Court on October 23, 2024, as to those claims and on November 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the earlier dismissed Jumpshot-related claims and on October 27, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal order and denied Plaintiffs' appeal. GERON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Geron 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 its motion to dismiss the putative securities class action lawsuit remains pending. "On March 13 and March 14, 2025, we and certain of our current and former officers were named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Dabestani v. Geron Corporation, et al., No. 3:25-cv-02507 and Potvin v. Geron Corporation, et al., No. 3:25-cv-02563, respectively. Both lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the commercial potential of RYTELO. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that we overstated RYTELO's commercial potential by making materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning RYTELO's commercial potential, including the lack of awareness among healthcare providers for RYTELO, the burden of monitoring requirements in administering the drug, and the impacts of seasonality and existing competition on RYTELO's sales, and that our stock price dropped when we disclosed in our earnings call on February 26, 2025, that we had observed flat revenue trends over the prior few months. The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On May 29, 2025, the Court consolidated the Dabestani and Potvin cases into one consolidated action captioned In re Geron Corporation Securities Litigation, or the Securities Class Action, and appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel for lead plaintiffs. On August 8, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. "On October 7, 2025, we filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint," the Company stated. GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Wins Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Gigacloud Technology 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 In Re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), has final court approval. "In October 2023, two GigaCloud shareholders separately brought putative securities class actions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 27, 2023, both cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 12, 2024, the Southern District of New York granted plaintiffs' stipulation to consolidate the two lawsuits into one and appoint lead plaintiffs. On June 28, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint. "The second amended complaint alleged both false and misleading statements concerning our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning and false and misleading statements about revenue of the GigaCloud Marketplace. On August 21, 2024, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. "On January 27, 2025, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in substantial part, including dismissing without prejudice all claims relating to (i) our statements in the IPO and subsequent filings about the GigaCloud Marketplace activities and revenues; and (ii) our statements in the IPO registration statement about the general sophistication of our technology. The Court denied our motion to dismiss on Securities Act claims relating to a small number of statements about the Company's use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, made in the IPO registration statement and prospectus. We believe the residual claims are without merit and denied all allegations. However, in light of the limited scope of the residual claims and the uncertainty and cost inherent in any litigation, the Company reached an agreement with the lead plaintiffs to resolve the class action in its entirety. "On October 9, 2025, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The costs of this case, including the settlement, were funded primarily from insurance proceeds and had no material impact on our operations or financial condition," the Company stated. GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend HIV Drugs Suit --------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, 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 class action lawsuits related to various drugs used to treat HIV. "We, along with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS"), Johnson & Johnson, Inc. ("Johnson & Johnson") and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva") have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of direct purchasers consisting largely of wholesalers and indirect or end-payor purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022, several plaintiffs consisting of retail pharmacies, individual health plans and United Healthcare, filed separate lawsuits effectively opting out of the class action cases, asserting claims that are substantively the same as the classes. These cases have been coordinated with the class actions. In March 2023, the District Court granted our motion to hold separate trials as to (i) the allegations against us and Teva seeking monetary damages relating to Truvada and Atripla ("Phase I") and (ii) the allegations against us and, in part, Johnson & Johnson, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to Complera ("Phase II"). In May 2023, we settled claims with the direct purchaser class and the retailer opt-out plaintiffs for $525 million, which we paid in the second half of 2023. The settlement agreements are not an admission of liability or fault by us. In June 2023, the jury returned a complete verdict in Gilead's favor on the remaining plaintiffs' Phase I allegations. In November 2023, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict, and in February 2024, the court entered final judgment on the Phase I verdict and certain summary judgment rulings. In September 2024, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate briefs challenging the Phase I verdict and those summary judgment rulings. We filed our responsive briefs in January 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply briefs in March 2025. Oral argument took place in October 2025. The court has stayed Phase II pending the appeal of Phase I. While we intend to vigorously oppose the appeal and defend against the Phase II claims, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their appeal or Phase II claims, we could be required to pay monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs. "In January 2022, we, along with BMS and Janssen Products, L.P., were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, by Aetna, Inc. on behalf of itself and its affiliates and subsidiaries that effectively opts the Aetna plaintiffs out of the above class actions. The allegations are substantively the same as those in the class actions. The Aetna plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In March 2024, the court denied our motion for judgment on the pleadings to preclude Aetna from re-litigating claims that were dismissed at summary judgment in the above class action cases. We filed a writ petition appealing the denial of our motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the appellate court denied in May 2024. In April 2024, the court granted our motion to bifurcate the case to adjudicate the issue of preclusion before litigating the merits of the case. In July 2024, Aetna filed a request to voluntarily dismiss two of its claims with prejudice, which the court subsequently granted, leaving only the claims related to Truvada and Atripla. In September 2024, Aetna filed an amended complaint with respect to these claims. In October 2024, we filed a demurrer and motion to strike plaintiff's claims. "In April 2025, the court overruled the demurrer and stated in its order that an immediate appeal is warranted. In June 2025, we filed a writ petition to the Court of Appeal, which has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. Trial has been scheduled for January 2027," the Company stated. GLOBAL UPRISING: Vogeney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Uprising, PBC. The case is styled as Joseph Vogeney, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Global Uprising, PBC doing business as: Cotopaxi, Case No. 3:25-cv-03146-JES-BLM (S.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Global Uprising, PBC doing business as Cotopaxi -- https://www.cotopaxi.com/ -- creates innovative outdoor products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Tracks Users' Communications, Thele Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS THELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-09704 (N.D. Cal., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, and unlawful intrusion upon seclusion. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of tracking the private communications of the users of its Gmail, Chat, and Meet accounts using Gemini artificial intelligence (AI) without their knowledge or consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant used Gemini AI to access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users' private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received in their Gmail accounts. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and the Class have been violated, says the suit. Google LLC is a technology company headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa D. Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 GRINDR INC: Israeli Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------- Grindr 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 Israeli class action remains pending. In December 2020, Grindr LLC was named in a statement of claim and petition for certification of a class action in Israel (Israeli Central District Court). The statement of claims generally alleges that Grindr LLC violated users' privacy by sharing information with third parties without their explicit consent and seeks various forms of monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, in addition to certification as a class action. After various filings, the parties reached a settlement in February 2025, which was approved by the court in July 2025, to which the class or the Israeli Attorney General have until late November 2025 to object. GUILD HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Tennessee ------------------------------------------------- Guild Holdings 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 it is facing a anticompetitive practices class action in a Tennessee court. On October 3, 2025, a class action complaint was filed against Guild Mortgage Company LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging anticompetitive practices involving mortgage industry participants. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. The Company is involved in various lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. While the ultimate results of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not expect that these matters will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. HAC FUNDING LLC: Samo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HAC Funding LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Samo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HAC Funding LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03150-BTM-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. HAC Funding LLC -- https://www.hacfunding.com/ -- offers Lending Solutions that work for businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Baby Food Suit -------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial 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 continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that the Company's Earth's Best(R) baby food products (the "Products") contain unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals. Since February 2021, the Company has been named in numerous consumer class actions alleging that the Company's Earth's Best(R) baby food products (the "Products") contain unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals, namely lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Those actions were transferred and consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-678 (the "Consolidated Proceeding"). In the Consolidated Proceeding, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Company violated various state consumer protection laws and assert other state and common law warranty and unjust enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the Company made adequate disclosures. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Following oral argument on August 1, 2024, the Court issued an order on December 27, 2024 in which it granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims arising out of the alleged presence of lead, cadmium, mercury, or other substances, as well as any claims challenging the use of the "USDA Organic" seal on the Products' labeling, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims arising out of the alleged presence of arsenic in the Products. The Company filed its answer to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 23, 2025. One consumer class action is pending in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which the court has stayed in deference to the Consolidated Proceeding. The Company denies the allegations in these lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and properly labeled. On January 4, 2024, plaintiffs in federal cases across the country filed a Motion to Transfer Actions for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings. On April 11, 2024, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted plaintiffs' motion and transferred the cases to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On April 15, 2024, the court issued an order staying all outstanding discovery proceedings and pending motions and vacating all previously scheduled hearing dates. There are approximately 100 federal cases filed against the Company pending in the multi-district litigation ("MDL"). Plaintiffs filed their Master Complaint on July 15, 2024. On December 18, 2024, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Master Complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The MDL is first proceeding with general causation discovery. Expert discovery has closed. The parties Rule 702 motions have been fully briefed. The Court will hold Rule 702 hearings during the week of December 8, 2025. HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial 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 continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in a New York court. The Company and certain of its former officers (collectively, the "Defendants") are defendants in a consolidated class action complaint in the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). A Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the summer of 2017, which asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. After Defendants' initial motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice to replead in October 2017, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which made allegations similar to those in the previous complaint. After several years of motion practice and related court orders, on September 29, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2023, appealing the District Court's decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully briefed as of June 3, 2024. On September 29, 2025, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Defendants filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc on October 27, 2025 and await a decision. HALAL GUYS: Class Cert Bid Mooted Due to Settlement --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hegazy, et al., v. The Halal Guys, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880 (S.D.N.Y., Filed March 4, 2022), the Hon. Judge Katharine H Parker entered an order denying without prejudice Motion to Certify Class as moot due to settlement. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise.[CC] HALEON US: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALEON US HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09553 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, website, www.centrum.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Haleon US Inc. manufactures healthcare and medical products. The Company offers mineral supplements, topical antifungal agents, systemic and topical analgesic, antacids, skin care, vaccines, contact lenses, and lens care 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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HARBOR BEHAVIORAL: Williams-Diggins Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbor Behavioral Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Lindsey Williams-Diggins, Christian Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harbor Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02474 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Harbor -- https://www.harbor.org/ -- is a leading mental health provider in Northwest Ohio offering behavioral health, vocational, primary care, and outpatient services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and Hawaiian Electric Company, 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 they are awaiting court approval of a settlement agreement entered in a securities class action lawsuit. On August 24, 2023, a putative securities class action captioned Bhangal v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., No.: 3:23-cv-04332-JSC (the Securities Action) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against HEI and Hawaiian Electric and certain of HEI's and Hawaiian Electric's current and former officers (collectively, Defendants), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against certain current and former officers. The lawsuit broadly alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding our wildfire prevention and safety protocols and related matters. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages. On December 7, 2023, the court appointed Daniel Warren as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On March 8, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On October 15, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend. On November 12, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On March 18, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On November 5, 2025, the parties signed a binding term sheet to settle the Securities Action (the Securities Action Term Sheet) following negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Securities Action Term Sheet calls for the parties to prepare and execute a definitive stipulation of settlement (Securities Action Stipulation of Settlement) that will provide for the complete resolution, compromise, and settlement of the Securities Action in exchange for a payment by the Company of $47.8 million (the Securities Action Settlement Amount). The Securities Action Settlement Amount will be fully funded by the proceeds of the Derivative Settlement discussed below. The settlement of the Securities Action is conditioned on, among other things, the finalization of the Securities Action Stipulation of Settlement; approval by the boards of the Company and Hawaiian Electric of the Securities Action Stipulation of Settlement; timely funding of the Securities Action Settlement Amount; the finalization of the Derivative Stipulation of Settlement (defined and discussed below) by February 28, 2026; final court approval of the Derivative Stipulation Settlement; both preliminary and final court approval of the Securities Action Stipulation of Settlement; and entry of a judgment of dismissal following final court approval of the Securities Action Stipulation of Settlement. In connection with the settlement of the Securities Action, there will be no admission of liability by the Company or any defendants and the Company, the defendants, and related persons will receive a customary full release of all claims. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Maui Windstorm Tort Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and Hawaiian Electric Company, 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 they continue to defend themselves against the lawsuits related to the Maui windstorm and wildfires. As of October 31, 2025, HEI and the Utilities have each been named in several thousand lawsuits related to the Maui windstorm and wildfires. These civil lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending in the Maui Circuit Court against HEI, the Utilities, and other defendants, including the County of Maui, the State of Hawaii and related state entities, private landowners and developers, and telecommunications companies (collectively, tort-related legal claims). Two putative class actions are also pending in federal court. Most of these lawsuits allege that the defendants were responsible for, and/or negligent in failing to prevent or respond to the wildfires that led to the property destruction and loss of life. Other claims include, among other things, personal injury, wrongful death, emotional distress and inverse condemnation. One lawsuit asserting similar theories and claims was filed by the County of Maui against HEI and the Utilities, one lawsuit was filed by Spectrum Oceanic, LLC against HEI and the Utilities and other defendants, and other lawsuits were filed by approximately 200 subrogation insurers against HEI, the Utilities, a private landowner, and telecommunications companies. Additional lawsuits may be filed against the Company and other defendants in the future. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages and other costs, including punitive damages. Defendants have asserted cross-claims against one another for indemnification, contribution, and subrogation. The County of Maui Origin and Cause Report, released on October 2, 2024, attaching the investigative report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, estimated the total economic damage of approximately $6 billion. That estimate has not been validated by the Company, and it represents a gross number that does not take into account causation or liability and does not attempt to allocate responsibility among the various defendants. As such, the estimate is not intended to provide a reasonably possible loss in excess of the recorded amount under ASC Topic 450-20, "Loss Contingencies" attributable to the Company arising from the Maui windstorm and wildfires. On November 8, 2023, Governor Josh Green announced the One 'Ohana Initiative (the One 'Ohana Initiative) as a collective path forward to recovery from the Maui windstorm and wildfires. The One 'Ohana Initiative is a new humanitarian aid fund of $175 million, with the objective to compensate, in an expedited manner, those who have lost loved ones and those who have suffered severe injuries in the Maui windstorm and wildfires. The One 'Ohana Initiative provides an alternative to a lengthy and expensive legal process. Beneficiaries who have lost loved ones are anticipated to receive payments of $1.5 million per decedent, and those who suffered severe injuries are expected to share in a specially allocated pool of compensation. In exchange for receiving such a payment, beneficiaries will be required to waive their ability to pursue legal claims for wrongful death and severe injuries, except if they seek compensation through the litigation settlement. Hawaiian Electric fully supports this humanitarian initiative and has contributed $75 million. The Governor announced that other parties, including the State of Hawaii, the County of Maui, and Kamehameha Schools have all agreed to contribute to the fund. Hawaiian Electric's contribution to the Initiative was less than half of the total, and Hawaiian Electric's insurance carriers funded its share of the contributions to the fund. Hawaiian Electric's contribution is reflective of its commitment to join with community partners to provide solutions to promote Maui's recovery. Hawaiian Electric's commitment to contribute to the One 'Ohana Initiative is not an admission of guilt or reflection of fault or liability related to the wildfires. The Phase I submission deadline for the One 'Ohana Initiative passed on July 15, 2024. As contemplated by the global settlement agreement described below, the One 'Ohana Initiative reopened for Phase II claim submission on October 23, 2025. No additional outlay by Hawaiian Electric is required to fund claims submitted in Phase II. Effective November 1, 2024, HEI and Hawaiian Electric entered into two definitive settlement agreements (collectively, the Settlement Agreements) to settle the tort-related legal claims in the litigation arising out of the Maui windstorm and wildfires (expressly excluding securities and derivative actions) on a global basis without any admission of liability. Under the Settlement Agreements, subject to certain conditions (including those described below), HEI and Hawaiian Electric, along with other defendants (the State of Hawaii, the County of Maui, Kamehameha Schools, entities affiliated with the West Maui Land Co., Hawaiian Telcom, and Spectrum/Charter Communications) have agreed to settle the claims of those who filed lawsuits in state and federal courts, or who may have claims but have not yet filed lawsuits, in connection with the Maui windstorm and wildfires. One Settlement Agreement is between the defendants, class counsel, and class plaintiffs (the Class Settlement Agreement), and the other is between the defendants and over 30 lawyers representing thousands of individual plaintiffs who have brought their own lawsuits (the Individual Settlement Agreement) or who have hired attorneys but not yet filed lawsuits. The Settlement Agreements do not resolve claims with insurers who have asserted or could assert subrogation claims in separate lawsuits and such insurers are not parties to the Settlement Agreements, but resolving such claims in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreements is a condition that must be satisfied before any payment is due from the defendants. As part of the agreement in principle preceding the Settlement Agreements, the parties agreed to vacate all trial dates and stay the litigation, except for (i) litigation activities between the plaintiffs (individual and class) and the subrogation insurers and (ii) actions taken to further settlement. A stay remains in place and no trial dates are set in the Special Proceeding and in the subrogation actions. The Class Settlement Agreement remains subject to final court approval. A hearing on final court approval of the Class Settlement Agreement is scheduled for January 8, 2026. Both Settlement Agreements remain subject to other conditions. Under the Settlement Agreements, HEI and Hawaiian Electric are obligated to contribute a total of $1.99 billion (out of a total defendant contribution of approximately $4.04 billion), which includes $75 million previously contributed for the One 'Ohana Initiative. The total settlement amount is to be divided between two settlement funds, one for the benefit of individual plaintiffs, and the other for the benefit of the class plaintiffs. HEI and Hawaiian Electric must pay such amounts in four equal annual installments of approximately $479 million, with the first installment expected to be made no sooner than early 2026. HEI and Hawaiian Electric have the option to accelerate the payments, in whole or in part, with such accelerated payments to be discounted at a rate of 5.5% per annum. HEI transferred the amount of the first payment, $479 million, into a new subsidiary, GLST1, LLC, which is restricted from disbursing such funds except in connection with the initial payment to the settlement funds. Additionally, under the Settlement Agreements, HEI and Hawaiian Electric are obligated to contribute a share to the settlement administration fees only if certain other sources are exhausted when those fees are due, for which, $3.5 million was accrued as of September 30, 2025, based on the best estimate at that time. HEI and Hawaiian Electric determined that making payments under the terms of the Settlement Agreements in four equal annual installments is the most viable option and have classified the first $479 million installment as a current liability based on expected timing of the payment and the remaining $1.44 billion as a noncurrent liability on HEI's and the Utilities' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2025. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission of any liability by HEI or the Utilities and reflect the collective efforts of the State, HEI and the Utilities, and other defendants to seek a comprehensive resolution of the litigation arising out of the Maui windstorm and wildfires. The Utilities have recorded an additional $40 million in "Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues, net" and "Other accounts receivable, net" on HEI's and the Utilities' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively, as of September 30, 2025, based on the amounts expected to be remaining under the applicable insurance policies at the time of settlement payment. The Settlement Agreements are intended to resolve all of the tort-related legal claims related to the Maui windstorm and wildfires. The Class Settlement Agreement provides releases by plaintiffs to the defendants, and among defendants, for acts and omissions relating to the Maui windstorm and wildfires. The Individual Settlement Agreement provides that individual plaintiffs who elect to accept the settlement will sign releases. The releases in the Settlement Agreements, including those among defendants (subject to certain conditions), are effective on the initial payment due date. The Settlement Agreements also provide that $500 million of the total settlement payments will be reserved and made available to defendants to defray the cost to resolve any claims brought by plaintiffs who do not release claims as part of the settlements. Defendants have the right to terminate the Settlement Agreements under certain circumstances, including if more than specified thresholds of plaintiffs choose not to participate in the settlement. The Settlement Agreements contain multiple conditions that must be met before any payment from HEI and Hawaiian Electric to the settlement funds are due. Those conditions include, among others, resolving claims of the insurers (either through agreement or a final court order stating that the insurers cannot maintain independent lawsuits against the defendants) and court approval of the Class Settlement Agreement. The Hawaii legislature passed a bill appropriating money from the State, and Governor Josh Green signed it into law on July 8, 2025, satisfying the condition related to the State's appropriation of funds. The condition related to court approval of the Individual Settlement Agreement has also been satisfied. The Settlement Agreements do not resolve claims with insurers who have asserted subrogation claims in separate lawsuits, and such insurers are not parties to the Settlement Agreements. There are two conditions relating to such insurers that must be satisfied before payment is made under the Settlement Agreements. First, by May 19, 2025, either (a) insurers that have brought claims arising out of the Maui windstorm and wildfires enter into a written agreement that provides for releases of all claims against the defendants, or (b) that there is a final and unappealable court order providing that if the final definitive agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants becomes effective, then those same insurers' exclusive remedy for any claims against the defendants would be limited to asserting liens against the settlement amounts obtained by the individual plaintiffs. On February 6, 2025, after briefing was complete, the Supreme Court of Hawaii heard argument on three reserved questions regarding the scope of Hawaii subrogation law concerning the condition described in this paragraph in the manner described in (b) above. On February 10, 2025, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued an order regarding the reserved questions providing that, once the settlement becomes final, the exclusive remedy for insurers seeking to recover amounts paid to settling plaintiffs is to assert liens against their policyholders pursuant to HRS 663-10. On March 17, 2025, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a written opinion consistent with its February 10, 2025, order. No party has sought to appeal or petition for further review to another court of the March 17, 2025, opinion or the February 10, 2025, order. This first condition under the Settlement Agreements related to the insurers has therefore been satisfied. The second condition to payment under the Settlement Agreements requires that the direct actions brought by the insurers must be dismissed in a final and unappealable order. On October 29, 2025, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the direct actions brought by the insurers. A hearing on these motions is set for November 26, 2025. On June 19, 2025, the court granted the Class Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement and certified a settlement class. Pursuant to the order preliminarily approving the Class Settlement Agreement, objections to the Class Settlement Agreement were due on October 7, 2025. The only purported objection was one filed by the subrogation insurers. The deadline to opt out of the class was also October 7, 2025. On October 15, 2025, the administrator for the class settlement informed the defendants that approximately 250 unique claimants, or approximately 1% of the number of releases that were signed by the individual plaintiffs, had submitted opt out forms. Any claimant who opted out may still sign an individual settlement agreement and release and join the global settlement, and through November 3, 2025, approximately 140 of the approximately 250 opt out claimants had done so. Those who sign releases by December 6, 2025, even after opting out, will not count against the termination thresholds described above. Whether any termination threshold has been met will not be measured until on or around December 6, 2025, to provide additional time for those who opted out to sign individual settlement agreements and releases. On April 8, 2025, the subrogation plaintiffs moved to intervene into the state court class action for the purpose of objecting to preliminary approval of the state court class action settlement. On June 24, 2025, the court denied the motion to intervene. On July 24, 2025, the subrogation plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this order. On October 1, 2025, the class plaintiffs moved to transfer this appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. On October 22, 2025, the Hawaii Supreme Court ordered the transfer. The subrogation plaintiffs' opening brief in the appeal is due on November 21, 2025. Answering briefs are due on December 31, 2025. The subrogation plaintiffs' reply brief is due 14 days thereafter. The Hawaii Supreme Court's briefing schedule order specified that there will be no extension of time to file any answering or reply brief. The Hawaii Supreme Court set oral argument in this appeal for January 27, 2026. On April 22, 2025, the state court overseeing the settlement with the individual plaintiffs granted the individual plaintiffs' motion to approve the administrator to oversee the individual plaintiff settlement fund. On May 8, 2025, the individual plaintiffs moved for approval of the individual settlement plan and the Individual Settlement Agreement and release. On June 3, 2025, the court granted the motion. On May 8, 2025, defendants petitioned the state court for a good faith settlement determination for the Individual Settlement Agreement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted the motion. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation if a definitive settlement is ultimately not achieved. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any potential settlements, judgments, or costs associated with the litigation. If additional liabilities were to be incurred, the loss could be material to the Company's results of operations, financial position and cash flows and could result in violations of the financial covenants in the Company's debt agreements. If any such losses were to be sufficiently high, the Company may not have liquidity or the ability to access liquidity at levels necessary to satisfy such losses. However, any possible loss in excess of the amount recorded cannot reasonably be estimated at this time. HEALTH MATCHING: Mainini Balks at Savings Account Fraud Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MAININI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH MATCHING ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC.; ELLIOTT GOROG; REGINA GOROG; GEOFF KIRK; REGINA KATHRYN GOROG, AS TRUSTEE OF THE REGINA KATHRYN GOROG TRUST; ELLIOTT CLIFFORD GOROG, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ELLIOTT CLIFFORD GOROG TRUST; GARLAND LEVIT, AS TRUSTEE OF THE GARLAND LEVIT 2011 IRREVOCABLE TRUST; GARLAND LEVIT, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DONALD N. LEVIT 2010 DESCENDANTS TRUST; GARLAND LEVIT, INDIVIDUALLY; DONALD LEVIT, INDIVIDUALLY; INVESTMENTS OF MOTHER & SON, LLC; THINK WELLNESS NOW, INC.; HEALTH MAINTENANCE PLUS AGENCY, INC., PET HEALTH MATCHING ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., AGENTS COMMISSON ADVANCE ASSOCIATION, LLC, JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-05381 (S.D. Tex., November 11, 2025) seeks redress for a massive consumer fraud perpetrated by the Defendants through their operation of a health savings account scheme that systematically defrauded Plaintiff and other thousands of consumers nationwide. According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically transferred customer funds out of HMA's operating accounts. Former employee Hollie Shelton, in sworn testimony given in August 2024, documented daily transfers of substantial customer funds from HMA's accounts to separate accounts at PlainsCapital Bank through Stripe payment processing accounts, testifying: "I would see it like every single day, you know, it'd be like $50,000 from a payout for health matching account, services to this bank account. You know, $27,000.40 $46,000 like these are daily transactions." This case also seeks to recover fraudulent transfers made from HMA to insiders, beneficial owners, and related entities while HMA was insolvent and operating as an admitted Ponzi scheme, and to pierce the corporate veil to hold the beneficial owners of HMA personally liable for the fraud perpetrated through the corporate entity they controlled as mere instrumentalities, says the suit. Health Matching Account Services, Inc. operates what it markets as a health savings account-like program throughout the United States. HMA maintains multiple bank accounts at PlainsCapital Bank in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Loftus, Esq. LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD. 181 W. Madison, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 899-6625 E-mail: alex@loftusandeisenberg.com - and - James Crewse, Esq. CREWSE LAW FIRM, PLLC 5919 Vanderbilt Ave. Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 394-2856 E-mail: jcrewse@crewselawfirm.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Levin Sedran Named Lead Counsel in "Hall" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mark Hall, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Healthcare Services Group Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04908-JDW (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appointed Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Benjamin F. Johns of Shub Johns & Holbrook LLC as Interim Co-Lead Counsel in consolidated data breach class actions. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (HSG) provides management, administrative, and operational services to healthcare facilities nationwide. In September 2024, the Defendant detected a data breach that allowed unauthorized actors to access names, Social Security numbers, driver's license and state identification numbers, financial account information, and other personal and health data. Thirteen lawsuits consolidated before the Court followed. On October 21, 2025, the Court directed that any lawyer seeking appointment as interim lead counsel file an application by October 31, 2025. That Order followed the Court's earlier decision declining to appoint the leadership structure proposed in the first-filed actions because plaintiffs were still filing additional related cases, and the Court concluded that it should determine leadership after it knew the full universe of cases. On October 31, 2025, two competing groups filed motions seeking appointment as interim lead counsel. The first sought the appointment of Charles E. Schaffer, Andrew W. Ferich, and Benjamin F. Johns. The other sought appointment of Gerald D. Wells III of Lynch Carpenter LLP and Amber L. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe. On November 14, 2025, the Defendant notified the Court that it takes no position. The Court noted that everyone who applied to be Interim Co-Lead Counsel is qualified, and all the applicants possess the experience and resources necessary to represent the class. In addition, they have all prepared extensive complaints, researched the law, and had discussions with other plaintiffs' counsel in these cases. However, two marginal differences exist between the groups that favored the proposal from Messrs. Schaffer, Ferich, and Johns. First, Messrs. Schaffer, Ferich, and Johns (and their firms) have already engaged experts in cybersecurity, dark web monitoring, and data privacy liability to evaluate how the breach occurred, what information the perpetrators took, and how the perpetrators might use the information. In contrast, Mr. Wells and Ms. Schubert reported only that they have begun identifying the most experienced damages and liability experts. Second, Messrs. Schaffer, Ferich, and Johns demonstrated slightly more cooperation in these cases by garnering the support of the majority of plaintiffs and their counsel. In contrast, Mr. Wells and Ms. Schubert appeared not to have support from any plaintiffs other than the ones that they represent. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZZdr3D from PacerMonitor.com HEAVEN HILL: Sylvain Sues Over Lunazul Tequila's Agave Azul Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL SYLVAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-25229 (S.D. Fla., November 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for common law negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Lunazul brand tequila. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents the Tequila products as " 100% DE AGAVE" from Jalisco, Mexico. However, testing of the products has uncovered that they contain material amounts of ethanol not derived from agave plants, and, as such, they were enhanced with ethanol other than that obtained from tequilana weber blue variety agave. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. is a beverage manufacturer headquartered in Bardstown, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Maland, Esq. Robert M. Stein, Esq. Sandra E. Mejia, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Miami Tower, Suite 2900 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-4177 Email: dmaland@rvmrlaw.com rstein@rvmrlaw.com smejia@rvmrlaw.com HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13767 (N.D. Ill., November 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.herbalife.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Herbalife International of America, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law HERITAGE FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Suit for $635,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Heritage Federal Credit Union agreed to a $635,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged unfair overdraft fees. The Heritage Federal Credit Union settlement benefits individuals who have or had a checking account with Heritage Federal Credit Union and who were charged an overdraft fee between Dec. 20, 2012, and April 8, 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, Heritage Federal Credit Union assessed overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw the account as well as on debit card transactions that were authorized with sufficient funds but settled into a negative balance. Heritage Federal Credit Union is a financial institution with locations in Indiana and Kentucky. Heritage Federal Credit Union has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $635,000 class action settlement to resolve the overdraft fees allegations. Under the terms of the Heritage Federal Credit Union settlement, payments will be distributed from the $635,000 fund based on the number of overdraft fees each class member was charged during the class period. Current Heritage Federal Credit Union members will receive their settlement payment as an account credit. Former members will receive their settlement payment as a check. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 24, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Heritage Federal Credit Union settlement is scheduled for March 6, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Who's Eligible Current and former Heritage Federal Credit Union members who had a checking account with the credit union and were charged an overdraft fee between Dec. 20, 2012, and April 8, 2025. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 12/24/2025 Case Name Kevin Lowe v. Heritage Federal Credit Union, Case No. 87C01-2212-PL-002165, in the Circuit Court of Warrick County, Indiana Final Hearing 03/06/2026 Settlement Website LoweBankFeesSettlement.com Claims Administrator Kevin Lowe v. Heritage Federal Credit Union Attn: Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301130 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130 (888) 777-6530 Class Counsel Lynn A. Toops COHEN & MALAD LLP Defense Counsel Brett J. Ashton Libby Y. Goodnight Kay Dee Baird KRIEG DEVAULT LLP Rhett D. Gonterman GONTERMAN & MEYER LAW LLC [GN] HERITAGE HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hellwege Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA HELLWEGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE HOLDINGS L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00464-KD-M (S.D. Ala., Nov. 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees and patients' ("Class Members," defined infra) sensitive information, including protected health information ("PHI") and other personally identifiable information ("PII", together with PHI, "Private Information"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its employees' and patients' sensitive data. The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the suit. Heritage Holdings L.P. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 612-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com HUDDLE TICKETS: Baker Class Suit Removed to S.D. Ga. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CRYSTAL BAKER AND KAREN IRBY, Plaintiffs v. HUDDLE TICKETS, LLC d/b/a GOFAN, Defendant, Case No. CE25-01261, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Glynn County to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00146-LGW-BWC to the proceeding. Plaintiffs Crystal Baker and Karen Irby filed this putative class action complaint on September 30, 2025, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against GoFan asserting, among other things, that: (1) GoFan violated Georgia Code by "failing to provide [Plaintiffs] an alternative method of procuring tickets without paying the Convenience Fee; (2) GoFan breached its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs by "enforcing and collecting convenience fees that were unlawful under Georgia law and thus invalid under the Terms' severability clause; (3) GoFan deprived Plaintiffs of the "benefit of their bargain—namely, the ability to purchase tickets at a lawful price under Georgia law; (4) GoFan received money from Plaintiffs and the putative class that, under the principals of "equity and good conscience [GoFan] should not be permitted to keep. GoFan is the largest high school ticketing solution in the U.S.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew B. Lerner, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Atlantic Station 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 322-6000 Facsimile: (404) 322-6050 E-mail: Matthew.lerner@nelsonmullins.com HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Haynes Sues Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- Steven Haynes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02539 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2025), is brought on behalf of all other individuals who had their sensitive personally identifying information, including but not limited to, names, Social Security numbers (SSN), and driver's licenses (collectively, "PII" or "Personal Information") disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach experienced by HAEA in or around February 22, 2025. On March 1, 2025, HAEA discovered a network security incident that impacted some of its systems. After further investigation, and with the help of a cybersecurity firm, Defendant discovered unauthorized access to its network beginning on February 22, 2025. This unauthorized access resulted in the exposure of "names, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers" (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant was aware of or should have known of its data security shortcomings. It collects and maintains sensitive Personal Information about its customers, including SSNs and driver's license numbers. It requires customers to provide this highly confidential information in connection with using HAEA's products and services. Despite knowing how valuable customer information is and the damage that would result from its release, Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. This PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. The Defendant's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure fell far short of its obligations and Plaintiff's and Class Members' reasonable expectations for data privacy, jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendant's conduct and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their Personal Information is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered fraud or identity theft or face the substantial and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Hyundai customer and owns a 2025 Hyundai Kona and a 2026 Hyundai Santa Cruz. HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA, LLC provides IT and software solutions to the Hyundai Motor Group, which owns the Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis automakers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com INMOBI PTE: Caldwell Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as JAMES CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INMOBI PTE LTD., a foreign limited company, Defendant, Case No. CGC-25-628703, was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court of the State of California to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09977 to the proceeding. In this complaint, Caldwell seeks statutory damages, compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and other relief individually and on behalf of a putative class of California consumers. He brings claims based on California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California's common law tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, and the right to privacy under the California Constitution. InMobi Pte. Ltd. provides mobile advertising services. It offers demographic targeting, analytics, case studies, filtering, integration, reporting, advertising monetization support, programs, network data, whitepaper, and consumer research services to advertisers, publishers, developers, and researchers worldwide.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tyler G. Newby, Esq. Nikki Seichepine, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-875-2300 Facsimile: 415-281-1350 E-mail: tnewby@fenwick.com nseichepine@fenwick.com - and - Janie Yoo-Scott, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 733 10th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: 202-970-3000 E-mail: jyooscott@fenwick.com - and - Joan Liu-Kim, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Telephone: 650-988-8500 Facsimile: 650-938-5200 E-mail: joanieliu-kim@fenwick.com INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Host FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CATHERINE HOST; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2504724, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03117 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges two causes of action for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act: (1) unpaid overtime; and (2) unpaid minimum wages. Interstate-Rim Management Company, LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability Company and is categorized under Hotels-Apartment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. Daniel N. Rojas, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com daniel.rojas@ogletree.com INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Host Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CATHERINE HOST, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVRI2504774, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03129-CV-BFM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendant over: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Breaks Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (8) Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; (9) Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and (10) Unfair Competition. Interstate-Rim Management Company, LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability Company and is categorized under Hotels-Apartment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. Daniel N. Rojas, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com daniel.rojas@ogletree.com INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Host Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CATHERINE HOST; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVRI2504774, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11106 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Breaks Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (8) Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; (9) Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and (10) Unfair Competition. Interstate-Rim Management Company, LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability Company and is categorized under Hotels-Apartment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. Daniel N. Rojas, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com daniel.rojas@ogletree.com JETOBRA INC: Faces Wang Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- LUO WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JETOBRA, INC. D/B/A HOFFMAN AUTO GROUP Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01914-VAB (D. Conn., November 14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons, arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On or about October 13, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a security incident affecting its IT Network. Upon detection, Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of external third-party cybersecurity experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The investigation determined that there was unauthorized access to limited portion of Defendant's network between September 16, 2025 and September 17, 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. Jetobra, Inc. d/b/a Hoffman Auto Group is an automotive dealership company that sells new and used vehicles from manufacturers including Nissan, Lexus, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Lincoln, Toyota, Honda, and Ford.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com JMJ PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE HERNANDEZ; HEBER MANZANARES; JUAN MAYORGA; NELSON BONILLA; ROMMEL GERSON CLAROS; SALVADOR GUERRA; SEBASTIAN RODRIGUEZ; and VICTOR SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOSE MONTEIRO; and JMJ PARTNERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06340 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as car wash staffs. JMJ Partners, Inc. operates a car wash, car maintenance, and detailing center located in New York, known as USA Car Wash. [BN The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com JOHN MILES CHEVROLET: Turner Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Miles Chevrolet, Inc. The case is styled as Kiondra Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. John Miles Chevrolet, Inc. doing business as: John Miles Chevrolet Buick GMC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06560-MHC (N.D. Ga., Nov. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. John Miles Chevrolet -- https://www.johnmileschevy.com/ -- is a local Chevrolet, Buick, & GMC dealer in Conyers, we proudly serve the community with new & certified pre-owned Chevrolet, Buick, & GMC vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Class Cert Denial Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an appeal from an order denying class certification in the putative class action styled Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., remains pending. Securities Class Action. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit originally was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client dollars from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. In 2019, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety but permitted plaintiffs to amend their claims. The court subsequently granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended claims. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain of their state law claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of those claims. In early 2022, following remand by the Court of Appeals, the district court granted defendants' renewed motion to dismiss related to plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, but permitted plaintiffs to amend their claims. Defendants filed two motions to dismiss the amended claims, both of which were denied. In September 2023, plaintiffs moved for class certification and Edward Jones moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' individual claims. On September 9, 2024, the district court ultimately granted Edward Jones' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. Plaintiffs appealed and the parties are scheduled for oral arguments before the Court of Appeals on November 14, 2025. Edward Jones denies the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Dixon" in Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself from a class action styled Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., pending in a Missouri court. On March 9, 2022, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit (Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit was brought by a then current financial advisor as a putative collective action alleging gender discrimination under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and by a former financial advisor as a putative class action alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint reasserting the original claims with modified allegations and adding claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging race/national origin, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination on behalf of putative classes of financial advisors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2022, and on September 15, 2022, the court stayed further proceedings in the case pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2023, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and lifted the stay of proceedings. Edward Jones and JFC filed an answer to the amended complaint on April 17, 2023. Discovery related to collective and class certification closed on June 20, 2025. The expert discovery phase closes in February 2026. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Zigler" --------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself from a home office gender discrimination class action styled Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al.). Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by a former employee (Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al.) in the Northern District of Illinois. The initial complaint filed on September 1, 2022 alleged putative class and collective claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Illinois state laws of gender-based wage discrimination against a subset of female home office associates whom the plaintiff described as "home office financial advisor[s]." The plaintiff amended the complaint on November 29, 2022, seeking to expand the putative collective and class definitions to include all female home office associates in any role. Edward Jones and JFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 6, 2023. In June 2023, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, permitting the plaintiff's EPA claim and related state-law claim to proceed in connection with only one of the roles she held during her employment by the firm, limiting the plaintiff's Title VII claim and related state-law claim to a disparate treatment theory of liability as opposed to a disparate impact theory, and accepting the plaintiff's agreement to dismiss JFC from the case without prejudice. In May 2025, the district court granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to reallege pay discrimination with regard to both roles plaintiff held during her employment with the firm, as well as the previously dismissed Title VII disparate impact claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint maintains similar putative collective and class definitions to include all female home office associates in any role. On May 27, 2025, Edward Jones filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint. Edward Jones also filed a motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds, and that motion remains pending. Phase I fact discovery closed on May 28, 2025. In June 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, alleging a failure to produce ordered documents. On July 23, 2025, the district court granted plaintiff's motion. Edward Jones filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted on September 9, 2025. The parties have been ordered to submit a status report to the district court on November 7, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the case moving forward. Edward Jones denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. KEYSTONE ELECTRONICS: Faces Quinones Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS QUINONES, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE ELECTRONICS CORP., TROY DAVID, AND THOMAS J. VOYTAC, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-06279 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2025) seeks to recover from Defendants: (a) unpaid overtime premium, (b) unpaid "spread of hours" premium, (c) liquated damages, and (d) attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff and Class Members' rights by failing to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants also violated Plaintiff and Class Members' rights by failing to pay the "spread of hours" premium required by state law. From the commencement of his employment by Defendants, on or about June 8, 2016, to the date of his termination on July 19, 2024, Plaintiff Quinones was employed by Defendants to work initially in their Astoria facility, and after the Company relocation to Long Island. Initially, he was hired as an Apprentice. Subsequently, he was promoted to the position of Tool and Dye Maker. Keystone Electronics Corp. is a manufacturer of precision electronic interconnect components and hardware with its principal place of business in New Hyde Park, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Nuwesra, Esq. 16 Westminster Drive Croton On Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (845) 553-3238 E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net KHAN & ASSOCIATES: Faces Choi Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN CHOI and MAHNOOR KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KHAN & ASSOCIATES, CPA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02538-KES (C.D. Cal., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including, inter alia, names, dates of birth, addresses, and government issued identification documents or numbers. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their private information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information, K & A has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite K & A's duty to safeguard the private information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, their private information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about July 9, 2025, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the private information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiffs and Class Members for their lifetimes. K & A Group is a full-service public accounting firm offering tax, auditing and financial accounting services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP La Jolla Gateway 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (724) 656-1556 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com KLA CORPORATION: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Secure Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KLA CORPORATION d/b/a KLA INSTRUMENTS - FILMETRICS, Case No. 5:25-cv-09830-SVK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who provided their PII to Defendant, directly or indirectly. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential Private Information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The PII compromised in the Data Breach may include Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account information. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Defendant could have prevented or mitigated the consequences of the Data Breach by limiting access to sensitive information to only necessary employees, requiring multi-factor authentication to verify access credentials, encrypting data at rest and in transit, monitoring its systems for signs of unusual activity or the transfer of large volumes of data, and regularly rotating passwords, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees and customers of Defendant. The Defendant is a "global technology leader providing leading-edge technology and devices, including advanced inspection tools, to transform industries."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com KLA CORPORATION: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLA CORPORATION, Case No. 8:25-cv-02555 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"). The Defendant failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (the "Data Breach") in the future. The Defendant discovered the Data Breach on August 5, 2025, that exposed the PII of Defendant's current and former employees. Upon information and belief, a wide variety of PII was involved in the Data Breach, including names, contact information, and Social Security numbers. The Defendant knowingly obtained sensitive PII and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their PII to Defendant if they had known that Defendant would not ensure that it used adequate security measures, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. The Defendant develops and supplies technology and equipment that accelerate the use of electronic devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com KM-T.E.H. REALTY: Violates Merchandising Practices Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANA FUENTES; PEDRO LOPEZ; KELVIN LOPEZ; TANNETT WASHINGTON; TIYONNA WATKINS; CHRIS WALTER; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 8, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 5, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 6, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 7, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 9, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 11, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 12, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY 13, LLC; KM-T.E.H. REALTY HOLDING, LLC; KM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 1, LLC; KM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 2, LLC; KM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 3, LLC; KM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 4, LLC; KM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 5, LLC; KM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 8, LLC; KM-T.E.H. MANAGEMENT, LLC; KM-T.E.H. RUSKIN 1, LLC; KM-T.E.H. RUSKIN 2, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 5, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 6, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 7, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 8, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 9, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 10, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 11, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 12, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 13, LLC; SM-T.E.H. REALTY 14, LLC; E SM-T.E.H. NORTHWINDS HOLDINGS, LP; SM-T.E.H. NORTHWINDS, LP; SM-T.E.H. THE WS, LLC; SM-T.E.H. THE WS REALTY INVESTORS, LLC; SM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 5, LLC; SM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 8, LLC; SM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 9, LLC; SM-T.E.H. HOLDINGS 10, LLC; KM-LBV REALTY, LLC; MIDWEST NEW OPERATION, LLC; MIDWEST NEW CONSTRUCTION, LLC; T.E.H. REALTY, LLC; T.E.H. - DLWR HOLDING, LLC; and HOLD SERVICE MICHAEL FEIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00897-WBG (W.D. Mo., Nov. 14, 2025) alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and malicious prosecution arising from alleged retaliatory conduct. The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to comply with the notice provisions of the agreed policies. The Plaintiff suffered substantial prejudice, including but not limited to the inability to investigate the alleged events giving rise to the lawsuits, participate in the defense of the lawsuits, evaluate liability or damages, engage in settlement discussions, or otherwise be involved before judgments were entered. The Plaintiff seeks to declare the rights and obligations of the parties under agreed policies and to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, adjudging and declaring that Plaintiff owes no coverage whatsoever in connection with the claims asserted or judgments entered in the underlying lawsuit (Case No. 1916-CV29273) and second underlying lawsuit (Case No. 2016-CV19826). KM-T.E.H. Realty 8 is a real estate company, specializing in property management and sales. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Wolf, Esq. WATTERS WOLF BUB HANSMANN, LLC 600 Kellwood Parkway, Suite 120 St. Louis, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 798-0570 Facsimile: (636) 798-0693 Email: twolf@wwbhlaw.com KRISPY KREME: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suits --------------------------------------------------- Krispy Kreme, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the data breach class lawsuits in North Carolina and California. On June 16, 2025, the Company released a Notice of Data Breach stating that on November 29, 2024, the Company became aware of the 2024 Cybersecurity Incident and on May 22, 2025, the Company's investigation determined that personal information of certain individuals was affected. Beginning on June 20, 2025, several putative class actions lawsuits were filed against the Company in the Middle District of North Carolina, the Western District of North Carolina, and in California state court. The complaints assert claims of negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of bailment, invasion of privacy, declaratory judgment, and violations of California and North Carolina statutory law, arising from the Company's alleged failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and private health information of plaintiffs and purported class members. On August 19, 2025, plaintiffs in the California action voluntarily dismissed their case. On August 26, 2025, a hearing was held in the Western District of North Carolina on plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the cases. Following the hearing, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the few cases remaining in the Middle District of North Carolina. On September 18, 2025, all cases were consolidated in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. KRISPY KREME: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------- Krispy Kreme, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative federal securities class action pending in a North Carolina court. On May 16, 2025, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative federal securities class action in the Western District of North Carolina against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), and its former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"). On June 30, 2025, a shareholder of the Company filed a similar putative federal securities class action in the Western District of North Carolina against the Company, its CEO, and its former CFO. Both actions allege that, throughout the proposed putative class periods, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose materially adverse facts concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects related to the Business Relationship Agreement with McDonald's USA. Motions to consolidate the actions and appoint lead plaintiff were filed on June 15, 2025. On November 3, 2025, the court consolidated the actions. KRISTI NOEM: ACR Bid for Preliminary Injunction Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.C.R. et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03962-EK-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Komitee entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The rescission of the 2022 Policy Alert is stayed pending further judicial review. The government is also enjoined under the All Writs Act from removing the Individual Plaintiffs from the continental United States during the pendency of this litigation. All further preliminary injunctive relief is denied. The Court reserves judgment on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, pending further progress in this case. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the risk of irreparable harm in six months is "sufficiently imminent to weight this factor in favor of the [plaintiffs]." The Court declines to issue injunctions ordering USCIS to conduct deferred-action and employment-authorization determinations within specified timeframes. The Plaintiffs also move to certify two classes (and two subclasses) pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Class certification is unnecessary for purposes of seeking a stay and eventual vacatur under APA Sections 705 and 706,25 and the Court declines to grant preliminary class-wide injunctive relief for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the Court need not address the motion at this time. In June 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rescinded a deferred-action program for young persons with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (known as “SIJS-DA”). The named plaintiffs in this case contend that the rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act because, among other things, (1) the action was arbitrary and capricious; (2) certain aspects of the rescission amounted to legislative rulemaking and were therefore subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement; and (3) USCIS violated the Accardi doctrine by failing to follow its own procedures from April to June 2025. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following injunctive classes and subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Deferred Action Class: "All individuals whose SIJS petitions were or will be approved on or after April 7, 2025, and who will no longer be considered for deferred action based on SIJS because of Defendants' 2025 Rescission Policy. Accardi Subclass: "All individuals whose SIJS petitions were approved on or after April 7, 2025, and on or before June 5, 2025, and who were not considered for SIJS-DA because of Defendants' sub silentio rescission of the 2022 Policy." Renewal Class: "All individuals who were previously granted deferred action based on SIJS but who are no longer eligible to renew their deferred action." EAD Subclass: "All members of the Renewal Class who have applied for or are eligible to apply for an Employment Authorization Document under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) ("(c)(14) EAD"), but whose applications for a (c)(14) EAD have not been or will not be adjudicated pursuant to the Defendants' June 6, 2025 Policy Alert." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MXYpTG at no extra charge.[CC] LAST BRAND: Faces Mandel Suit Over Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------ Alexandra Mandel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Last Brand, Inc. d/b/a Quince, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09780 (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violations of consumer protection laws, including California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, Quince falsely advertises its fashion and home goods products as luxury-quality goods sold at radically low prices, comparing them directly to high-end brands such as Loewe, Toteme, and Brooklinen. Quince's pricing scheme creates the illusion of a bargain where none exists, inducing consumers to make purchases under the mistaken belief that they are receiving a deal. Through the use of strikethrough pricing and statements such as "You save X%," Quince misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing products equivalent to luxury-brand goods at a steep discount. These representations are not only false, but they also violate California's consumer protection laws, says the suit. The purchased a variety of items from Quince in the four years preceding the filing of this complaint, including cashmere sweaters, other clothing, home goods, and bedding. Last Brand, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based direct-to-consumer e-commerce brand offering clothing, home goods, accessories, and travel products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: srios@bergermontague.com - and - Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G Street, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (215) 875-4602 E-mail: zvaughan@bergermontague.com LAUNDRY MANAGEMENT: Russo Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting --------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN JAMES RUSSO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAUNDRY MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., and ADP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06267 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful procurement and furnishing of the Plaintiff's and Class members' consumer reports without permissible purpose and without valid written authorization. According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently obtained post-termination background checks months after employment ended, without consent or any lawful purpose. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Laundry Management Group Inc. is a laundry solutions provider based in Rego Park, New York. ADP, Inc. is a consumer reporting services provider, doing business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com LEICA CAMERA INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LEICA CAMERA INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09513 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant (or "Dose Daily"), for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://leicacamerausa.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. LEICA CAMERA INC., operates the Leica Camera USA online retail store, as well as the Leica Camera USA interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com LHNH LAVISTA: Lanz Allowed Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v. LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Further, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted in part. The Court certifies a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) with respect to the issue of liability for the fire. The Class is defined as: "All residents at The Reserve at Lavista Walk apartment complex as of Nov. 10, 2023, as identified in the Defendants' leasing records." Charnelle and Robert Stokes are excluded from the class. Further, the named plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives, and the Plaintiffs' counsel—Adam L. Hoipkemier of Epps, Holloway, Deloach & Hoipkemier, LLC; Douglas Dean of Dean Thaxton, LLC; and Kenneth William Brosnahan, Linda Carpenter, and Sharon Leah Neal of the Brosnahan Law Firm—are appointed as class counsel. The parties are ordered to confer to discuss the possibility of mediation. If the parties would like the Court to refer this case to mediation with a magistrate judge or the parties request time to mediate this case before a private mediator, please notify the Court. Although Defendants point to potential issues with determining damages on a class basis, neither their arguments nor any of the Rule 23(b)(3) factors counsel against certification of Plaintiffs' proposed class to first determine liability for the fire. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, the owners and operators of the property, negligently failed to maintain the facility’s fire safety features and are therefore responsible for damages stemming from the fire. Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had knowledge that individuals were accessing the roof to discharge fireworks and firearms and took no preventative action. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qxTTc8 at no extra charge.[CC] LIFESTATION INC: Dec. 8 Initial Case Management Conference Canceled ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Lifestation, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07246-JHR-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tarnofsky entered an order cancelling the Dec. 8, 2025, initial case management conference. LifeStation is a healthcare technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vRrdf5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lisa A. Messner, Esq. MAC MURRAY & SHUSTER, LLP 6525 West Campus Oval, Suite 210 New Albany, OH 43054 Telephone: (614) 939-9955 Facsimile: (614) 939-9954 E-mail: lmessner@mslawgroup.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Appeal from "Glover" Deal Approval Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance 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 appeals from the final order approving the settlement in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company remain pending. Glover, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023. On March 7, 2024, the parties entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses policies that are at issue in this case, which also includes all policies at issue in the lawsuits captioned TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, both of which are described below, and one additional case to which an affiliate of LNL is a party, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, which has been previously disclosed by our parent company, LNC. The Glover plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski). As of September 30, 2025, the total provisional settlement amount of $147.5 million, pre-tax, remains accrued. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Angus" --------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance 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 it continues to defend itself in the case captioned Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:22-cv-01878. Angus is a putative class action filed on May 13, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss. "We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company stated. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Grink" --------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance 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 it continues to defend itself in the case captioned Kelly Grink v. Virtua Health and Lincoln National Corporation et al., No. 1:24-cv-09919, is a putative class action filed on October 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 7, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, inter alia, added an additional named plaintiff (Steven Molnar) and additional named defendants, including Lincoln Retirement Services Company, LLC, and [The] Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. Plaintiffs Kelly Grink, Diane Trump and Steven Molnar are participants in Virtua Health's defined contribution plans. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants or beneficiaries of Virtua's 401(k) savings plan and 403(b) retirement program (together, the "Plans") who invested in the Plans' fixed annuity option in the six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to plan participants through its group annuity contract with the Plans. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the Plans. Plaintiffs allege that the Virtua defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty including by maintaining the Plans' investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior alternatives at substantially lower cost. Plaintiffs allege that the Lincoln defendants were at all relevant times fiduciaries to the Plans and were parties in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks relief against the Lincoln defendants including the disgorgement of any profits they received as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, together with plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other equitable or remedial relief as the court deems appropriate. On April 4, 2025, the Lincoln defendants filed a motion to dismiss. "We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company stated. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Laurino" ----------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance 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 it continues to defend itself in the case captioned Maria Laurino and Ricardo Miller v. The Valley Hospital and Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, et. al., No. 2:25-cv-15263, a putative class action lawsuit filed on September 4, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs are participants in Valley Hospital Health System Partnership Plan (the "Plan"), which is the 401(k) defined contribution plan for The Valley Hospital and affiliated entities. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants and beneficiaries in the Plan since September 4, 2019. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to Plan participants through its group annuity contract with the Plan. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that The Valley Hospital defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty, including by maintaining the Plan's investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior investment alternatives, and by participating in an alleged fiduciary breach by Lincoln. Plaintiffs allege that the Lincoln defendants were fiduciaries to the Plan and were parties in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks relief against the Lincoln defendants, including the disgorgement of profits, attorney's fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other equitable or remedial relief as the court deems appropriate. "We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company stated. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Morgan" ---------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance 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 it continues to defend itself in the case captioned Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492. Morgan is a putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023. Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale, Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and Toni Hale ("Plaintiffs") allege on behalf of a putative class that Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and LLANY (together, "Lincoln"), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product Services, LLC ("Fidelity") created and marketed misleading and deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment products. The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3) negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4) aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages from "a missed investment return of approximately 5-6%" and mitigation damages. They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and litigation costs. On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal removing the action from the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. "We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company stated. LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------ The Lincoln National Life Insurance 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 the case captioned TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company remains stayed. TVPX, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuit captioned Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, and one additional case to which an affiliate of LNL is a party, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, which has been previously disclosed by parent company, LNC. The Glover plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the Glover provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski). A motion has been filed to stay the proceedings in this matter (as well as the Iwanski matter) pending the completion of the settlement approval process in Glover. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Suit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance 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 the case captioned Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, remains stayed. Vida Longevity, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification and certified a class of all current or former owners of six universal life insurance products issued by LLANY that were assessed a cost of insurance charge any time on or after June 27, 2013. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the class. On April 19, 2023, LLANY filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuit captioned TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, and one additional case to which an affiliate of LNL is a party, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, which has been previously disclosed by parent company, LNC. The Glover plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On March 29, 2024, the court issued its summary judgment decision, granting LLANY's motion in part and denying it in part, and entering summary judgment against twenty-two policyholders that the court determined were not economically harmed. On June 25, 2024, the court granted LLANY's April 12, 2024, motion to stay proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the approval process in Glover. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the Glover provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the Glover provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski). LOOP RECRUITING: Flora Sues Over Illegal Background Check --------------------------------------------------------- APRIL FLORA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOOP RECRUITING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00223-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., November 11, 2025) is an action against Defendant Loop Recruiting brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and/or (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. As such, the Plaintiff, on her own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this class action complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Loop Recruiting, LLC, is engaged in the business of a staffing agency located in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com LULULEMON USA: Brown Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------- NISHAE D. BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. LULULEMON USA INC., a Nevada corporation; LULULEMON, a business entity of unknown form; LULULEMON ATHLETICA USA, INC., a business entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV33119 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; failed to provide them with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and rest periods; failed to pay them proper sick time pay; failure to pay proper vacation wages; failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; failed to reimburse them with necessary business expenditures; failed to pay them all their final wages following separation of employment; and failed to provide them with suitable seating in the workplace. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the relevant and statutory periods. LULULEMON USA INC. is a subsidiary of the Canadian company Lululemon Athletica Inc. It is the U.S. entity that operates and is incorporated in Nevada, and it is involved in the wholesale of apparel, piece goods, and notions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. Svetlana Hovhannisyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: d.keledjian@d.law l.hovhannisyan@d.law MANLY BANDS: Faces Nadal Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Janine Nadal and Emalie Favela, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Manly Bands LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03133-CAB-BJW (S.D. Cal., November 13, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Manly Bands for consistently advertising false massive discounts for its wedding bands and jewelry products on its website, https://manlybands.com/. According to the complaint, Manly Bands pretends to have seasonal or limited time sales, like a "Black Friday Sale," "Labor Day Sale," "Customer Appreciation," "Prime Day Sale," or "Spring Sale." However, the products are always on sale, and the so-called "deal" never ends. It often uses fake countdown timers on its website to further create the illusion that any sales or deals are about to end. Through this false and deceptive marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme, the Defendant has violated Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, which applies to Plaintiffs and the proposed Nationwide Class. It also has violated the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act which expressly prohibits falsely advertising goods on "sale" from fictitious former prices, and which applies to Plaintiffs and the proposed California Class, says the suit. Manly Bands LLC sells wedding bands and jewelry on its website www.manlybands.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Marygold Companies, 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 In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation. On June 19, 2020, USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh, were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended ("Securities Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney’s fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF LLC, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. MAYS LANDING: Property Inaccessible to the Disabled, Dennis Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual, Plaintiff v. MAYS LANDING CHICKEN, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-17376 (D.N.J., November 12, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons against the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's property/place of public accommodation is a fast-food restaurant known as Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen located in Mays Landing, New Jersey. Plaintiff Maurer has visited the Property many times over the years his last visit to the Property occurred on or about August 29, 2025. Mr. Maurer visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public within; however, he found it was rife with violations of the ADA -- both in architecture and in policy. Following any resolution of this matter Plaintiff will ensure that the Defendant undertakes the remedial work that is required to cure existing violations, under the appropriate standard, and in full compliance with the ADA, says the suit. Mays Landing Chicken, LLC owns, leases, leases to, and/or operates a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com MEAD JOHNSON: Choudhry Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Moona Choudhry and Kamal Harry, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 163325/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York on Nov. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09480. The putative class action involves several Mead Johnson infant formula products, including: Enfamil A.R., Enfamil Gentlease, Enfamil Enspire/Optimum Gentlease, Enfamil NeuroPro, Enfamil NeuroPro Sensitive, Enfamil Nutramigen, Enfamil ProSobee, and PurAmino Hypoallergenic. The Plaintiffs allege the Products contain "Heavy Metals," including arsenic, cadmium, and lead, but that Mead Johnson does not disclose that on its packaging.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diana Katz Gerstel, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 1250 Broadway, 36th Floor, Ste 3636 New York, NY 10001 Phone: 332.529.4838 Email: diana.gerstel@tuckerellis.com MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust, Inc., and MPT Operating Partnership, L.P., 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 continues to defend itself in a putative federal securities lawsuit filed in a New York court. "On September 29, 2023, we and certain of our executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv- 08597). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between May 23, 2023 and August 17, 2023 and alleges false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. This class action complaint was amended on October 30, 2024 and alleges that we made material misstatements or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. "Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 14, 2025. That motion has been fully briefed and is currently pending before the Court," the Company stated. MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Suit in Alabama Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust, Inc., and MPT Operating Partnership, L.P., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative federal securities lawsuit filed in an Alabama court was dismissed with prejudice. On April 13, 2023, we and certain of our executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 2:23-cv-00486). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. This class action complaint was amended on September 22, 2023 and alleges that we made material misstatements or omissions relating to the financial health of certain of our tenants. On September 26, 2024, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiff thereafter moved the Court to alter its judgment. On August 14, 2025, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. MEDRITE LLC: Faces Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- FREDDY VASQUEZ and CRISTAL MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDRITE, LLC, and STAFFING BOUTIQUE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09413 (S.D.N.Y., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful retaliation. Mr. Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as a generalist from September 2023 to August 2024 and as a site manager from August 2024 to December 2024, while Ms. Melendez was employed by the Defendants as a generalist from March 15, 2023 to July 2023 and as a site manager from July 2023 to January 2025. MedRite LLC is a healthcare provider based in New York, New York. Staffing Boutique, Inc. is a full-service staffing agency based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Hunter G. Benharris, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 MELISSA DATA: Aufrichtig Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MEAGHAN AUFRICHTIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. MELISSA DATA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 30-2025-01514513-CU-BT-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02597 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Melissa's conduct violates Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act ("PTFA"). The Plaintiff seeks (1) declaratory relief, (2) injunctive and equitable relief, (3) an award of statutory damages (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, (5) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (6) other and further relief as equity and justice may require. Melissa Data Corporation provides data quality and address management solutions. It offers mailing software, data management, hygiene, enhancements, and email marketing. Melissa DATA caters to healthcare, insurance, telecommunication, university, and banking sectors.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Craig J. Mariam, Esq. Elena A. Kuzminova, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 E-mail: cmariam@grsm.com ekuzminova@grsm.com METRO ONE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hager Suit Due Jan. 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS HAGER, v. METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05164-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline for the Plaintiff to Jan. 16, 2026 file motion for class certification: The Defendants' opposition: Feb. 13, 2026, or four (4) weeks following the Rule 23 class certification motion, whichever is later The Plaintiff's reply: Feb. 27, 2026 or six (6) weeks following the filing of the Rule 23 class certification motion, whichever is later Metro provides services such as security guard services and loss prevention for national clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qaNDJC at no extra charge.[CC] MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Iverson Sues Over Defective Chainsaws --------------------------------------------------------- Miles Iverson, Trenton Embry and Ben Kaplan individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-01778 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 13, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant Milwaukee's manufacture and sale of "about 90,860" units of the M18 Fuel 14" and 12" Top Handle Chainsaws (the "Products") which contained defects. The chainsaw's chain brake may not activate while in use, posing a laceration hazard (the "Defect"). There have been two reports of the chain brake not activating, including one injury involving a lacerated finger. The Products were advertised, sold, and installed across the United States without adequate warnings or safeguards related to the Defect. The Defendant provided no warning of the Defect, and the Plaintiff would not have purchased said item if they had known of the Defect. The Defendant's failure to disclose the Defect at the time of sale--and its refusal to assume responsibility for the resulting effects-constitutes consumer deception, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of warranties. The Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid significantly less, had they known of the Defect and limited recourse available. As a result of the above losses, the Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies on behalf of themselves and the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Product. The Defendant specializes in the production of various electrical and home improvement tools and products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com MITO LIC: Faces Mendoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ FERNANDO CAMILO MENDOZA, DANIEL CAMILO MENDOZA, and FELIPE PORTILLO CANO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MITO LIC INC. d/b/a JING LI, and WEI CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06292 (E.D.N.Y., November 12, 2025) is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were former restaurant workers of the Defendant. The work performed by Plaintiffs was directly essential to the business operated by Defendants. They brought this complaint over Defendants' failure to pay them proper overtime compensation and "spread of hours" premium. MITO LIC INC., owns and operates an Asian fusion restaurant and bar doing business as "Jing Li," located in Long Island City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 NAKED WHEY: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metal, India Says ----------------------------------------------------------- VINCE INDIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAKED WHEY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13878 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12, 2025) is an action seeking to address the Defendant's deceptive business practice of marketing and selling certain protein powder products which contain or risk containing significant levels of heavy metals, specifically, lead, despite affirmatively mispresenting otherwise. The products at issue are Defendant's Naked Mass Vegan Gainer in all flavor varieties (the "Products"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, prior to marketing and selling the Products, Defendant knew the Products contained or risked containing significant levels of lead. Yet Defendant omitted this information on packaging and failed to warn about the significant presence or risk of presence of lead, despite advertising the Products to the contrary. The Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied on the Defendant's representations and partial omissions which led them to believe the Products were without detectable levels of toxic heavy metals, let alone significant or unsafe levels. Naked Whey, Inc. sells, manufactures, and distributes protein powder products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com wedelman@milberg.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 Email: awolf@milberg.com NEW WORLD: Rousch Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements ---------------------------------------------------------- TAWNI ROUSCH, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW WORLD HERBAL WELLNESS LLC d/b/a DOCTOR RECOMMENDED, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10916 (C.D. Cal., November 13, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of the Defendant's product, for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False Advertising Law. This is a putative class action lawsuit regarding Defendant's false and misleading labeling and marketing of the purported quantity of Berberine in the Doctor Recommended Berberine Plus dietary supplement. The Product's labeling, packaging, and marketing materials uniformly represent that the Product contains a specified amount of Berberine. The Defendant misleadingly represents the Product as "100% Pure Max Potency" and as containing 1200 milligrams of Berberine per serving. However, independent laboratory testing demonstrates that the Product contains significantly less Berberine than represented. As a result, Defendant's labeling and marketing are false and misleading, and Defendant has violated multiple California consumer protection statutes, says the suit. New World Herbal Wellness LLC manufactures, sells, and nationally distributes Doctor Recommended Berberine Supplements with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBAND LAW GROUP P.C. 2829 Townsgate Rd., Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com NORDVPN SA: Faces Tio Suit Over Inflated Autorenewal Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ RENE TIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDVPN SA AND TEFINCOM SA D/B/A NORDVPN, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13374 (D. Mass., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, and moneys had and received. The case arises from the Defendant's use of deceptive and unlawful "automatic renewal" charging practices that saddle consumers with premature subscription renewal fees that are higher than previously agreed. Moreover, when consumers seek timely refunds of these early and inflated autorenewal charges, the Defendant rejects their requests. As a result of Defendant's deceptive acts or practices, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered actual damages, says the suit. Nordvpn SA is a virtual private network solutions provider, with its principal place of business in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Tefincom SA, doing business as NordVPN, is a virtual private network (VPN) solutions provider, with its principal place of business in Panama City, Panama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@brysonpllc.com - and - Daniel Kieselstein, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 Email: djk@wittelslaw.com OGLETHORPE INC: Fails to Protect Health Info, Schmidt Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA SCHMIDT, and AMANDA NELSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OGLETHORPE, INC. Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-03138 (M.D. Fla., November 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of approximately 92,000 individuals who were patients or employees of the Defendant. In June 2025, Oglethorpe Inc. was the victim of a cyber-attack from an unauthorized third party. Their investigation concluded in September 2025. Sensitive data including name, date of birth, social security numbers, state identification numbers and medical information may have been compromised for certain individuals. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the data breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs face a substantial risk of future medical identity theft or fraud where Plaintiffs' unique identifying information was obtained by cybercriminals in a targeted attack. Oglethorpe, Inc. provides psychiatric health and addictive recovery programs to people suffering various illnesses. They have over 1200 employees and facilities in four states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Antonio A. Cifuentes Jr., Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: tony.cifuentes@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com ONE BROOKLYN: Mismanages 403(b) Plan, Rosen Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE ROSEN, individually, on behalf of the Brookdale Hospital Medical Center 403(b) Plan, and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Brookdale Hospital Medical Center 403(b) Plan, Plaintiff v. ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. D/B/A BROOKDALE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06283 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income & Security Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and beneficiaries because they consistently selected higher cost, lower-performing, investment options that reduced Plan participants' retirement funds as compared to readily available alternatives. As a result of these breaches in fiduciary duty, the Plaintiff and the proposed class suffered losses of millions of dollars. One Brooklyn Health System, Inc., doing business as Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, is a medical services provider in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (516) 491-4665 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Opendoor Technologies 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 securities class action lawsuit has obtained preliminary court approval. On October 7, 2022 and November 22, 2022, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Alich v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM) ("Alich") and Oakland County Voluntary Employee's Beneficiary Association, et al. v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01987-GMS) ("Oakland County"), respectively. The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, captioned In re Opendoor Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 2:22-CV-01717-MTL). The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the Company, SCH, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors and the underwriters of a securities offering the Company made in February 2021. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the Company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each case by making materially false or misleading statements related to the effectiveness of the Company's pricing algorithm. The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act, respectively, which provide for control person liability. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, Company common stock between December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering documents issued in connection with our business combination with SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in February 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023, which the court granted on February 27, 2024 without prejudice. On May 14, 2024, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of certain portions of the court's order dismissing the complaint. The court's orders on the motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration dismissed all Exchange Act claims and Securities Act claims except for a portion of plaintiffs' claims brought under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act. Defendants filed answers to the complaint on July 12, 2024. The plaintiffs and the defendant participated in a mediation in February 2025. On March 26, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to resolve all claims against all defendants in the consolidated action on a class-wide basis for an amount within the limits of insurance coverage. On June 13, 2025, the Company executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement memorializing the terms and conditions of the settlement. The same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the court for preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 21, 2025, the court granted the preliminary approval motion and scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for January 6, 2026. The Company has recorded a liability reflecting the proposed settlement amount and a corresponding asset reflecting estimated insurance recoveries. If the proposed settlement is not consummated or approved by the Court, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the matter. OPTICSPLANET INC: Plaintiff Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONSTANTINE POULOPOULOS, v. OPTICSPLANET, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02511-JLS-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Although the Court understands that "a proposed settlement is not to be judged against a speculative measure of what might have been awarded in a judgment in favor of the class," it has identified too many deficiencies with the instant proposed Settlement to find it fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court further notes that while the Settlement Agreement does not provide Class Members with any monetary relief, it does provide that Defendant will not object to Plaintiff's request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of up to $275,000. In March 2019, April 2023, and January 2024, the Plaintiff Constantine Poulopoulos visited Defendant's website, www.opticsplanet.com, and purchased products sold by Defendant. On each of these occasions, the Plaintiff visited a product page featuring a Reference Price, which was crossed out, and a lower Sale Price. The Plaintiff alleges that he "viewed and relied on the website's purported current and limited-time sale promotion," but the Defendant's representation of such a promotion was misleading because "Defendant very rarely, if ever, offered any of the items sold on its website at the reference prices." On March 27, 2024, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against the Defendant, bringing claims pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiff further indicates that he will file a separate motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and a service award. The Plaintiff will seek up to $275,000 in combined attorneys' fees and costs, and Defendant has agreed to not object to an award of $275,000 or less. The Plaintiff also intends to request a $5,000 service award. The Settlement Class is defined as "All persons in California who purchased one or more Products from www.OpticsPlanet.com, during the Class Period, at a discount from a higher reference price." The Class Period is from March 27, 2020, to the date of preliminary approval. OpticsPlanet is an online retailer of sporting, shooting, hunting and outdoors products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VaNCod at no extra charge.[CC] OSHKOSH CORPORATION: Philadelphia Sues Over Inflated Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- City of Philadelphia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01801 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Defendants as a result of artificially inflated prices. On September 10, 2025 the United States Senate Subcommittee for Disaster Relief conducted a hearing ("Fire Apparatus Senate Hearing") to investigate disturbing facts and allegations that first gained wide public awareness with the publication of an article in The New York Times on February 17, 2025 describing outrageous price increases, dramatically in excess of inflation, for new fire apparatus consisting of fire trucks and related specialized vehicles (rescue and tanker units etc.) ("Fire Apparatus") in the period commencing January 1, 2016 to date (the "Class Period"). The Manufacturer Defendants have perpetuated their conspiracy in part through the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association ("FAMA"). The Manufacturer Defendants, along with most other fire truck manufacturers in the country, submit sensitive, non-public economic data to FAMA. FAMA sends the data to an outside consulting company, which compiles the data into reports that FAMA then distributes to its members. FAMA also provides a forum for Manufacturer Defendants to communicate with each other directly during annual members-only meetings. As a result of each Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class members paid artificially inflated prices for Fire Apparatus during the period from January 1, 2016 through the date of this filing ("Class Period"). These prices exceeded the amount they would have paid if the price for Fire Apparatus had been determined by a competitive market. Therefore, Defendants' conduct has injured Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Philadelphia purchased Fire Apparatus including 59 pumper trucks and 31 ladder trucks directly from KME, Spartan and/or Pierce Manufacturing, each of which is a brand owned by Defendants REV Group, Inc. or Oshkosh, Inc. REV Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Brookfield, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Danielle M. Weiss, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963-0838 Email: jbarrack@barrack.com dweiss@barrack.com - and - William J. Ban, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Eleven Times Square 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10036 Phone: (212) 688-0782 Fax.: (212) 688-0783 Email: wban@barrack.com PAPA JOHN'S: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Papa John's International, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in In re Papa John's Employee & Franchise Employee Antitrust Litigation. In re Papa John's Employee & Franchise Employee Antitrust Litigation is a putative class action filed in December 2018 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The suit alleges that the "no-poaching" provision previously contained in the Company's franchise agreement constituted an unlawful agreement or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On April 14, 2022, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the case. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange for the Company's payment of a total aggregate settlement amount of $5.0 million and other non-monetary consideration, all claims in the action will be dismissed, the litigation will be terminated, and the Company will receive a release. The settlement amount was recorded in General and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the first quarter of 2022. The District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on August 2, 2025, and the Company made an initial payment of $2.5 million on September 5, 2025 towards the settlement with $2.5 million remaining accrued within Accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 28, 2025. The proposed settlement contains certain customary contingencies and is subject to final approval by the District Court. The Company continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing in this matter. PATRICIA NASH: Randolph Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATRICIA NASH DESIGNS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13820 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://patricianashdesigns.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Patricia Nash Designs Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PINE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Desposati Says ----------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE DESPOSATI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINE HOSPITALITY, INC., d/b/a RACANELLI RESTAURANT GROUP; SPIGA NEW CANAAN GROUP, INC.; GENNARO RACANELLI; and ALEX RACANELLI, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01896 (D. Conn., Nov. 12, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Desposati was employed by the Defendants as a bartender. Pine Hospitality, Inc. d/b/a Racanelli Restaurant Group operates a restaurant group with locations throughout Connecticut and New York, including fine dining establishments, casual dining restaurants, and bars. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. ZLR LITIGATION, PLLC 680 E. Main Street, Suite A #638 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 212-9983 Email: zach@zlrlitigation.com - and - Drew N. Hermann, Esq. HERMANN LAW, PLLC Burnett Plaza 801 Cherry Street, Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com - and - Vishal H. Shah, Esq. SHAH LITIGATION, PLLC 867 Boylston St., 5th Fl. #1893 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 334-5825 Email: vishal@shahlitigation.com PIONEER BANCORP: Cloud Payroll Suits Remain Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Pioneer 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 two putative class action lawsuits seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients remain stayed. On September 2, 2022, two substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The first complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo's Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern which seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints, and the alleged taxes sought in the Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. The second complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, "Cloud Payroll"). Similar to the first complaint, the two named plaintiffs in the second complaint seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the same set of facts as the AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. Both complaints assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment. Both complaints also seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of December 30, 2022. On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss the complaints. On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that assert the same causes of action but include additional allegations. On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26, 2023. On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the Pioneer Parties. On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the response of the plaintiffs. On February 1, 2024, the court entered an order, on its own motion, staying both actions pending the outcome of the ongoing, earlier-filed federal litigation. On September 16, 2025, following receipt of an update concerning the status of the federal litigation, the Court ordered that the stay remain in effect and instructed the parties to provide a further update on the status of the federal litigation by March 31, 2026. PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in "Felipe" ---------------------------------------------------------------- PLAYSTUDIOS, 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 class action lawsuit filed by shareholder Christian A. Felipe. On April 6, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by a purported Company shareholder in connection with alleged federal securities law violations: Christian A. Felipe et. al. v. PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. (the "Felipe Complaint"). On July 15, 2022, the Felipe Complaint was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Southern Division. On October 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to the Felipe Complaint. The Felipe Complaint names the Company, several current and former board members of the Company, board members and officers of Acies Acquisition Corp., and Andrew Pascal, the Company's Chairman and CEO, as defendants. The Felipe Complaint alleges misrepresentations and omissions regarding the state of the Company's development of the Kingdom Boss game and its financial projections and future prospects in the S-4 Registration Statement filed by Acies that was declared effective on May 25, 2021, the Proxy Statement filed by Acies on May 25, 2021, and other public statements that touted Old PLAYSTUDIOS' and the Company's financial performance and operations, including statements made on earnings calls and the Amended S-1 Registration Statement filed by the Company that was declared effective on July 30, 2021. The Felipe Complaint alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions resulted in stock price drops of 13% on August 12, 2021, and 5% on February 25, 2022, following (i) the Company's release of financial results for the second quarter of 2021, ended on June 30, 2021, and (ii) the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and issuance of a press release summarizing financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2021, respectively. The Felipe Complaint seeks an award of damages for an unspecified amount. On January 20, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. The settlement was preliminarily approved on June 27, 2025, and remains subject to final approval by the federal district court in which the case is pending. The matter will not be fully resolved until such approval is issued, the case is dismissed, and judgment is entered by the court. PLAYTIKA HOLDING: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Bar-Asher" ---------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding 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 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the case captioned Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al. On November 23, 2021, the Company, its directors and certain of its officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al.). The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's securities between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, and alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period. On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd as lead plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The amended complaint also added the companies that served as underwriters for the Company's IPO as defendants in the lawsuit. On September 15, 2022, in accordance with local rules of the Court, the Company and other defendants in the case filed a letter notifying the Court of defendants' service upon plaintiffs of, among other things, a notice of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On November 30, 2022, the Company filed with the Court a motion to dismiss. The Company's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on March 18, 2024. On April 15, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On October 1, 2025, the Second Circuit Court issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the case. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so if there are any additional filings by the plaintiffs. PORTAGE WORLD-WIDE: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portage World-Wide, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13818 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2025) is a civil rights action against Portage World-Wide for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.manhattanportage.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 Plaintiff was searching for a new bag for everyday use. On May 14, 2025, he began searching on Google for messenger bags and came across the website Manhattanportage.com. However, as he navigated the website, he encountered accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to proceed. The search button could not be activated using the keyboard, preventing him from efficiently locating specific products or categories. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of keyboard access to certain interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, ambiguous link texts, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Portage World-Wide's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Portage World-Wide, Inc. operates the website that offers messenger bags, backpacks, laptop bags, briefcases, totes, crossbody bags, bike backpacks, wallets, phone cases, and travel essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PRIMO BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Patane" Suit ----------------------------------------------- Primo Brands 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 Mark Patane and others. On August 15, 2017, Mark Patane and 11 other named plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") commenced a putative class action against Nestle Waters North America, Inc. ("Nestle Waters") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Court"). Plaintiffs alleged that Poland Spring product labels fraudulently represent the product to be natural spring water. Plaintiffs have asserted claims of common law fraud, violations of certain consumer protection laws in five states (with Plaintiffs' claims under the consumer protection laws of four of those states having been dismissed) and, for home and office customers, breach of contract. As a result of Triton Water Holdings' acquisition of all of the equity interests of Nestle Waters North America Holdings, Inc., along with the acquisition of certain assets and assumption of certain liabilities of Nestle Canada Inc. from Nestle S.A. (the "Nestle Acquisition"), Nestle Waters was renamed BlueTriton Brands, Inc. ("BlueTriton Brands"), and BlueTriton Brands is continuing to defend against the lawsuit. As a result of rulings on multiple dispositive motions, the case has been narrowed in certain respects. Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief have been dismissed. On December 30, 2024, the claims of eight Plaintiffs who are members of a class in a prior class action and subject to the Final Judgment entered in Ramsey v. Nestle Waters N.Am., Case No. 03-CHK-817 (Ill Cir. Ct. 16th Cir. Kane Cnty.), were dismissed to the extent that they rely on purchases of Poland Spring bottled water sourced from certain spring water sources raised in Ramsey. On January 6, 2025, both Plaintiffs and BlueTriton Brands moved for reconsideration of portions of the December 30, 2024 decision, which granted in part and denied in part BlueTriton Brands' motion for summary judgment. On June 9, 2025, the Court issued an order denying the parties' respective motions for reconsideration. On July 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On July 30, 2025, BlueTriton Brands filed its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its Daubert motions to preclude the opinions of plaintiffs' damages experts. On July 31, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for an extension of time to file their reply and oppose BlueTriton Brands' Daubert motions, which was granted on August 1, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of their motion for class certification and their opposition to BlueTriton Brands' Daubert motions on August 20, 2025. BlueTriton Brands filed its replies in further support of its Daubert motions on September 3, 2025. Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes and ten derivative state subclasses separately consisting of retail customers and home and office customers. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and/or statutory damages. For the common law fraud claims, Plaintiffs purport to compute damages by multiplying the alleged price premium that Nestle Waters obtained from its alleged "spring water" misrepresentation by Nestle Waters' total dollar sales of Poland Spring still water products sold by Nestle Waters during the class period, while statutory damages normally are determined by multiplying a statutorily established amount by the number of violations. The quantification of Plaintiffs' recoverable damages is not reasonably determinable at this stage of the litigation. No trial date has been set. "We believe that Plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously. Based upon information presently known to management, the Company has not accrued a loss for the matters described above as the Company believes that a loss is not probable and reasonably estimable. While it is reasonably possible a loss may be incurred, the Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in this matter," the Company stated. QUIDELORTHO CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quidelortho Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the federal securities class action lawsuit remains pending. On April 12, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint under the federal securities laws against the Company and three of its current and former executives. The complaint, which is captioned Bristol County Retirement System v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02804-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Bristol County Complaint"), asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to statements regarding sales of the Company's COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its Savanna RVP4 assay. The Bristol County Complaint seeks a judgment determining that the lawsuit can be maintained as a class action and awarding the plaintiff and putative class damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs. On December 16, 2024, the court appointed Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund ("Teamsters Funds") as lead plaintiffs in the action, and approved their selection of lead counsel. Teamsters Funds filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2025, and added as additional defendants three current and former executives of the Company not previously named in the Bristol County Complaint. On April 4, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. QUOTEWIZARD INC: Faces Another TCPA Suit After $19MM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Imagine paying $19MM for something and then having to potentially do it again a year later. That's the problem with these high-dollar TCPA settlements. They never really buy complete peace. And you find yourself on a perpetual settlement treadmill. Take QuoteWizard for example. These guys just got done paying off their $19MM TCPA class action settlement in the Mantha case -- huge huge money -- and they look to be in trouble again. A repeat player named Shelly Toledo filed a class action suit against QW in North Carolina yesterday alleging the marketing giant left prerecorded voicemails advertising insurance solutions. The message was allegedly for advertising purposes and left without her prior express consent. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as: PRERECORDED MESSAGE CLASS: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) Defendant or someone on its behalf, (2) placed a call using a prerecorded or artificial voice message (3) where the purpose of the call was to encourage the purchase or rental of, or investment in, Defendant's property, goods, or services So think about this for a minute. QW just got done paying off $19MM in a settlement then they allegedly make ONE call a few weeks ago and now they are AGAIN facing massive exposure. And here's the really messed up part -- the Mantha settlement involved TEXT MESSAGES and a DNC claim. That means the new class DOES NOT OVERLAP and QW could be facing 4 years of damages here! Holy Toledo! Now I suspect some members of the Mantha class are in the Toledo class and Mantha class members broadly released claims, so there could be an individualized issue here where the two classes mesh. I suspect the Toledo class definition will be modified to exclude Mantha class members -- but we shall see. Bottom line here is the TCPA is insanely dangerous. Even paying $19MM won't save you from massive exposure tomorrow. [GN] RAISING CANE'S: Xatruch Wage 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. 1:25-at-01112 to the proceeding. The case docket notes Diversity-(Citizenship) 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 RASEVIC COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Reyes Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- HAMILTON REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RASEVIC COMPANIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03719 (D. Md., November 12, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable and financial information of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation name, Social Security number, and driver's license number. In the course of its business, the Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. On April 2, 2025, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to protect Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. The Rasevic Companies provides commercial snow removal, construction, and landscaping services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital 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 arising from the Broadmark merger. On June 6, 2024, a purported former stockholder of Broadmark filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Eibling v. Pyatt, et al., No. C-24-CV-24-000818 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City), (the "Broadmark Merger Action"). The Broadmark Merger Action names as defendants Broadmark's former board of directors and alleges they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Broadmark Merger by failing to properly consider acquisition proposals that were purportedly superior to the Broadmark Merger, by relying on purportedly false and misleading valuation analyses, and by authorizing the issuance of a purportedly false and misleading proxy statement. The Broadmark Merger Action also asserts claims against Broadmark's financial advisor for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Broadmark Merger Action seeks damages in the form of compensatory damages, quasi-appraisal damages, rescissory damages, and disgorgement of any merger-related benefits. The Broadmark Merger Action also seeks reimbursement for litigation expenses and attorneys' and experts' fees. On September 13, 2024, the Broadmark Merger Action was assigned to the Business and Technology Case Management Program of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Thereafter, on December 10, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint. In response, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 10, 2025, which the defendants subsequently moved to dismiss on April 14, 2025. Briefing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint was completed on July 22, 2025. Although the Company is not a defendant in the Broadmark Merger Action, it is subject to contractual indemnification obligations (conditioned on the satisfaction of various contractual requirements) in connection therewith, including with respect to the defendants' service as Broadmark directors and the provision of services to Broadmark, as applicable. The defendants and the Company intend to vigorously defend against the Broadmark Merger Action. READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital 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 alleging violations of the Exchange Act. On March 6, 2025 and April 23, 2025, the Company and two of its executive officers were named as defendants in two separate but largely identical putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Exchange Act Class Actions"). The Exchange Act Class Actions were filed under the captions Quinn v. Ready Capital Corp., et al., No. 1:25-cv-01883 (S.D.N.Y.) and Goebel v. Ready Capital Corp., et al., No. 1:25-cv-3373 (S.D.N.Y.). The Exchange Act Class Actions allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the performance of the Company's loan portfolio and related matters, and that the executive officers named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of the Company. The Exchange Act Class Actions seek compensatory damages, costs, and expenses on behalf of the purported classes. On July 8, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the Exchange Act Class Actions under the caption In re Ready Capital Securities Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-01883 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Exchange Act Litigation") and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 8, 2025, and briefing on the defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss is expected to be completed by March 2026. READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend UDF IV Merger Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital 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 filed by a purported former stockholder of UDF IV arising from the UDF IV merger. On March 18, 2025, a purported former stockholder of UDF IV filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned The Lawrence C. Headley Living Trust v. Jones, et al., No. C-24-CV-25-002222 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City) (the "UDF IV Merger Action"). The UDF IV Merger Action names as defendants UDF IV's former board of trustees and alleges they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the UDF IV Merger by failing to properly consider an acquisition proposal that was purportedly superior to the UDF IV Merger, by relying on purportedly false and misleading valuation analyses, by authorizing the issuance of a purportedly false and misleading proxy statement, and by obtaining improper personal benefits that were not shared with all UDF IV stockholders. The complaint also asserts claims against UDF IV's former advisor, UMTH General Services, L.P., for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescissory damages, and unwinding of the UDF IV Merger, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2025, the UDF IV Merger Action was assigned to the Business and Technology Case Management Program of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Thereafter, on May 16, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint. In response, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2025, which the defendants subsequently moved to dismiss on September 9, 2025. Briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is expected to be completed by December 2025. Although the Company is not a defendant in the UDF IV Merger Action, it is subject to contractual indemnification obligations (conditioned on the satisfaction of various contractual requirements) in connection therewith, including with respect to the defendants' service as UDF IV trustees and the provision of services to UDF IV, as applicable. The defendants and the Company intend to vigorously defend against the UDF IV Merger Action. REDWIRE CORP: Court OKs Settlement in "Lemen" --------------------------------------------- Redwire 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 a Florida court has approved the settlement in the case captioned Lemen v. Redwire Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01254-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.). "On December 17, 2021, the Company, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Peter Cannito, and then current, but now former Chief Financial Officer, William Read, were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That litigation is captioned Lemen v. Redwire Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01254-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.) ("Lemen"). On March 7, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. On June 17, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiff alleges that the Company and certain of its directors and officers made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. "On August 16, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and such motion was denied by the Court on March 22, 2023. On November 15, 2024, the Company and plaintiffs filed a joint motion for a stipulated order to settle this litigation pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into among the parties. Under the terms of the agreement, Redwire agreed to pay $8.0 million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Redwire's publicly traded shares from March 25, 2021, through March 31, 2022. Redwire has agreed to certification of a settlement class to facilitate resolution of claims. "The Company consistently denied the accusations and entered into this proposed settlement, which was not an admission or concession of liability, to avoid the costs and risks inherent in continued litigation. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the Company paid the $8.0 million settlement amount into escrow releasing the previously recognized loss contingency. That amount was later released from escrow following a final order by the Court approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice, which was entered on August 18, 2025. The Company anticipates recovery from insurance of approximately $1.1 million of the settlement amount, most of which has now been recovered by the Company. The remainder of the anticipated recovery is included as prepaid expenses and other current assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The settlement has resolved all claims against Redwire and the other defendants in this matter," the Company stated. REEVES DDS: Garcia filed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against REEVES, D.D.S. AND LAVALLEY, D.D.S., A DENTAL CORPORATION, et al. The case is styled as Alexus Garcia, individually, on and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. REEVES, D.D.S. AND LAVALLEY, D.D.S., A DENTAL CORPORATION, CDC Dental Management Co., LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV027592 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." REEVES, D.D.S. AND LAVALLEY, D.D.S. refers to a dental corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. KING & SIEGEL, LLP 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: 213-465-4802 Fax: 213-465-4803 Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com RELX INC: Class Settlement in Trama Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN TRAMA, MATTHEW HARTZ, and RAFAEL ROBLES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RELX INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03174-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fischer entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The agreement provides injunctive relief to the "Settlement Class," which is restricted to Illinois residents and is defined to include "all natural persons whose PII was searched for, reviewed, and/or accessible in any free trial of Nexis Diligence and/or Nexis Diligence+, and who resided in Illinois at any time their personally identifiable information was accessible." Finally, the settlement agreement provides that counsel for Plaintiffs Hartz and Robles may move for (i) an award of attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $492,500 and (ii) incentive awards not to exceed $2,500 for each of Hartz and Robles. The Court appoints, for purposes of this settlement, Shawn J. Rabin, Krysta K. Pachman, and Alejandra Salinas of Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., and Don Bivens of Don Bivens, PLLC, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Monday, March 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., The Plaintiffs allege that RELX, Inc. violated the California and Illinois Right of Publicity Acts by using their personally identifiable information (PII) without their consent in free trials for Nexis Diligence and Nexis Diligence+, subscription-based platforms through which subscribers can access background-check-style reports on individuals. In April 2025, the Court granted in part RELX’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. RELX is a provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LpZER2 at no extra charge.[CC] RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERSIDE ALL OF US OR NONE et al., v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 7, 2026, will seek an order certifying a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 23-3. The motion is made on behalf of all unhoused residents of the City of Riverside who have been or may be subjected to the City of Riverside's policy and practice of seizing and summarily destroying personal property at any time since Jan. 1, 2022. The motion seeks certification of a damages class and an injunctive relief class or, in the alternative, a liability-only issue class related to the valuation of the Plaintiffs' non-hazardous property resulting in it being summarily destroyed. The Plaintiffs also seek an order appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek to certify three classes defined as follows: Injunctive Relief Class (FRCP) 23(b)(2): "All persons who are or will be unhoused in the City of Riverside and keep their possessions on public property in the City, making it subject to seizure and summary destruction by City employees and/agents and not stored as required by Cal. Civil Code section2080. The Plaintiffs Riverside All of Us or None and Jade Anderson are the proposed class representatives; and Damages Class (FRCP) Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons who were homeless and staying on public property in the City of Riverside between Jan. 1, 2022 and continuing to the present, and whose personal property was seized by City of Riverside employees and/or agents and summarily destroyed. Plaintiffs Anderson, Bryan Yost, and Shawn Yost are the proposed class representatives." In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a narrower issue class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4): "Valuation of Property" Liability-Only Class (FRCP) Rule 23(c)(4): "All persons who were homeless and staying on public property in the City of Riverside between Jan. 1, 2022 and continuing to present whose non-hazardous personal property was summarily destroyed at the time of seizure by City employees and/or agents based solely on an assessment that the property lacked value or utility as defined in the Riverside Municipal Code and governing policies and practices." The Plaintiffs Anderson, Bryan Yost, and Shawn Yost are the proposed class representatives. On Feb. 5, 2024, six named plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages from the Defendants, based on the seizure and destruction of property belonging to unhoused individuals located in the public right of way. Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aTKRQH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brooke Weitzman, Esq. Anne Gannon, Esq. ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER 1535 E. 17TH ST., STE. 110 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 617-5353 Facsimile: (714) 754-1306 E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org agannon@eldrcenter.org - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. Weston Rowland, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 2632 Wilshire Boulevard, No. 552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com rowland.weston@gmail.com ROSEBUD SIOUX: Gary Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRONAL GARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KATHLEEN WOODEN KNIFE; ELIZABETH LISA WHITE PIPE; TONIA MARSHALL; LOUIS WAYNE BOYD; DOLORES WALN; CHRIS EAGLE BEAR; TODD J. BEARSHIELD; EVASTINE WRIGHT; STANLEY WOODEN KNIFE; MICHELLE HOLLOW HORN BEAR; ROYAL YELLOW HAWK; ROBERT RATTLING LEAF; WILLIAM MARSHALL; WAYNE FREDERICK; EMILY BOYD-VALANDRA; ALVIN BEAR HEELS SR.; SHERE WRIGHT; MICHAEL BOLTZ SR.; TAMALEON WILCOX; LILA KILLS IN SIGHT; WILLIAM KINDLE; BEN BLACK BEAR III; MARION LITTLE THUNDER; CHARLES DUBRAY JR.; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-15, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01044 (M.D. N.C. Nov. 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). This case involves one of the schemes, which is commonly referred to as a "tribal lending" business model, or more colloquially, as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, a "recent incarnation of payday lending companies regulation-avoidance." In this case, MyQuickWallet.com holds itself out as a tribal lending entity owned and operated by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. In March 2025, MQW issued a loan to Mr. Gary -- a resident of North Carolina -- for $500 at an interest rate of 1095%, more than 136 times North Carolina's 8-percent interest-rate cap and more than 68 times the cap for payday loans of 16%. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have actively participated in the scheme and have conspired with each other and others to repeatedly violate state lending statutes resulting in the collection of unlawful debt from the Plaintiff and the members of the classes. The Defendants and others not yet known to the Plaintiff have been knowingly participating in the illegal lending enterprise, which has made and is making and has collected and is collecting on grossly usurious loans, says the suit. The Tribe is controlled and directed by a Tribal Council. The named Defendants (collectively, the "Tribal Council Defendants") are members of the Tribe's Tribal Council and are sued here in their individual capacities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. Blossom Law, PLLC 126 N. McDowell St., 2nd Floor Charlotte, NC 28204 Email: rblossom@blossomlaw.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in McCarrell Due Feb. 23, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00454 (D. Or., Filed March 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amy M. Baggio entered an order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order3. Deadline to substantially complete discovery related to class certification is Jan. 14, 2026. Close of fact discovery on issues related to class certification is Feb. 23, 2026. Motion for class certification and deadline to disclose class certification expert reports is due by Feb. 23, 2026. Last day for deposition of Plaintiff's expert is March 6, 2026. Opposition to motion for class certification and deadline to disclose responsive class certification expert reports are due by April 20, 2026. Last day for deposition of Defendant's expert isApril 28, 2026 Reply to motion for class certification is due by May 13, 2026. Daubert Motions regarding class certification are due by May 27, 2026. Daubert Oppositions regarding class certification are due by July 1, 2026. Daubert Replies regarding class certification are due by July 15, 2026 The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability -- Diversity-(Citizenship). Rugsusa provides flooring products.[CC] SALESFORCE INC: Milton Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIEB MILTON, MICHELLE GARZA, and ADRIANA WINKLER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALESFORCE, INC., TRANSUNION LLC, QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD., and LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-09781-KAW (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2025) is a data breach class action suit involving the unauthorized access and exfiltration of sensitive personal identifiable information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and/or partial Social Security numbers, of millions of Class Members, including Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have been substantially injured by Defendants' data security failures. The Plaintiffs further believe that their and Class Members' PII has or will be published for sale on the dark web following the data breaches, as that is the modus operandi of cybercriminals that commit cyberattacks of this type. As a result of the data breaches, the Plaintiffs have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, lost time and expenses mitigating the risk of data misuse, diminishment in value of their PII, lost time monitoring and repairing credit, and failing to receive the benefit of the bargain reached with Defendants, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action to hold Defendants accountable for their data security failures, enjoin their continued failure to implement basic and fundamental data security practices, and recover damages and all other relief available at law on behalf of themselves and members of the classes they seek to represent. Salesforce, Inc. is a privately held cloud-based software company with its headquarters and principal place of business in San Francisco County, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com - and - Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 E-mail: clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas U. Murphy, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1201 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizirusso@hausfeld.com nmurphy@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. Gisela Rosa, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com zrosa@hausfeld.com - and - Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Sean A. Petterson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com spetterson@lchb.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sarepta 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 continues to defend the securities class action filed in a New York court. On June 26, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, Chief Executive Officer Douglas Ingram, former Chief Customer Officer Dallan Murray, and President of Research and Development and Technical Operations Louise Rodino-Klapac in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Securities Action"). The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures made regarding ELEVIDYS's safety and efficacy and the Company's financial statements and projections. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between June 22, 2023 and June 24, 2025. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On October 17, 2025, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On October 24, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and stay the entry of a case schedule, which Sarepta did not oppose. The parties also filed a stipulation, subject to Court approval, related to the timing of the filing of an Amended Complaint. SCARPA NORTH: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCARPA NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09514 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.scarpa.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 30, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Instinct VS Women's Shoes from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, 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. Scarpa North America Inc. operates the website that offers footwear 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 SELECTQUOTE INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- SelectQuote, 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 an appeal from the order dismissing the securities class action lawsuit remains pending. On August 16, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 ("the Hartel Action") was filed against the Company and two of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021 (the "Hartel Relevant Period"). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Hartel Relevant Period. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs. On October 7, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08279 (the "WPBPPF Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, two of its executive officers, and six current or former members of the Company's Board of Directors, along with the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common stock (the "Offering"). The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of the Company's common stock (i) in or traceable to the Offering or (ii) between May 20, 2020 and August 25, 2021 (the "WPB Relevant Period"). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the WPB Relevant Period. The complaint also alleges the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making misstatements and omissions of material facts in connection with the Offering, allegedly causing a decline in the value of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs. On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate the Hartel Action and the WPBPPF Action was filed. On September 2, 2022, the court entered an order consolidating the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions under the caption In re SelectQuote, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (the "Securities Class Action") and appointing the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On November 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting similar allegations to those alleged in the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions in addition to new allegations regarding certain defendants' purported violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also added Brookside Equity Partners LLC, one of the Company's principal stockholders, as a defendant. On January 27, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of itself and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 5, 2023, and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May 10, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on May 31, 2024. On July 31, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October 2, 2024, and the Company filed its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition on November 1, 2024. On April 3, 2025, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2025. On August 8, 2025, plaintiffs West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System filed a brief in support of their appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"), and on August 13, 2025, the Second Circuit granted the parties' joint stipulation dismissing Brookside Equity Partners LLC from the appeal. Defendant-appellees' brief is due by November 7, 2025. SHIFT ROBOTICS: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHIFT ROBOTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09464 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.shiftrobotics.io, 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, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on October 30, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Moonwalkers 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[s] 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. Shift Robotics, Inc. operates the website that offers wheeled footwear 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 SINCLAIR INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ Sinclair, Inc., and Sinclair Broadcast Group, LLC, 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 they continue to defend the antitrust lawsuit filed against the Company and 13 other broadcasters in an Illinois court. The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6, 2020. Discovery commenced shortly after that and is continuing. On December 8, 2023, the Court granted final approval of the settlements the plaintiffs had reached with four of the original defendants (CBS, Fox, Cox Media, and ShareBuilders), who agreed to pay a total of $48 million to settle the plaintiffs' claims against them. The plaintiffs are continuing to pursue their claims against the Company and the other non-settling defendants. Under the current schedule set by the Court, fact discovery is scheduled to close 90 days after a Special Master completes his review of the plaintiffs' objections to the defendants' privilege claims. On December 6, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking sanctions against the Company in connection with the loss of certain cell phone data. On February 4, 2025, following briefing on that motion, the Court heard arguments and took the motion under advisement. On February 20, 2025, Special Master Richard Levie issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 addressing plaintiffs' challenges to certain of defendants' privilege log entries ("Levie R&R No. 3"), which recommended that the Court compel disclosure of certain documents Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants withheld from discovery based on assertions of privilege. Sinclair and the other co-defendants filed objections to Levie R&R No. 3. At a March 18, 2025 status conference, the Court set a tentative trial date of April 1, 2026, and stated its expectations that depositions will resume. At a Status Conference on October 1, 2025, the Court indicated that it would be setting a new schedule with a trial date occurring after April 1, 2026. Sinclair and the other parties are awaiting issuance of the new scheduling order. On October 20, 2025, the Court issued an order adopting Levie R&R No. 3 and denying the objections to Levie R&R No. 3 made by Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants, compelling the production of 6,313 documents Sinclair withheld as privileged. On September 29, 2025, Special Master Wayne R. Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 ("Andersen R&R No. 3") and on October 23, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 6 ("Andersen R&R No. 6"), addressing certain of plaintiffs' additional challenges to certain of Sinclair's privilege log entries. Andersen R&R No. 3 and Andersen R&R No. 6 each recommended granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' challenges. No party has appealed Andersen R&R No. 3, which compelled the production of two documents Sinclair withheld as privileged. The plaintiffs filed an objection to Anderson R&R No. 6 on November 6, 2025. Sinclair intends to file a response in opposition to that objection. Discovery and the Special Master's review of plaintiffs' challenges to the defendants' privilege claims remain ongoing. The Company continues to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims. SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Skyworks Solutions, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative securities class action lawsuit in a California court. "On March 4, 2025, the Company and certain current and former officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period and seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. Following the aforementioned putative class action lawsuit, in April 2025, the Company and certain of its directors and officers were named in two derivative action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Each of the derivative actions was brought on behalf of the Company by a putative stockholder alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of federal securities laws. "The complaints seek, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, from time to time, we are, and may become, the subject of inquiries, requests for information, investigations, or other actions by government and regulatory agencies regarding our business. Any such matters, regardless of their merit or resolution, could be costly and divert the efforts and attention of our management, damage our reputation, or otherwise adversely affect our business," the Company stated. SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Klassen ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NR (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Gallagher entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is therefore denied as moot. It is further ordered that the clerk of the court is instructed to close this case. Because SolidQuote is only vicariously responsible for one phone call made to the Plaintiff during a 12-month period and 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5) requires that an entity call an individual whose telephone number appears on the national Do Not Call Registry more than one time within any 12 month period, SolidQuote did not violate the TCPA, and its motion for summary judgment on this claim is granted. The Plaintiff's instant suit alleges that SolidQuote violated two provisions of the TCPA: making two or more solicitation calls to residential subscribers whose numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5) and initiating a phone call using a prerecorded voice in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1) (D. 65). SolidQuote is a digital marketing company that matches consumers with insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1kfx2z at no extra charge.[CC] SONDER HOLDINGS: Herring Balks at Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ RASHEEDA HERRING on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONDER HOLDINGS INC.; SONDER GERMANY GMBH; SONDER HOLDINGS LLC; SONDER GROUP HOLDINGS LLC; SONDER TECHNOLOGY INC.; SONDER HOSPITALITY USA INC.; SONDER PARTNER CO.; SONDER USA INC.; SONDER GUEST SERVICES LLC; and SONDER HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS LLC Defendants, Case No. 25-12040-KBO (D. Del., November 17, 2025) is a class action for the recovery by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants, as a single employer, of damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits by reason of Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 and the California Labor Code. The Defendants violated the WARN Acts by failing to give the plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees of the Defendants at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. As a consequence, the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees of the Defendants are entitled under the WARN Acts to recover from the Defendants their wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which has been paid. The suit is a class action adversary proceeding filed against Defendants in In re SONDER HOLDINGS INC., et al., Debtors, Chapter 7 Bankr. Case Nos.: 25-12040; 25-12041 25-12042; 25-12043; 25-12044 25-12045; 25-12046; 25-12047; 25-12048; 25-12049. Sonder Holdings Inc. operates as a hospitality company. The Company provides tech-enabled services to offers accommodation options from spacious rooms to fully-equipped suites and apartments. Sonder Holdings serves customers worldwide.[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 - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. Johnathan Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 SPF SCREENS & AWNINGS: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPF Screens & Awnings LLC. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SPF Screens & Awnings LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06575-MLB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SPF Screens & Awnings -- https://sunprotectionfl.com/ -- is an experienced manufacturer and installer of remote-controlled motorized roll screens, shades, and retractable awnings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 626-2098 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com SPORTS BASEMENT: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SPORTS BASEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13816 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://shop.sportsbasement.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Sports Basement, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com STAKE CENTER LOCATING: Bowles Sues to Recover Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Edward Bowles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situate v. Stake Center Locating, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-13403-SAL (D.S.C., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1939 ("FLSA") and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA"). The Plaintiff did not receive one and a half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek or otherwise not paid for all hours worked. Under the FLSA, during workweeks when the Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours, Defendant was required to pay for all hours the Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs worked and pay them 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Additionally, under the SCPWA, Defendant was required to pay for all hours the Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs worked, including during workweeks when they worked less than 40 hours per workweek. By willfully failing to compensate the Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs who performed pre-shift, meal break, and post-shift work, Defendant violated the FLSA and SCPWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Fiber Locator Technician ("Utility Locator") from May 2024 through May 2025. The Defendant is the third largest locating company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Scott Falls, Esq. Ashley L Falls, Esq. FALLS LEGAL, LLC 125-E Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 102 Charleston, SC 29412 Phone: (843) 737-6040 Fax: (843) 737-6140 Email: scott@falls-legal.com ashley@falls-legal.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com STARBUCKS CORP: Court Declines to Dismiss Putative Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Lexology reports that on November 19, 2025, Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pared the allegations in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a global coffee retailer and certain of its current and former executives. Garbaccio v. Starbucks Corp., ––F. Supp. 3d––, 2025 WL 3228275 (W.D. Wash. 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misrepresentations in an attempt to conceal that customer traffic was declining in the company's stores. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity as to certain statements and that scienter was adequately alleged with respect to the company's former CEO. Plaintiffs' allegations concerned "store traffic," a company financial metric that reports the number of sales at company-operated retail locations. Because many of plaintiffs' allegations relied on confidential witness statements and information contained in a particular news article, the Court first addressed whether to credit those allegations. The Court held that certain information in the article -- for example, concerning "understaffing, difficulty fulfilling drink orders, and longer customer wait times" -- had sufficient indicia of reliability to be considered at this stage because such information was purportedly based on interviews with employees having first-hand knowledge and whose roles and responsibilities were sufficiently described, and was further corroborated by other sources, including a statistic from a consulting firm and "statements by [company] executives about the need to increase [employee] hours and decrease wait times at stores." However, the Court declined to consider the article's contention that the company's "new staffing algorithm" was partially to blame for these issues, as the Court noted that the article did not contain sufficient information to show the purported basis of interviewees' knowledge regarding the algorithm, and no corroborating sources were provided. With respect to plaintiffs' alleged misrepresentations, the Court held that certain were plausibly alleged to be false and certain were not. The Court rejected allegations based on what the Court found to be uncredited and speculative conclusions and which were otherwise consistent with company statements. The Court also determined that the company's reporting of historical data in optimistic terms was non-actionable, and that the company's acknowledgment of the impact of competition in China was not rendered materially misleading by the company's "simultaneous reassurances of the business's strength." The Court further rejected challenges to certain statements that were merely "general expressions of optimism," as "unspecific and not capable of objective verification." However, the Court held that certain statements -- relating to purported improvements to the in-store experience for customers and employees, and certain statements regarding data from the company's customer loyalty program -- were adequately alleged to be false because they were contradicted by the portions of the news article that the Court credited or subsequent company statements, and did not otherwise fall within the statutory protection for forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Because the Court found those allegations sufficient at this stage, the Court also held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that a statement indicating "no material changes to the risk factors" previously disclosed was adequately alleged to be false because plaintiffs had adequately alleged that those risks had already materialized at the time the statement was made. With respect to scienter, the Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter with respect to statements by the company's former CEO because the statements related to the core of the company's business, the CEO was allegedly involved in the company's day-to-day operations and possessed information about store staffing and sales, had repeatedly touted his knowledge of the company's business plans and how those plans were impacting customer and staff experiences, and was terminated "abruptly." But the Court held that plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to plausibly allege scienter as to the company's CFO, given that the CFO was not alleged to have unique knowledge of the company's sales plans, to have made statements suggesting such knowledge, or to have a sufficient motive for making the alleged misstatements. In addition, the Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation based on the alleged corrective disclosures that the company failed to meet earnings estimates and revised its business guidance. The Court concluded that, because plaintiffs alleged the company's stock price fell after these announcements, they had pleaded a sufficient causal connection between the actionable statements and the events that caused their alleged losses. [GN] STRIDE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Stride, Inc. ("Stride" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Stride investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between October 22, 2024 and October 28, 2025. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/stride-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-3?prid=178907&wire=4 LRN investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, defendants made false statements and/or concealed that Stride was (1) inflating enrollment numbers by retaining "ghost students"; (2) cutting staffing costs by assigning teachers' caseloads far beyond the required statutory limits; (3) ignoring compliance requirements, including background checks and licensure laws for its employees, and ignoring federally mandated special education services to students; (4) suppressing whistleblowers who documented financial directives from Stride's leadership to delay hiring and deny services to preserve profit margins; and (5) losing existing and potential enrollments. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Stride during the relevant time frame, you have until January 12, 2026 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] STRIDE INC: MacMahon Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ VIVIENNE MACMAHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRIDE, INC., JAMES J. RHYU, and DONNA M. BLACKMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02019 (E.D. Va., November 11, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Stride securities between October 22, 2024 and October 28, 2025, inclusive, against Stride and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, Stride told the market that it was one of the nation's most successful technology-based education companies and that its deep educational, regulatory, and policy expertise across the United States allowed it to leverage capabilities and assets to address market failures or shortcomings. The foregoing were false and misleading statements because Stride was: (1) inflating enrollment numbers; (2) cutting staff costs beyond required statutory limits; (3) ignoring compliance requirements; and (4) losing existing and potential student enrollments, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Stride, Inc. is a Reston, Virginia-based technology company that provides an educational platform to deliver online learning to students throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Lifson, Esq. David B. Lacy, Esq. Austin R. Palmore, Esq. CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP 901 E. Cary Street St., Suite 1800 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-4100 Facsimile: (804) 697-6112 E-mail: rlifson@cblaw.com dlacy@cblaw.com apalmore@cblaw.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mminhas@scott-scott.com STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reflector reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against StubHub Holdings, Inc. ("StubHub" or the "Company") (NYSE: STUB). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding StubHub's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) StubHub 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 free cash flow; and (3) as a result, StubHub's free cash flow reports were materially misleading. If you purchased shares of StubHub in or following the Company's September 17, 2025 initial public offering and suffered a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/stubhub/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is January 23, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] SUBURBAN BOWERY: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUBURBAN BOWERY OF SUFFERN, INC. d/b/a TIGER CHEF, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09521 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to make its website, www.tigerchef.com, accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers excludes this community from full and equal participation in the online marketplace and denies equal access to the goods and services offered by Defendant, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state and local laws. According to the complaint, the site contains numerous accessibility barriers that prevent Plaintiff and other blind consumers from using it independently. These barriers include, among others, unlabeled buttons, misidentified cart elements, inaccessible navigation, and missing product descriptions. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated users are denied the ability to browse and purchase products on the same terms as sighted consumers. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Defendant to make the website accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, as well as statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Suburban Bowery of Suffern, Inc., d/b/a Tiger Chef, offers a wide range of kitchenware, cookware, and household products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevy@glpcfirm.com SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California. --------------------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer, Inc., 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 continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. On August 30, 2024, three putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Averza v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06147, Menditto v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 3:24-cv-06149, and Spatz v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06193). On October 4, 2024, a fourth putative class action complaint was filed in the same court (Norfolk County Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06980). On October 18, 2024, a fifth putative class action complaint was filed in the same court (Covey Financial Inc., et al. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-07274). The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that (i) each of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) each of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company for the alleged violations under (i), due (in each case) to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding the Company's financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The Spatz and Menditto plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their respective complaints without prejudice against all Defendants, ending the suits. The Court finalized the appointment of Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as the Lead Plaintiff, who thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with the Court on September 22, 2025. These matters are too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. SYRACUSE HAULERS: "Sims" Referred to Mediation Program ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Dillon Sims, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-1080 (ECC/MJK) (N.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York referred the case to the Mandatory Mediation Program. The Court issued an Order Referring Case to Mandatory Mediation Program on November 24, 2025. Upon due consideration, the Court found that the case is appropriate for referral to the Mandatory Mediation Program as provided in Section 2.1 of General Order 47. The Court ordered that the case is referred to participation in the Mandatory Mediation Program, with parties directed to refer to General Order 47. The deadline for completion of mediation is sixty (60) days after the Court issues an order deciding Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court ordered that within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of the filing of this Order, pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Plan, the parties shall confer and select a Mediator, confirm the Mediator's availability, confirm that the Mediator does not have a conflict with any of the parties to the case, identify a date and time for the initial mediation session, and file the stipulation confirming their selection. The parties are required to provide the Mediator with a written Memorandum of Mediation no later than seven (7) days before the date of the initial mediation session in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Plan, which SHALL NOT be filed. The Court ordered that the Mediator shall encourage and assist the parties in reaching a resolution to their dispute, but may not compel or coerce the parties to settle. Information disclosed during mediation shall remain confidential and shall not be made known to any other party or this Court, without consent of the disclosing party or parties. The Mediator is directed to file a report within seven (7) days after the close of each mediation session by completing the online form "Report of Mandatory Mediation" pursuant to Section 3.9 of the Plan. The parties shall compensate the Mediator for services rendered in accordance with Section 4.4 of the Plan. The Court noted that referral of this case to mediation will not delay or defer other dates established in the Scheduling Order and has no effect on the progress of the case towards trial, except that any judicial settlement conferences set forth in the Scheduling Order hereby are adjourned." A copy of the Court's decision dated November 24 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R4Zvlq from PacerMonitor.com TACKLE TECHNOLOGY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Cole Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACKLE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13769 (N.D. Ill., November 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.fishermanswarehouse.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Tackle Technology, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law TAYLOR KIA OF FINDLAY: Tulley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taylor Kia of Findlay. The case is styled as Ron Tulley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Taylor Kia of Findlay, Case No. 3:25-cv-02476 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Taylor Kia of Findlay -- https://www.taylorkiafindlay.com/ -- offers new and pre-owned Kia cars, trucks, and SUVs to our customers near Fostoria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TELEFLEX INC: Delaware Court Dismisses "Harrison" ------------------------------------------------- Teleflex Incorporated disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a Delaware court has dismissed the putative class action lawsuit styled Harrison v. Teleflex Incorporated, et al., C.A. No. 2025-0251-JTL (Del. Ch.). "On March 6, 2025, a putative class action complaint captioned Harrison v. Teleflex Incorporated, et al., C.A. No. 2025-0251-JTL (Del. Ch.) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") against us and our Board (the "Action"). "The plaintiff alleged in the complaint that a provision in our Bylaws restricting stockholders' ability to act by written consent violated the Delaware General Corporation Law. Pursuant to a stipulation and proposed order, which the Court entered on April 7, 2025, the individual defendants were dismissed from the Action, leaving us as the sole defendant. "On May 15, 2025, we filed a Form 8-K with the SEC stating that we had amended our Bylaws to remove the challenged provision on May 9, 2025. Thereafter, the parties agreed that the amendment mooted the claims in the Action and filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order dismissing the Action with prejudice as to the plaintiff in the Action only. "Without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, we agreed to pay a mootness fee to plaintiff's counsel in the Action in the amount of $55,000 (the "Mootness Fee"). On August 5, 2025, the Court entered a proposed order dismissing the Action as moot, subject to our filing an affidavit with the Court confirming compliance with the requirement in the order that we disclose in its next periodic filing with the SEC the payment of the Mootness Fee. In entering the order, the Court did not review, and did not pass judgment, on the payment of these attorneys' fees and expenses. As a result, we have no further potential liability related to this matter," the Company stated. TELEPHONE AND DATA: Wins Court OK of Settlement in Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Telephone And Data Systems, 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 an Illinois court has approved the settlement and dismissed the stockholder lawsuit initiated in 2023. On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and Array and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. An Amended Complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, which names TDS, Array, and certain current Array officers and directors as defendants, and alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the potential class period) regarding, among other things, Array’s business strategies to address subscriber demand, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified money damages. On November 1, 2024, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On February 28, 2025, the parties reached a settlement in principle. On April 25, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 4, 2025, the court approved the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice. TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Thomas Sues Over Decline of Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., CHRISTIAN P. BEHRENBRUCH, DARREN SMITH, and KYAHN WILLIAMSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02299-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., November 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Telix's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Telix securities at artificially inflated prices between February 21, 2025 and August 28, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) they materially overstated the progress Telix had made with regard to prostate cancer therapeutic candidates; (2) they materially overstated the quality of Telix's supply chain and partners; and (3) as a result, the Defendants' statements about Telix's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of Telix American Depositary Shares (ADSs) fell $1.95 per ADS, or 16.1 percent, to close at $10.15 on August 28, 2025. The next day, Telix ADSs fell a further $0.60 per ADS, or 5.9 percent, to close at $9.55 on August 29, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of VFC's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Telix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is a biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brad A. Catlin, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW GROUP, LLC 1101 N. Delaware Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 633-5270 Email: brad@williamsgroup.law - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Crocker Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Crocker, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. TELUS International AI, Inc., a Delaware corporation; an individual, and Does 1-10; Case No. 25STCV33590 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 14, 2025), is brought seeking to redress for TELUS's willful misclassification and violation of the Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law with respect to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant willfully misclassified the Plaintiff; failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to reimburse necessary business expenses; failed to provide and maintain accurate payroll records; failed to pay wages when due; failed to provide personnel records all in Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. TELUS has systematically misclassified its employees as independent contractors to wring out additional profits at their expense. By misclassifying Plaintiff and Class Members as independent contractors, TELUS avoided paying them earned minimum and overtime wages, provide complaint meal and rest periods, and meal and rest premium wages owed, among violations of other wage and hour rights and protections, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants from in or around July 2024 to in or around September 1, 2025. TELUS International AI Acquisition, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides AI training services for Generative AI companies throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. Melissa R. Rinehart, Esq. KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 South Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, XA 90014 Phone: (213) 465-4802 Fax: (213) 465-4803 Email: Elliot@KingSiegel.com Melissa@KingSiegel.com TENNESSEE: Filing to Amend Class Bid Extended to Feb. 27, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1 et al. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE et al. Case No. 3:24-cv-00777 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge J. Gregory Wehrman entered an order granting in part the parties' joint motion to modify the case management order: 1. The deadline to file motions to amend or to add parties is extended from Jan. 9, 2026 to Feb. 27, 2026. All other provisions for motions to amend or to add parties remain unchanged. 2. The deadline for any party intending to use an expert to support or oppose class certification to notify all other parties and the Court is extended from Dec. 5, 2025, to Jan. 13, 2026. The deadline for the parties to file a motion to modify the case management schedule to include a schedule for class certification expert disclosures and deposition (after counsel for the parties have conferred about the schedule) is extended from Dec. 12, 2025, to Jan. 27, 2026. All other provisions for disclosure and deposition of experts remain unchanged. 3. All other case management deadlines and provisions found in prior orders and not modified herein remain in full force and effect. Tennessee is a landlocked state in the U.S. South. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5c8ZT9 at no extra charge.[CC] TERRACARE ASSOCIATES: Sanchez Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as EDUARDO H. SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an "Aggrieved Employee" on behalf of other "Aggrieved Employees" under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff vs. TERRACARE ASSOCIATES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 25STCV27821, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11108 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges claims for purported violations of the California Labor Laws: failure to pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, including, but not limited to minimum wages and overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to indemnify; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay final wages upon termination; failure to pay wages when employment ends; civil penalties; and unfair competition. The Plaintiff, each member of the putative class, and each allegedly aggrieved employee seek unpaid wages, including minimum, regular, overtime, double-time, split shift, vacation, missed meal period, missed rest period, nonproductive time, rest and recovery time, and reporting time wages; liquidated damages; statutory penalties, including waiting time penalties; civil penalties; restitution; actual damages, pre-judgment interest; costs of suit; and reasonable attorneys' fees, all of which will increase the amount in controversy. Terracare Associates, LLC offers outdoor maintenance services in the Western United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tao Y. Leung, Esq. Richard B. Azada, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 E-mail: tao.leung@hoganlovells.com richard.azada@hoganlovells.com TOM HOMAN: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid in Venegas Suit by Dec.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARDO GARCIA VENEGAS, v. TOM HOMAN, et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-00397-JB-N (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Beaverstock entered an order directing the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the Plaintiff's motion for third-party declarants to proceed under a pseudonym not later than Dec. 3, 2025. The Plaintiff may file a reply to response not later than Dec. 10, 2025. The motions and related documents will be taken under submission on Dec. 11, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yYgRlF at no extra charge.[CC] TRACTOR SUPPLY: Lupo Sues Over Contaminated Feed Products --------------------------------------------------------- LACEY LUPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY and DUMOR FEED, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02170 (M.D. Fla., November 12, 2025) is a putative class action seeking to end the sale of adulterated equestrian feed products, and to recall adulterated equestrian feed products already in the marketplace that contain dangerous and harmful plastic contaminants. To capitalize on its long history of gaining consumer trust, Tractor Supply promotes, sells, distributes, and markets Dumor(R) horse feed that is manufactured, branded, and sold exclusively for Tractor Supply. The Defendants have violated consumers' trust by selling and promoting adulterated products that contain dangerous, foreign, and unintended contaminated ingredients, including pieces of plastic that are harmful and potentially life threatening due to horses' sensitive digestive systems and because of the choking hazards, says the suit. Despite touting the products as nutritious, wholesome, healthy, and specially formulated premium feed that you can trust, the Defendants' formulation and manufacturing practices cause the products to contain plastic contaminants that no horse owner or caretaker would ever feed their horse, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff purchased the products at various times from a Tractor Supply retail store located in Deland, Florida. Tractor Supply Company is a rural lifestyle retailer, offering farming equipment, tools, and maintenance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com TRINITY HEALTH: Mason Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Mason, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TRINITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 2:25-cv-01321-JLG-EPD (S.D., Ohio, Nov. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtimes wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated officers have worked, or were scheduled to work, 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). The Defendant maintains a policy or practice that does not pay employees for all time spent performing pre-shift activities and accordingly does not compensate them for all time spent performing integral and indispensable work activities. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly officers were not paid overtime wages for all overtime work performed because Defendant's policies and/or practices require pre-shift activities for which Defendant failed to fully compensate Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly officers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant at its Twin City hospital in Dennison, Ohio, as an hourly, non-exempt employee. The Defendant is in the business of operating a system of hospitals and healthcare providers in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com TRUE RELIGION: Faces Neil Suit Over Fake Product Sales, Discounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOMA NEIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC. and TRUE RELIGION SALES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10909 (C.D. Cal., November 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendants made false representations and material omissions of fact to Plaintiff and Class members concerning the existence and/or nature of the product discounts and savings advertised in violation of the California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. On its website, True Religion lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices. The Defendants almost always promote percentages off with a constant stream of promotions. Far from being time-limited, the discounts on True Religion Products are almost always available. As a result, everything about True Religion's price and purported discount advertising is false, says the suit. Allegedly, the list prices True Religion advertises are not actually its regular prices, because True Religion's Products are regularly available for less than that. The purported discounts True Religion advertises are not the true discounts the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited in time -- quite the opposite, they are consistently available, the suit asserts. True Religion Apparel, Inc. and True Religion Sales, LLC manufacture, market, and sell clothing and accessories online through the True Religion website, www.truereligion.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com TWIN VEE: Continues to Defend "Youseph" in Delaware --------------------------------------------------- Twin Vee Powercats Co. 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 class action lawsuit filed by shareholders Nabeel Youseph and Marisa Hardyal-Youseph. On March 10, 2025, shareholders Nabeel Youseph and Marisa Hardyal-Youseph ("Plaintiffs"), who are former holders of common stock of Forza X1, Inc. ("Forza"), commenced an action in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, captioned Youseph, et al. v. Visconti, et al., Case No. 2025-0262, by filing a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") against Defendants Joseph Visconti, Kevin Schuyler, Neil Ross, Twin Vee PowerCats Co. and Twin Vee PowerCats, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), related to Forza's merger with Twin Vee seeking an unspecified award of damages, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts claims (1) against Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in their capacities as controlling shareholders of Forza, (2) against Messrs. Visconti, Schuyler, and Ross for breach of fiduciary duty in their capacities as directors of Forza, and (3) against Mr. Visconti for breach of fiduciary duty in his capacity as an officer of Forza. Defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, as the matter is in its early stages, the Company is unable to estimate or project the ultimate outcome of this matter. U.S. SILICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Farmer Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- PATRIC FARMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SILICA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-05393 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 12, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Farmer was employed by the Defendant as a bagger and operator. U.S. Silica Company produces industrial minerals. The Company offers services like building products, chemicals, fillers and extenders, filtration, foundry, glass, and industrial silica products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com UNITED STATES: Sutherland Sues Over Securities Market Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------------ COLIN PAUL SUTHERLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, VIRTU FINANCIAL INC., JANE STREET GROUP LLC, SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLP, INVESCO LTD., and JOHN DOES 1–100, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09422-UA (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for market manipulation, securities fraud, control person liability, breach of statutory duty, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of investors harmed by systematic algorithmic manipulation of securities markets through laddered price controls and zero-bid/zero-ask inefficiencies that serve as predefined markers for future price delivery. According to the complaint, the Securities and Exchange Commission has failed to investigate or disclose the presence of these algorithmic mechanisms despite data showing identical digital signatures across multiple securities. This omission represents gross negligence in fulfilling its statutory obligation to maintain genuine market efficiency. Defendant market makers, including Citadel Securities, Virtu Financial, Jane Street, Susquehanna International Group, and Invesco Ltd., deploy automated systems that deliberately engineer gaps in price discovery by allowing moments where both the bid and ask simultaneously read as zero, leaving a digital 'marker' in the order book, suit says. Securities and Exchange Commission is a government agency in the U.S. Citadel Securities LLC is an asset management firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Virtu Financial Inc. is an asset management firm based in New York, New York. Jane Street Group LLC is an asset management firm based in New York, New York. Susquehanna International Group LLP is an asset management firm based in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Invesco Ltd. is an asset management firm based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Lukens Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- MONIQUE LUKENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case ID 251101759 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., Nov. 12, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on the Plaintiff and the Class due to the Defendant's inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of the Plaintiff and the Class to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual and present injuries. The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League university in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 2005 Market Street, Suite 350 Philadelphia, PA 1910 Telephone: (215) 446-9795 - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com Ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Lachs Sues Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW LACHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06388 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 12, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain, and protect highly sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and other Sensitive Information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", and other Sensitive Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII and other Sensitive Information that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League university in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.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 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: O'Hara Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- RYAN O'HARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06408 (E.D. Pa., November 13, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information, who were impacted in a data breach Defendant experienced on or around October 30, 2025. On October 30, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a security incident on its internal computer networks. Upon detection, the Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League research university renowned for its academic programs, research output, and extensive alumni network. The University is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit ------------------------------------------------ U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, 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 National Beef Packing Company ("NBP") continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit entitled Brown, et al. v. JBS USA Food Company et al. and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on November 1, 2022. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court denied except as to NBP's subsidiary, Iowa Premium. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 12, 2024. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants directly and through industry wage surveys and a benchmarking service (i) fixed wages and benefits, and (ii) exchanged information regarding compensation and benefits in an effort to depress and stabilize wages and benefits in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief and the costs of the suit (including attorney fees). NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and if this proceeds to trial, intends to defend the case vigorously; however, NBP has negotiated a settlement with the plaintiffs in the employee wages and benefits matter. The settlement was submitted to the District Court for approval and the District Court granted a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement for approximately $14.2 million on January 15, 2025. NBP has paid the settlement funds into escrow. If the settlement is not ultimately approved, there can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or the impact on the NBP's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Faw Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEREDITH FAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03897-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an amended scheduling order: 1. A modified deadline of Dec. 8, 2025, shall apply to opposition briefs filed in response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiff's expert. 2. A modified deadline Jan. 9, 2026, shall apply to all subsequent reply briefs. Villanova is a private Catholic research university in Villanova, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=omQM4F at no extra charge.[CC] WEFIX-APPLIANCE LLC: Wohlstein Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WeFix-Appliance, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Wohlstein, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WeFix-Appliance, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-25302-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. WeFix Appliance -- https://wefix-appliance.com/ -- is a multi-state appliance repair company with a technician-first approach and deep operational infrastructure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com WH PIKE: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Maurer Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS MAURER, an individual, Plaintiff v. WH PIKE HOSPITALITY LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-17366 (D.N.J., November 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's subject property/place of public accommodation is a hotel known as Fairfield By Marriott Inn & Suites Atlantic City Absecon situated in Galloway, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He has personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety at the Property. He asserts that the Defendant has discriminated against the him, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, as prohibited by the ADA. WH Pike Hospitality LLC owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com ZIROZI INCORPORATED: Joseph Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zirozi Incorporated. The case is styled as Mccormick Joseph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zirozi Incorporated, Case No. 3:25-cv-02069 (S.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Zirozi Incorporated -- https://zirozi.com/ -- is an e-commerce company that sells affordable consumer electronics and smart gadgets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***